School assessments- any truth behind them?

[Paribus]

My DD, who just turned four, had oral dyspraxia which was later redx-ed as a speech delay with some dyspraxic traits (not visible to the untrained eye and almost gone by now). We have been having a very extensive therapy for over a year now and she has made an amazing progress. She was practically non- verbal a year ago, didn't eat most things, tantrums- you get the picture. She is verbal now (age apporopriate in mother tongue, still a bit delayed in English, but that's not her first/strongest language), eats most things, can be talked out of tantrums, etc. So to us she has made the most amazing progress.
However, it doesn't seem the schools agree with us on that. She is due to start the reception in September, she was assessed (private schools) by 3 and we got refusals from all three. Admittedly, it's central London and most people I know do get refusals from the schools but because of her previous difficulties I am worried sick :(((.
Just talked with one of the schools where she had her second assessment- they feel that "she will need much bigger level of support that we normally offer". After the assessment they were telling me that "oh, she sticks her tongue out too far, her speech is difficult to understand"- a suggestion totally laughed at by the two speech therapists she is seeing... I guess what I am trying to ask is that is there any chance the schools might be seeing something during half an hour assessment that neither we as parents nor the speech therapists are seeing??? Or do they just refuse to bother with the bilingual child who had speech problems? Or both? If both, is there anyone who can assess her apart from SLTs? We saw two neurologists a year and a half ago, they both said dyspraxic traits/speech delay, but may be there are any other specialists I don't know about?
Please help me. I am sitting here crying while typing- she is very bright, but the school remarks just cut through the bone :(.
TA.

Sounds like they are looking for ways to not offer a place. Take it as a warning that they have no intention of supporting her needs , whatever they may turn out to be longer term. tbh if her English is difficult to understand it is unlikely that they will recognise her being age appropriate in native tongue.

To add to the above, most LEAs have specialist SALT and EAL advisers already working at State schools. This would not even be seen as an issue at our school and intervention given as a matter of course.

Poltergoose, I know, but the choice where we live is not great. But it doesn't concern me, I am sure we will find a good school. The thing that keeps me awake is not schools' refusals, it's whether there is any truth behind them, ie is there a chance they managed to see something which neither we, nor health professionals who work with my DD, can see?? That scares me most TBH :(.

LIZS, sorry, not sure I understood what you meant by "unlikely they will recognize her being age appropriate in mother tongue". She was formally assessed by two separate SLTs, and they both said that she's age appropriate in mother tongue- you think it won't carry any weight for the schools?

Assuming the schools are English speaking then they will not be assessing her native language skills , just her English ones, and prejudge her intelligence and understanding on that. I'd be more inclined to trust professional opinions as they have less of an agenda

LIZS, they are english- speaking schools, however we submitted tgevreports from english SLTs, where it clearly states that she's age appropriate in Norge tongue. Now wonder why we bothered giving them that information :((.

Norge-mother. Stupid autocorrect.

At key stage 1 (age 4-7) what actually matters MOST is the help a child gets at home e.g 15 mins reading practice etc, NOT the school, (no matter how self-important educational professionals feel about my statement). The ONLY exception to this is specialist expert provision in relation to specific special needs (eg SALT or ABA intruction etc).

In most of Europe kids do not start formal education till around 7 and they come out at the other end of the tunnel aged 18 no worse off for it.

It's my honest opinion that your child will be better off in STATE provision where the potential for specialist help exists (if does turn out to be needed,m and I'm not sure it will). A school that does not want to take a child but is forced to can make a very young child's life seem like a living hell - far better for your child to go where they will be made to feel welome and so the seed sparks of a lifelong love for learning can be inspired.

A bonus of a state school is that you will be able to afford to buy in the best private SALT help she may need in the English language as you won't be crippled by school fees.

Contrary to what the publicists for many of London's top prep schools say - the best public schools do take children at 7+, 11+, 13+ & 16+. (If you'd seen my abysmal inner London primary and then heard the name of the public school I attended you'd be suprised, many of my friends & their kids have taken this route to save cash). Going for a state school now, WILL NOT limit your daughters future chances in the private sector later. I really need you to be clear on that fact.

Aim for the state sector just from 4-7 with a view to moving her at 7+ is my thoughts. Most London state primaries are beyond adept at aiding children for whom English is a second language, so her teachers won't blink an eye. At the beginning of Year 2, you and any private schools will be able to see for yourselves that her English is age appropriate and as good as her first language, and the concerns these schools have(who btw have no SN experiene to judge against) will have totally evaporated.

Boch is 100% right. Would also add that the best state schools are generally the ones in the lower half of the league tables, with more SEN (special educational needs), FSM (free school meals), LAC (looked after children) and EAL (English as an additional language) pupils.

The ones without the ofsted outstanding status

Failing that, a nice inclusive Montessori prep might suit.

Bochead, thanks for such informative answer. I understand that starting in state primary will probably not limit our chances for the private school in the future should we still want to go down that route. I agree that in lots of countries children start school at 7 y.o. (I for one orginally come from such a country) so I am totally with you re schools at such an early age. We will talk to the council about schools available in our borough.

However, the question still remains- can the school see red within half an hour considering they are (supposedly) trained to detect problems? If so, who can verify their suspicions provided that the health professionals who currently deal with my child, see no issues apart from her former speech delay?? What those suspicions can be??? Or are they just fobbing me off, because they don't want to deal with the bilingual child who had speech problems?

Bump

Paribus - what was the professional qualification of those assessing your DD at the private schools? Did they have an EP present or was it an educational professional?
What kind of assessment was it?

Auntevil, they were reception teachers, nor sure what EP means?
Assessment- they took kids away for 40 min, so I don't know know how they assessed her in that particular school. We were present at 2 assessments in 2 other schools- they ask about shapes- colors- numbers- ask to write down her name- make a sequence- do puzzle- tell the story, this sort of thing. I guess they did the same in that school as well.

They'll have been figuring out how much effort she'll be to teach, whether she'll need any 'extra' input, or just be one of the identikit crowd.

20 places, 60+ applicants: so why would they not opt for the quiet life, and the kids who'll effortlessly make the school prospectus look good in 7 years. Bet they have a website section: 'congratulations to students achieving music scholarships to top 10 public schools' or similar

I think you probably answered your own question which is they probably don't want a child who is bilingual with historic speech problems

If they are that hard to get into, then they will be able to pick and choose children and will be able to look for reasons, any reasons not to take a child. So say they are selecting the most able 10% for speech and language - and it will be language they will be looking for at 4 as a precursor if success. They might decide your child is not in that 10% and so is too much trouble. That is not the same as saying your child is not age appropriate when assessed against the whole population - only against that self selecting group.

So my child is in the bottom 0.04% for language and clearly not age appropriate. But a child in the bottom 25% percentile would be age appropriate in that 24% of children the same age would have worse speech and 75% better speech, but they would still be within the normal range. So just because these schools don't want her does not mean she would be out of place in a more typical ability group.

In fairness, a basic entry point assessment by teachers, however experienced, is not likely to highlight something that the speech therapist and yourselves have missed in a basic half hour. The school will be looking for a certain type of ' intelligence' too. Their assessment will be skewed to pick those that fit their ideal. This may not be the brightest in everybody's opinion, just theirs. If,for example they were looking at some of the early years targets, they may have been looking at the way they talked about different topics (special events, natural world etc) and vocabulary they used. This may have put your Dd at a disadvantage as her language in English is delayed.
I would think that the likely scenario is as Mareeya said. 20 places, way too many applicants, some who I hate to say, have been tutored to pass even at that age, and they can pick and choose their cohort.