This is a Premium feature
Changes to admissions policy(12 Posts)
Our local council is proposing to make changes to our local junior school for admissions in 2019/20.
The problem is lots of parents made their infant choice on an expectation of being able to go to this particular junior school and now that choice is being removed.
Should such a change be phased in?
If so could someone please point me in the right direction of cases etc
I've tried searching the adjudicator's website but I'm not having much luck.
Thanks a lot
I the type of precedent you are after is called 'grandfather rights'.
So depending in what the changes are, you add a criterion along the lines of 'pupils attending Old Infant Feeder before XX date'.
That should cover eldest sibling at the infant school. If they then join Desired Junior School, their younger siblings would fall into sibling priority.
No it should come into effect in the next application round. In our LA a number of year 3 transfer priority criteria are being consulted on as several former infant schools have expanded to take year 3 -6 There are still infant only schools nearby and those children would take priority for junior only schools as they have fewer alternatives. Those at the newly expanded schools can still apply for year 3 transfer.
Lizs from your previous posts I think you live very close to me at least in the same town.!
The problem is people have accepted places several miles away for reception on the basis that they could move across at year 3. That is now being pulled and basically local children who missed out first time round on a local school now have no chance of getting in.
But there are now different options for those children. The area has always been tight on school spaces and some children at infant only schools have struggled to find local year 3 places. It will only affect those in current y1 and Reception.
So the options are to keep driving miles away, that seems fair!
Just to be clear, 'grandfather rights' are a permissible option under the Admissiins Code, they are not something an admissions authority l must use.
Is it the case that most parents are local to both schools, and so would get offers whichever criteria were in place? How many distant families are likely to be affected?
The prevailing policy trend is, I think, very much towards DC being able to go to school locally, and the proposed change is in line with that. But as only two (arguably three, as next year's reception-intake families might have made decisions based on currently published information) would be affected, if numbers are small then it becomes easier to make the case that including grandfather rights prevents the negative impact on families already in the school without significant detriment to locals as it is few in number and limited in time.
If they are consulting in advance of changes for the admissions round taking place in 19/20, then they are following the rules and that is all they need to do. There are no rules about phasing in changes, or adding in grandfather rules, as Meditrina says - they can do so, but are not obligated to.
I'm assuming you are referring to the establishment of new feeder links, so children at nearby schools take priority over those further away?
Agree with others. They can phase introduction but they don't have to. If this was referred to the Adjudicator I would expect them to find in the LA's favour. Your best chance of getting it changed is to respond to the consultation suggesting that they phase introduction.
Yes patriciaholm that was the gist of what I had read. However after the feeder schools (3 named iirc) I think there was a category for those for whom it is the nearest school. In theory as 3 local schools have expanded their year 3 capacity in recent years there should be fewer applying for this standalone junior. Op it is an open consultation so you , and others affected, can register you views and suggestions.
lizs - local children for whom it's their nearest school but didn't get into one of the feeder school are effectively at the very bottom of the list.
I don't have an issue with the feeder link for children for who it's the nearest school but to then prioritise out of area sibling and all other children at the feeder schools ahead of local children is unfair.
The order is
Children in care and medical need first
1. Siblings for who it's the nearest school
2. children at feeder schools for who it's their nearest school
3. All other siblings
4. All other children at feeder schools
It seems madness that a child living pretty much opposite the school but too far away from one of feeder schools now won't able to get in.
A few years ago they split the sibling priority so that local children took priority over non local siblings it appears that they've forgotten their reasons for doing that!
I think introducing a category between 2 and 3 would be fair so that local.children at least have a chance.
You can object to the proposed criteria during the consultation. However, there is nothing in the proposed order that contravenes the Admissions Code so an objection to the Adjudicator would be unlikely to succeed.
Please login first.