Talk

Advanced search

To think

(11 Posts)
TangledUpInGin Thu 29-Jan-15 10:53:58

A change to the sibling rule regarding school admissions would be ridiculous?? Logistically how on earth would you do it?? Or would you be expected to move your children to your closest school regardless??

http://www.leeds.gov.uk/residents/Pages/School-Admissions-Policy-Consultation-.aspx

MillionToOneChances Thu 29-Jan-15 11:00:37

They're threatening that here. I don't see how it could work, but I do think they need to give priority to siblings close to the school in preference to siblings whose parents rented a house near the school to get their first kid in then moved to a cheaper area in the next county.

60 places out of 197 in my daughter's year went to people living in another county, presumably due to sibling rule shock. We had to fight for our place at our local school that every other child in her primary was attending, despite living only 3 miles away (it's a semi-rural area, those out of county were further away).

MrsPeterQuill Thu 29-Jan-15 12:42:16

Perhaps they're hoping that you'll take the older one out and put them both in the less popular school.

But I agree with million our school was one of the best in the borough (it isn't now) and the things people did to try and get their dc in was ridiculous. And it meant kids living a couple of streets away couldn't get in.

DamsonInDistress Thu 29-Jan-15 13:04:19

It's very common for parents round here to move after getting their first child into the two most popular schools. I'm all in favour of in catchment siblings and in catchment non siblings being prioritised over out of catchment siblings tbh. If the parents move house they have to accept that one of the consequences might be an impact on their children's schooling.

crazykat Thu 29-Jan-15 16:53:33

I think it should be changed in so far as siblings in catchment get priority. So it would be looked after children, siblings in catchment, proximity and then siblings out of catchment, all other children (apologies if ive missed a category).

It's unfair that in an oversubscribed school that parents rent for six months to get their eldest into the school and then move a few miles knowing that their other children are pretty much guaranteed to get into the same school due to the sibling rule, while someone living two hundred yards from the school has to go to a school a mile away as their closest school is full of out of catchment siblings.

Hoppinggreen Thu 29-Jan-15 17:01:11

After Dd got in to her school a lad of new houses were built which pushed us out of catchment but luckily due to the sibling rule DS got in.
Our new " catchment" school is also over subscribed so I would have had 2 children at different schools which would have been really tricky and DS would have been gutted not to go to his sisters school where he had been visiting most days since he was 9 months old and knew a lot of people.
I appreciate that people playing the system should be stopped but it's not always the case.

wheresthelight Thu 29-Jan-15 17:06:04

i think it largely depends on how they prioritise. As others have said when kids who live on the doorstep get turned down for a place at a school because little Joey who lives in the next town gets a place just because his big sister is there I think the system is letting people down.

I think siblings needs to be a factor but more for appeal purposes, but I do think proximity to the school should be a higher priority than it is.

Andrewofgg Thu 29-Jan-15 17:17:34

Whether parents are still in catchment or not - sibling priority reduces school running and that promotes safety near schools. And the younger child should not be penalised because the parents are playing the system.

crazykat Thu 29-Jan-15 17:21:53

Circumstances such as hoppinggreens are different to those who deliberately play the system.

The sibling rule is needed as theres no way to get children to two schools that start at the same time. Yes there are breakfast and afterschool clubs but they are expensive and why should parents have to pay £90 or more every week because their dcs didn't get into the same school?

Yet at the same time it's unfair when parents play the system at the expense of children who then have to travel to another school as their closest is full of siblings. Something needs to be done such as putting out of catchment siblings that have moved further from the school behind those in proximity. In circumstances such as hoppinggreens it would be easy to see that they didn't move once the first child got a school place so they should be counted with the within catchment siblings.

I live on a huge estate with four primary schools (though one is a faith schools) within roughly half a mile of my house all starting at the same time each morning and finishing at the same time. There's no way I could get dcs to two of them every day as I don't drive and no way can I afford breakfast and afterschool club, if not for the sibling priority there's a real chance that dd2 wouldn't get into the same school as dd1 and ds.

RainbowFlutterby Thu 29-Jan-15 17:26:56

Ours have changed. It's now

1. Looked after/SEN where you can prove.... etc
2. Catchment
3. Siblings
4. Children of staff
5. Everyone else.

In each category 1st priority is siblings, then distance from school.

Works well imho.

Andrewofgg Thu 29-Jan-15 17:46:49

Rainbow Does Works well means Worked for me?

I know of one LA who had a high priority to allow children of staff NOT to go to parent's school if the parent so preferred.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: