Primary school admissions - MNHQ needs your thoughts!

[RowanMumsnet]

Hello

We've been asked (in advance of primary school places allocation announcements in England, Wales and NI next week) for MNers' thoughts on the current systems for allocating primary places - so as ever we thought we'd come to you for your insights.

What do you think about how your LA allocates places? Have you found the process stressful? Do you think the difficulty/stress varies widely across the nation - and if so, which locations are particularly difficult and which are relatively stress-free? If you're in Scotland, where the system is different, do you think it works well (or not?) Would you support a change to the allocation system - and if so, how would you like to see it changed?

Any thoughts welcome. Best of luck to anyone waiting to hear about their child's place.

As a parent of a summerborn we most certainly do have to go through a very difficult process to enrol our children in reception at compulsory school age.

Firstly we have to battle with the admissions authority, as many are unaware of the school admisisons code and summerborn guidance; which allows us to request a reception start at CSAge. Often families are told that they don't even have this option. It's a battle from the start. We then have to find out which schools (if they are their own governing body) will even allow us a reception start at CSAge before submitting our preferences. Often families can't submit three as they can't find three schools to support them. This limits our choice. Throughout all this we have to find and submit 'evidence' which often many of us won't have...and shouldn't have to have. We have to have evidence to PROVE why it is in our children's best interests to start in reception and not year one. There is no evidence that suggests missing a whole year of school is in a childs best interests.

Even if we are 'successful' and our requests are agreed there is always the threat that our children can be made to miss any other year (at any point) and re-join their 'chronological' age group. This is shocking, but it is happening, with massive consequences for the child.

So why are our children penalised for starting school at compulsory school age and made to miss a year...?

...because the DfE have legislated a subjective code. A code that needs amending so ALL summerborn children have the right to seven years primary and five years secondary education.

I also wanted to mention the issue of summer born children - our DS (4) is currently in Reception. He will not be of CSA on any day this academic year, and yet we felt that we had no choice about sending him to school last September. It's truly ridiculous, we'd much rather that he started Reception next September when he actually is of CSA.

And btw tiggytape there is no "a perceived disadvantage" there is a very clear documented disadvantage. You can find it in 2013 IFS report on summer born school start AND in a government own report on education and the month of birth if you care to google. In fact, the latter states the attainment gap between summer and autumn borns is over 20% at the end of primary school and is actually wider than between kids from rich and poor families. Obviously, summer born boys from poorer families are really affected, especially if their parents cannot jump through the hoops most LAs force them to.

There is a huge hidden cost associated with forcing immature summer born children to follow the increasingly formalised reception. This cost is in disproportionate SEN diagnoses and increasing cases of repeat reception or subsequent years... this cost is borne by the very LAs that make inappropriate decisions for the youngest children.

As for "bite of the cherry" argument, well, there is a way to legislate against it, if there was a will. Incidentally, during the last year summer born consultation only one council came up with this argument.

I personally am baffled why it is more important to compile a neat chronological batches of children to be processed that to follow parental lead and allow those parents feel will benefit from another year in environment with no academic pressures. It is not like there will be a stampede judging by a comments on summer born issues in the press across political spectrum... but hey ho.

IFS
DfE Month of Birth and Education

tiggytape it is virtually impossible to provide "compelling professional evidence that the child’s needs can only be met by keeping them back a year as opposed to giving them additional support in their “correct year”. It can be hard to access NHS services. Health care professionals' standards don't require them to advise on education issues and many refuse to do so. Diagnoses can be unclear at such a young age. Most heads and admissions authorities will assert that the child can be support

This isn't about pushy parents seeking to get ahead! Just trying to prevent our DC struggling badly in reception and way beyond.

"Red shirting" in America is completely different: DC can repeat or put down a year at different stages. Scotland is the better comparison, but all DC there do start school older.

Sorry, most heads and admissions authorities assert (but obviously can't be sure) that childrens' needs can be met in the "correct" year because they don't want to start admitting DC "out of year" for administrative reasons.

I think to even out chances for all, faith schools should only be allowed to allocated a percentage by faith. It's farcical near us with people who don't believe attending church for 2 years, getting children baptised etc as there are too few non faith places. I know 3 people personally who baptised children RC to get school place - with a year or so of mass attendance. Where there are lots of faith schools it's very distorted. Lots of people drive to out local RC school and it creates total traffic chaos.

for community schools - We are an area that uses distances and sibling always get priority - so people rent or stay in tiny flats and houses then move as soon as pfb is in. Local pfb then struggle to get in as distances are shrinking yearly. You see those who have done it as they drive to school despite nearest distance being 0.3m (obviously many do have different reasons to drive).
They move to cheaper areas and are open about what they did.

I get why people are concerned by summer born issue but I second that in Ireland and Scotland you end up with disadvantaged 4 year olds in the same year and class as middle class well supported 5 year old where they have benefited from an extra year of enriching activities. My experience is that the summer borns at a good primary thrive

Agree Tiggytape that the two bites of a cherry is one of the potential pitfalls of potential delay for SB's but as we can see with all admission criteria, there will always be those that abuse the system.

I would be happy to have to decide prior to admissions person ally, and only be allowed to make an application for one year (as I said my application this year is a complete waste of time, and annoys me that I am taking a place which someone else may be desperate for, but our LA insisted!) but there is many parents who may not be aware of the option to delay or may not be concerned until closer to September.

I'd be curious to know how many people would delay for a whole year in the hope they may or may not get their preferred school place. If you didnt get it the first year, you'd be likely to have the same outcome the second and have your child at home or in nursery for 12 months more with only a slim chance of your cherry being sweeter the 2nd time?

So I favour only 50 percent faith places in schools, the rule some LA use that you get sibling priority if you have not moved or moved closer to the school and possibly going back to a January intake for the youngest?
I never did reception and started at 5 in year one. I was always jealous of the ones who did reception as it looked more fun! That was a long time ago and in days when it was more common and schools were not oversubscribed

almostapril your anecdotal experience of summer born DC thriving doesn't, sadly, accord with the evidence.

With respect to disadvantaged DC in Scotland - and elsewhere - struggling and this being compounded by being youngest in class (4.5 is youngest start in reception in Scotland), things should be done to seek to improve experience and outcomes for those children. If it is shown that the Scottish system leads to better outcomes for DC whose parents use the flexibility it would be perverse to change the system so that no DC benefited.

Thankfully DS is a November baby, he is just about coping in reception and socially and academically he is just starting to "click" now. If he had been summer born he would have really struggled and I would have fought for him to be able to start next year instead.

There is only one primary school in our village. This leads to having some oversubscribed years and some years that are tiny. The school has tried both bulge classes and composite classes - both have disadvantaged some children.
This year is a huge class, following 2 capacity year groups, and some of the kids in the village won't get in (they physically won't have enough room even if they could split the class). The next nearest school with places is 3 miles away, but there is no direct bus (except for the secondary kids) and no footpath. The reality for those children without a place and no car is going to be home schooling or no schooling until a place becomes avaliable. For the May intake there won't be any places.
The school is a victim of it's own success - young families now move here to get into the catchment. DS class has increased from 24 to 32 (classes are capped at 30 in theory) over 5 years.
Secondary is going to be harder - for the Y6 no one from our village got a place at the local high school. The next nearest is in special measures and is 5 miles away (where most of the kids have been allocated to). The 3rd option is 16 miles away and only takes siblings.
The process itself is easy - fill in form, wait, hope you get in. Panic when you don't.

I just wanted to add the idea of having 50% of faith school places go to non faith children, that some posters have suggested, unfortunately just wouldn't work.
The parents of the 50% non faith children would all soon start complaining that the curriculum is too based around the religion, also what would all these children do when Mass was going on or when the school take a visit to the church ( which happen regularly) before you knew it, the faith school wouldn't be allowed to have a nativity or have Easter break in case it offended someone,
This is the reason Catholic parents choose to send their children to Catholic schools, they want to have the religion celebrated not hampered in case it offends someone.
As another poster said above, I know people that send their children to catholic schools which are failing as they desperately want their children to have the religious aspect of the education.
I know I will probably get the same
old "you should send your child private then" just wanted to point out that giving a percentage of faith school places to non faith children would not work.

^"I just wanted to add the idea of having 50% of faith school places go to non faith children, that some posters have suggested, unfortunately just wouldn't work.
The parents of the 50% non faith children would all soon start complaining that the curriculum is too based around the religion, also what would all these children do when Mass was going on or when the school take a visit to the church ( which happen regularly) before you knew it, the faith school wouldn't be allowed to have a nativity or have Easter break in case it offended someone,^"

I don't think this is the case at all. If you elected to send your child to a faith based school despite not being not of that faith, you would be accepting that your child received a faith based education.

"With respect to disadvantaged DC in Scotland - and elsewhere - struggling and this being compounded by being youngest in class (4.5 is youngest start in reception in Scotland), things should be done to seek to improve experience and outcomes for those children. If it is shown that the Scottish system leads to better outcomes for DC whose parents use the flexibility it would be perverse to change the system so that no DC benefited."

That is completely illogical. If being supported in 'their' year is doing enough to support disadvantaged youngest children then how is the case that starting school a year old is necessary for far more privileged children?

All it would do is further institutionalise disadvantage. Great if you are the privileged child of engaged and educated parents who have deferred you to fall at the top of a 15 month age bracket. Not so great if you are the youngest in the year and have no such privilege.

And I agree with Tiggy. People want Autumn children for the advantage of being the eldest. If routine deferral were possible, people would want the same advantage for their August child. Someone has to be the youngest. If the issue is (as I think it is) that a lot of the youngest are not ready for formal education, the solution is to shift the age at which formal education starts.

I live in a rural area. The next nearest primary school is 4 miles away and not served by public transport.
Here, area children have priority over out of area siblings. Some year groups have as low as 50% in area children, some as high as 80%. Some out of area families have chosen to remove eldest from the school when youngest failed to get a place.
I think priority for in area children is correct here, the area served is 4 villages and the farms in between. Most of our out of area children come from the town 4 miles away. If town siblings were prioritised we would have village kids being taxied to the town school.

just wanted to point out that giving a percentage of faith school places to non faith children would not work.

But it does work, SweetieXPie, in places where it already happens. The only CofE secondary here does that, and there have been no complaints that I know of, nor any moves to de-CofE the school at all.

In my area the community schools are highly-ranked and hugely over-subscribed. What I propose is that faith children are lower down the criteria than non-faith children at the community schools thus allowing non-faith children to secure a place first. Obviously if there are places then faith children can get in otherwise I'm sure that there will be a faith school within 5 miles with places available. I hope that parents of faith children can see that this is fair.

On the subject of summer-borns. I know there needs to be a cut off but it should be a given that severely prem babies that are born late August are offered a deferred YR place. Apologies if that already happens, I know it didn't a few years ago. I work in a primary school and have seen textbook examples of children in the 'wrong' year.

That doesn't happen dochollywood.

Regardless of what people think is right or wrong arguing summer born angle, the question was asked for our thoughts on the current systems for allocating primary places - how fair, how stressful etc.

At the moment summer born children simply do NOT have the same access to the primary education. If their parents want them to start at compulsory school age they will in most cases be put into Year 1 with all the consequences for missed a whole year of schooling and severely limited access to school places in oversubscribed areas. The is not the case for ANY OTHER group of children. If parents of autumn or spring born children want them to start at CSA they do so as normal.

If summerborns were a group sharing any other characteristic but age (ie race, sex, disability), this simply would not be allowed. Especially, in the light of all the research showing that this group experience real and continuing disadvantages into adulthood because of when they are born.

You tell me what is fair about it.

penguins I wasn't arguing that, it is heads of many schools in England who argue that the vast majority DC can be adequately supported "in year".

Agree with much of what has been said on faith schools. I understand that it wouldn't be possible for LAs to suddenly buy the churches out, but do think that a sensible solution would be for the number of faith based admissions to be in proportion to the amount of the schools' total running costs provided by the church.

I'm on the fence about sibling vs catchment/distance admissions because while I would like to end the sharp practice of renting in catchment for first sibling then buying a cheaper house, I think it would also penalise families with insecure tenancies. So if you get evicted or rents go up, you have the pressure of finding a new, suitable, home, that you can afford, that will accept a family (maybe on HB) and you have to stay in catchment or face having your kids at different schools? In-year admissions are such that you wouldn't necessarily be able to switch the older child to the new school.

In Hertfordshire, admission policies for LA controlled schools are:

1. Medical or social need
2. Siblings
3. Children for whom the school is their nearest non-faith, non-selective school accepting children of their gender
4. Everyone else on distance (no defined catchments)

I think that rule #3 is crucial. In practice, in the oversubscribed towns (i.e. most, if not all of them), it means everyone gets their nearest school or maybe a faith school if that's what they want. But, it means that there are no 'admissions blackspots' where you're not sufficiently close to any school and end up out of area, which is a problem in South London for example. In South London, we would have a choice of a faith school (one of the very few which offers a good proportion of non-faith places, and we are very close) or a massive primary school with mixed reviews. I don't want either so we're moving.

Duckdeamon - But effectively you were arguing that. You were saying that a system ought to be in place with privileges those summer born children who have an engaged educated parent who chooses to defer them. And that the system ought to be in place because it's good for those children. Never mind that it makes the under privileged summer borns who don't defer even worse off than under the current system. What is needed is change that supports everyone, not change that supports those who have clued up parents who work the system to the best advantage of their child.

Don't get me wrong, I'm one of those educated parents who would always try and do the best for my child. But it's not me that the system ought to be built around. It's everyone.