Flexible School Admissions For Summer Borns

lilygran glad you like it

shelby I like that response! Here is the whole text:

Thank you for your email of 12 September, addressed to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Childcare, about early years education. I hope you are able to appreciate that ministers receive many letters and emails and are unable to reply to each one personally. It is for this reason I have been asked to reply.

The department has noted your comments on the Secretary of State's response to the Daily Telegraph about early schooling and it may be helpful if I explain that the compulsory school age is set out in section 8 of the Education Act 1996 and the Education (Start of Compulsory School Age) Order 1998.

Looking at OECD data, it becomes clear that the ‘official’ (legal) starting age for compulsory education has become increasingly irrelevant in modern society. Of the 34 Member States, 24 have an official starting age of 6 or higher. But, in terms of reported participation in either early years or primary educational programmes, 22 have a rate of at least 90% at age 4 and 27 have at least 90% at age 5. Indeed, the only countries to have rates below 90% at age 5 are Chile, Finland, Korea, Poland, the Slovak Republic, Turkey and the USA. Since this group has mixed fortunes in international studies, it is difficult to sustain the argument that a later start confers unarguable educational advantages on a young child.

I hope you find this information useful.

Your correspondence has been allocated reference number 2013/0056172. If you need to respond to us, please visit: www.education.gov.uk/contactus, and quote your reference number.

As part of our commitment to improving the service we provide to our customers, we are interested in hearing your views and would welcome your comments via our website at: www.education.gov.uk/pcusurvey.

Yours sincerely

Mrs J Browitt
Ministerial and Public Communications Division
www.education.gov.uk


The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

Too Much, Too Soon response to the email lilygran received:

"It is not about the school starting age - it is about whether children should experience a longer period within a play-based pedagogy before they are exposed to formal learning

From the evidence above it is clear that the other countries quoted invest in coherent and appropriate early years education which continues up to their later statutory school starting age – in other words, the argument supports rather than refutes our position on the need for learner centred pedagogy at least up to the age of 6.

Despite the Telegraph headline (that the campaign team did not approve and that has caused some confusion) 'School starting age' is not really the point and the age at which children 'start school' is a particularly unhelpful indicator in the context of international comparisons, of course, because it means completely different things in different countries. There are studies on this and it is clear from the research that the school starting age, as such, makes no difference to outcomes.

What really needs to be compared is the length of time that children are offered a play-based pedagogy before they are required to learn through formal instruction. When making this comparison the evidence is very clearly in favour of an extended period of the former and a delayed start to the latter. The EPPE study, for example, found significant benefits for children from disadvantaged backgrounds of 3 years of high quality, play-based experience, as opposed to a shorter period of 1 or 2 years.

The other important point here is when you measure the benefits. So, in the Chambers et al paper on 'Effective early childhood education programmes, most of the evidence they are able to review is of short term gains, as there are relatively few long-term studies (they review 3). This is crucial, as there is some evidence that direct instruction outperforms play-based approaches in the short-term, but the long-term outcomes are quite different.

There are also issues in many of the studies with what were measured as outcomes - in many cases these are purely 'academic' attainment measures which often do not predict later development as well as more 'cognitive' or 'motivational' measures related to developing as a learner.

The Suggate study on reading in New Zealand is very instructive here. By age 11, the children starting formal instruction in reading at age 5 & 7 read 'technically' at the same level, but those starting later show evidence of improved cognition or understanding of their reading i.e. improved comprehension, and read more for pleasure showing improved motivation. Similarly in the Chambers et al review, they comment in relation to the long-term studies that these 'indicate that cognitive developmental programmes have better long-term outcomes than solely academic programmes'.

(With thanks to Dr David Whitebread, University of Cambridge)"

lilygran for you: www.toomuchtoosoon.org/dfe-response---school-starting-age.html

The problem is that a lot of children do not live in a stimulating environment ; one of the reasons why there is a school of thought that wants much shorter holidays for children [or so I've heard].

whenim64 with you there.

There's a whole other debate about the value and level of stimulation, according to age, development and ability.

That would presume that a parent / grandparent et al cannot provide a stimulating environment would it not and that this can only be achieved in an 'educational environment'?

Is n' t it better for them to be in a stimulating environment. The teachers were very understanding about my summer born grandson.

Have we got several threads on this now?

Same for my twin grandsons, Gagagran, born 5 weeks premature on 30th August. They had a whole year in reception class under their belts before they reached 5 a few weeks ago. Fortunately, they love school, but are often asleep by 4pm, before they've had their tea. Then, if there's some homework, they really don't feel like doing it. They want to eat, then play for an hour before their bedtime story. My daughter uses their reading books for that now, and has explained to their teacher, who has a great attitude. She advises all the parents to set up the homework session but don't help or get involved, other than to praise the children when they say they have finished. That way, she gets a lot of helpful information about how the children are coping and what additional support they might benefit from.

They are still infants in some respects, and if a child is tired and just needs some playtime, it seems wrong to ignore that.

I was born on 31 August and as such was always the youngest in the schools I went to. In my Grammar School I sat next to a girl whose birthday was 1 September and thus a whole year older than me. That is a lot at age 11. I always felt young and out of the loop both at school and at home as I had three much older siblings.

My whole life was changed because of my birth date. Had I been born on my due date, 2 weeks later, a completely different path would have opened up. I sometimes wonder what that would have been.

Lilygran Me again!

I passed on the response to those in the summer-born and too much, too soon campaigns and there is a fundamental problem with that response - they are trying to throw the compulsory school age and 'early years programmes' into one pot.

Would it be at all possible for you to let me know which public servant this was from and the department/contact details from their email? Maybe copy and paste the end of their email?

Or even better, if you are willing, could you forward me the email - if we can find a way to message over my email address!

Lilygran Thank you, much appreciated.

shelby that's fine. The rest of the reply was just routine 'thank you for writing' etc.

Lilygran Would you mind if I sent the response you received to one of those that wrote the open letter? Or I could pm you the email address for you to send?

Lilygran Thanks for posting this, revelatory.

It is all a bit bonkers frankly.

They don't support the experts who put together the Open Letter in the Telegraph; those parents who don't want their just turned 4 years olds starting school are doing so for many of those reasons highlighted by those experts.

Yet, the DfE are monitoring the summer-born issue - I believe that this is because primary legislation backs us up and when they put together the School Admissions Code - someone screwed up.

Whichever side of the fence anyone sits re this issue, surely it is not right for local authorities and admission authorities to break the law? If an individual constantly subverted legislation they would face consequences, but our public bodies have been getting away with it for years.

I was so incensed about what the minister said in a radio interview several weeks ago that I sent an email. This is what I got in reply:

'The department has noted your comments on the Secretary of State's response to the Daily Telegraph about early schooling and it may be helpful if I explain that the compulsory school age is set out in section 8 of the Education Act 1996 and the Education (Start of Compulsory School Age) Order 1998.

Looking at OECD data, it becomes clear that the ‘official’ (legal) starting age for compulsory education has become increasingly irrelevant in modern society. Of the 34 Member States, 24 have an official starting age of 6 or higher. But, in terms of reported participation in either early years or primary educational programmes, 22 have a rate of at least 90% at age 4 and 27 have at least 90% at age 5. Indeed, the only countries to have rates below 90% at age 5 are Chile, Finland, Korea, Poland, the Slovak Republic, Turkey and the USA. Since this group has mixed fortunes in international studies, it is difficult to sustain the argument that a later start confers unarguable educational advantages on a young child.

I hope you find this information useful.'

Another letter for MP's for those that feel strongly about this:

Dear [MP]

Unfair Treatment of Summer-borns and their Parents?

I am concerned that the parents of summer-born children and of course those children themselves are being denied the same opportunities that other parents and their children take for granted.

There is a flagrant violation by admission authorities of both the spirit and the intention of the legislation that has been put in place in an effort to help parents and give them the right to choose.

Happily non-statutory guidance was published this summer by the Department for Education (DfE) and this goes someway to help dispel some myths and helps also to clarify the flexibility available to parents in the current School Admissions Code, namely sections 2.16 and 2.17. However this guidance does not address the key important underlying issues of discrimination within the current statutory admissions process.

‘Compulsory School Age’ can be found in Part 1, Chapter1, sub-section 8 of the Education Act 1996
"(2) 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."

A summer-born child entering reception in the September term after their fifth birthday is just that – Compulsory School Age.

The legal meaning of the term ‘reception class’ taken from section 142 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 is:

“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”.

Bearing this definition in mind therefore the ‘’discrimination’’ I refer to works like this. If a parent of a child of four years of age applies to have their child enter a Reception Class, i.e. before that child reaches Compulsory School Age, and in some cases a whole year before Compulsory School Age, they are not required to justify this ‘early’ application nor does their application need to be considered ‘‘based on the circumstances of the case”.

Summer-borns starting in ‘reception class’ AT Compulsory School Age sit firmly within both of the above definitions; more so in fact than any other pupil.

However a parent of a Summer Born child who wishes to elect to wait until their child is five, their legal right, before they enter Reception Class is required to jump through hoops.

Taken from the recently published guidance:
“Q7. If a parent wants their summer born child to be admitted to the reception class in the September following their fifth birthday, how should they go about arranging this?
A7. Parents should discuss this as soon as possible with the schools they are interested in applying for and the local authority. Parents should make it clear that they wish to apply for a reception place a year later than the year into which the child could have been admitted.”

Parents can express a preference for at least three schools, in some LEA’S it is more. The proposition in A7 suggests that a parent would have to enter into a dialogue with all possible preferences plus which ever type of admissions authority or even authorities are involved, be it LEA or Own Admission Authority; that’s a lot of possible routes to go down for a reception place.

School preferences are just that, they are not a choice, so parents could still come unstuck. Too much burden is placed on parents to accomplish a reception start AT Compulsory School Age before they have even started the application process.

No other parent has to go to these lengths. This is discriminatory, it is wholly unjust.

Also the parent of the child entering Reception Class before compulsory school age has the right of appeal. A parent of a Summer Born child who elects to wait the extra period until their child reaches five does not have the right of appeal if they are then not offered a place in the year group of their choice.

Again, this is discriminatory.

This is just one problem faced by some parents of Summer Born children which is often exacerbated, deliberately in many instances, by the admissions arrangements drafted and issued by many Local Authorities and Own Admission Authorities.

Taken together these factors demonstrate that the reality out there is discriminatory behaviour against parental choice when all the while the ‘’message’’ being trumpeted is ‘’more choice for parents’’
Early Day Motion 213 tabled in June and debated in the House of Commons on 4th September 2013 addressed some of these issues.
During this debate, Elizabeth Truss, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education stated:

“I know that the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole may seek a change to the statutory admissions policy itself, but I think that we should look at what the impact of this new advice is.”

The current statutory admissions policy does not make absolutely clear the legal meaning of ‘Reception Class’. Footnote 12 regarding ‘Relevant Age Group’ references Section 142 if the SSFA 1998 and ‘Reception Class’ is defined in the glossary only.

Without a change to the statutory admissions policy itself, parents of Summer Born children wishing to delay their child’s entry to reception at compulsory school age are discriminated against and not accorded the same rights as parents entering their children below compulsory school age.

Elizabeth Truss also stated:
“Such decisions are best made at a local level. We have been clear with local authorities about where their responsibilities lie, and about the fact that we want to see them being flexible and giving the parents the choice for their five-year-old child joining reception or year 1. Having too much central guidance the other way would be wrong. What we need to do is ensure that local authorities are absolutely aware of their responsibilities.”

I would ask ‘’why does this need to be a ‘’decision’’ made by a Local Authority?’’ It should be the default right of any parent to delay entry into Reception Class after they reach five unless they choose to send that child earlier. Local Authorities may or may not wish parents to support such an early application with additional evidence or justification and it is here that the ‘’flexibility’’ should apply.

As things stand the notion that flexibility and parental choice are intrinsic and mutually supportive facets in the school admissions ‘’system’’ is a fallacy. In reality parents do not have a real choice, it is a false choice. Parents of Summer Born children still have to give a reason for taking up their legal right to delay their child’s entry to Reception Class until their child reaches Compulsory School Age despite the legal meaning of both these terms being on their side. To make matters worse they also lose their right of appeal if the decision made, by the so-called ‘’flexible’’ Local Authority, is against their wishes. Without a change to the statutory admissions policy itself enshrining a parent’s right to have their child enter Reception Class at age five as the default position, the situation remains prejudiced.

The only way to ensure real choice and equality is by amending the School Admissions Code so that entry to Reception Class after the child reaches Compulsory School Age is the default position. This will ensure that:
•it is clear that parents of Summer Born children can apply for a school place as part of the normal admissions round and be confident of a place in Reception Class in the term after their child reaches the age of five; and

•there is no need for parents of Summer Born children to worry about having no appeal if a Local Authority refuses their request for Reception Year place; and

•Parents who wish to enter their child in Reception Class the year before they reach Compulsory School Age will have the ability to apply to do so and the Local Authority will need to make it easy for them to be accommodated with no fear of losing rights of appeal and the like.

In short, the current statutory admissions policy does not accord all parents the same rights. It is discrimination wrapped up in legislation.

I would be grateful if you could raise the issues I have detailed above, surrounding Summer Born children and their parents and the discrimination and inequitable processes they have to deal with just to take up their statutory rights, with Elizabeth Truss, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education.

Yours sincerely
[name]
[Address]
[contact tel. No.]

I can't believe it.

After successfully challenging the system and being granted our delay request into reception by my local authority (a battle that took 6 months), my local primary school turned Academy this September.

I only found out via word of mouth.

This means a new admissions authority is in play; the Academies Trust responsible for the school. I've asked the DfE for advice on how now to proceed as it would be extremely ridiculous to have to start all over again and have to challenge another admissions authority regarding the same case.

Bonkers.

Couldn't agree more, Iam64. The news today is that pupils in England make faster progress in reading than those in other parts of Britain. Gove will no doubt be triumphalist about this finding and completely ignore the other finding: that children in the most 'successful' areas are the unhappiest in the country. Not that this would bother him.

Well, the debate yesterday in the House of Commons went really well. So pleased.

Transript in Hansard:
4 Sep 2013 : Column 134WH School Starting Age
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm130904/halltext/130904h0002.htm#13090438000002

Parliament TV
Scroll through the time until 01:29:45
www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=13729

I can't resist this, and will probably regret posting - but I do wish Gove would clear off. Odious chap who in my view, has absolutely no understanding of, or empathy with, the lives so many of our children live.

It would appear that Gove is trying to emulate the education model in Singapore. In my teen girls school, the head has I believe met with Gove. He then went to Singapore, so did some of his teachers, and they in turn hosted teachers from Singapore.

Singapore are apparently looking towards the Finnish model as Singapore isn't producing creative, innovative, 'out of the box' thinkers needed for the workforce.

I think Gove's following the wrong crew here!

iam64 I agree that a more practical and explorative approach to learning benefits us all! there are schools that have successfully extended a more play based approach to Y2 and beyond. I will try to find info. Your DD has her work cut out but good on her! And it all sounds very familiar!

I agree with nanej about taking a look at provision. I believe things are much better in primary schools in so many ways. But - such pressure to "do proper work" from all sides. I don't know enough about the Scandinavian approach, but what little I've read suggests they don't start formal school until 7. There outcomes are good. But, they also seem to have a less socially divided society. I'm absolutely with you on the effectiveness of good quality play based education that suits the holistic needs of younger children. One of our daughters teaches year 2, low ability, 30 children, 10 with special needs. She has one ta - and 10 of her children don't have english as a first language. They have a large Roma population, as well as irish travelling families, so the class makeup is not static. Some children don't arrive before 10 each morning, the majority don't have breakfast unless they attend the breakfast club. This was her post qualification year. By the end of July, she was clear her children would have benefited from a more reception class approach. I've gone off the point here, but I'm agreeing with the points about some flexibility.