I hope it's ok to post this here. I thought the politics section most apt as this would involve a)writing to your MP, b)it is regarding LEA's subverting legislation and c)it's about EDM 213.
Would anyone send this to their MP? Please. It will take 5 minutes. Early Day Motion 213 is being discussed in the House of Commons on 4th September, so not much time left.
Dear [MP]
I am concerned about the inflexibility of the school admissions process for summer-born children in England.
Section 8 of the Education Act 1996 states:
“A person begins to be of compulsory school age -
(a) when he attains the age of five, if he attains that age on a prescribed day, and
(b) otherwise at the beginning of the prescribed day next following that age."
The important words here are;
1. “a person”
Each child is a person in their own right and deserves to be treated as such and the child’s best interests are what should be driving any admissions discussion. Not what the admissions authority administrative system wants to happen for its convenience. And;
2. “compulsory school age”
The vast majority of summer-born children don’t reach this until the September term after they have turned five.
Reception class is defined by Section 142 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 as:
“A class in which education is provided which is suitable to the requirements of pupils aged five and any pupils under or over that age whom it is expedient to educate with pupils of that age”.
Reception Class is therefore aimed at children aged five, yet parents are being forced to enrol their child up to a whole year earlier than compulsory school age or have their child’s education entitlement reduced by one year with obligatory entrance into Year 1, completely missing Reception Class.
When forced to enrol at just four years old, most of these children never reach compulsory school age during their attendance during that academic year.
There is a wealth of empirical evidence that clearly demonstrates the harm that can be done to summer-born children should they start school too early.
Here is some written evidence from TACTYC that you may have already seen as part of a Sure Start inquiry.
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmeduc/writev/852/m27.htm
The current system of inflexible cut off dates for school entry does not allow for the normal range of children’s development, every child is different after all and needs to be considered in that light if their “best interests” are to be ensured.
Administrative constraints take precedence over the well-being and future life chances of a substantial number of our youngest children.
School Admission Code 2012 - Page 8, Section 1.2 and Footnote 12
“Published Admission Number (PAN) - As part of determining their admission arrangements11, all admission authorities must set an admission number for each ‘relevant age group12.
12 This is the age group at which pupils are or will normally be admitted to the school e.g. reception or year 7 (Section 142 of the SSFA 1998).”
As ‘relevant age group’ refers back to the Section 142 of the SSFA 1998 and the legal meaning of ‘reception class’, this puts summer-borns firmly within the age of reception class.
School Admission Code 2012 - Page 21, para 2.16
“Admission of children below compulsory school age and deferred entry to school - Admission authorities must provide for the admission of all children in the September following their fourth birthday. The authority must make it clear in their arrangements that:
a) parents can request that the date their child is admitted to school is deferred until later in the academic year or until the term in which the child reaches compulsory school age, and
b) parents can request that their child takes up the place part-time until the child reaches compulsory school age.”
It would appear that provisions of 2.16 sub-paragraphs a) and b) gives parents the option to choose when their child enters school and places an obligation on the Admission authority to ensure that this right is made clear to parents. Admissions authorities do not make this clear and infact do not observe the principles set out in this paragraph 2.16 insofar as they appear rather to seek to frustrate parents desires to take up their rights under 2.16 (a) and have their child enter the school system after she/he has reached compulsory school age, alongside the legal meaning of reception class.
School Admissions Code 2012 - Page 21, para 2.17
“Admission of children outside their normal age group - Parents of gifted and talented children, or those who have experienced problems or missed part of a year, for example due to ill health, can seek places outside their normal age group. Admission authorities must make decisions on the basis of the circumstances of each case, informing parents of their statutory right to appeal. This right does not apply if they are offered a place in another year group at the school.”
There is no definition of 'normal age group'. However there is a definition of 'relevant age group' in the Code which refers back to Section 142 of SSFA 1998 and the meaning of reception class. ""reception class" means a class in which education is provided which is suitable to the requirements of pupils aged five and any pupils under or over that age whom it is expedient to educate with pupils of that age". This again puts summer-borns firmly within the age group of reception class.
Many admission authorities have blanket policies that prescribe a Year 1 start for children that enter school at compulsory school age; this is unlawful.
I would like to see admissions authorities adhere to legislation and stop making parents choose between either sending their children too soon before compulsory school age (in some cases by up to a year) or sending their children at compulsory school age but losing a year’s education i.e the reception class.
It is not acceptable for a summer born child starting school at compulsory school age to be forced to start in Year 1.
I would be grateful if you could raise these concerns with Rt Hon David Laws MP, Minister of State for Schools.
Annette Brooke MP has tabled Early Day Motion 213.
Richard House, C. Psychol. and Senior Lecturer in Psychotherapy and Counselling at the University of Roehampton, other parents and campaigners have assisted Annette Brooke MP in wording, and which was tabled in Parliament on Monday (see full text, below).
As you'll see, it has all-party launch support; and I'm taking the liberty of attaching links to two articles describing the struggles parents face and a link to a recent BBC News article. As you'll see, this campaign and the rights of children to thrive is one that deserves full support from all fair-minded MPs; it would be great if you would sign it and urge other MPs to do the same.
Early day motion 213
SCHOOL STARTING AGE FOR SUMMER-BORN PUPILS
Session: 2013-14
Date tabled: 10.06.2013
Primary sponsor: Brooke, Annette
That this House notes with concern the robust and consistent evidence from around the world on birth date effects, which in England shows that summer-born children can suffer long-term disadvantages as a result of England's inflexible school starting age; believes that the Government should ensure that parents of summer-born children are able to exercise their right to defer their child's school start up until the statutory school start time, if that is their choice, without losing a place offered at the school of their choice for the September after their child's fourth birthday because of funding issues; and calls on the Government to ensure that parents also have the choice of placing their child in a school reception class, rather than Year 1, at statutory school age, that is the September following their fifth birthday.
www.nurseryworld.co.uk/article/1135571/father-fights-back-school-age-admissions-policy
www.nurseryworld.co.uk/article/1166427/parents-win-deferred-school-entry-daughter
www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22904054
Yours sincerely
[Name]
[Address]
[Contact Number]
[Constituency] Constituent
School starting age and formal testing on the tiny ones - don't get me started!!!
I’m a Pear/Apple - Part 5. Still going!!
Being asked for an honest opinion
