Primary school admissions - MNHQ needs your thoughts!

But lots of parents would see it as an issue, a big issue, to have two of their primary aged children at two separate schools, especially if they work, don't drive etc.

and why shouldn't you pay for a child to go to a specialist RC school when only 7% or people in England and Wales are catholic. There are a lot more muslims in the UK - are you happy to subsidise muslim-only schools as well?

Why should we pay for it though? It's like saying if you want your child to attend the only outstanding rated school in the town, whilst every other one is in special measures then you should have to pay for it, what rubbish. I contribute heavily like do all other parents to put children's school, YOU are not paying for it!

Except that isn't a good analogy, Twoplus3. If you lived next door to me in my block of flats, your child would get into the state primary school next door, and mine wouldn't, even though I pay taxes the same as you. We have the same aged children, pay the same council tax, etc, and yet yours is given preferential treatment (priority admission into a local state school) because of the faith you as his parent holds.

And because that state school is a faith school, no other state schools are going to be built nearby, so my DS has to travel out of borough to find a non-faith school with places to take him. He has a 40-minute journey to his primary school, and all his mates live a long way away, and it makes my working life difficult, while your DC of the same age would simply walk next door to his state school. All because you are a Catholic and I am not.

This is discrimination.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I've never understood the obsession with sibling priority. Surely the fairest way for it to be done is for places to be allocated according to distance to the school over having a sibling at the school? My two are two years apart and have never been at the same school, it's never been an issue.

No I can't, that's just the way it is I'm afraid. Children miss out on a place at their desired school for a number of reasons, ie distance, siblings, children who are above them for habinf medical/Sen needs, etc etc, so why just single out faith criteria?

It's easy to say there shouldn't be sibling priority until you're facing getting a sibling into a school.

DD just scraped into our local primary two years ago (which apart from a couple of faith schools that we don't qualify for is our nearest school), last year she wouldn't have got in. We haven't moved, the catchment just shrank to it's lowest ever, so there's a chance that DS wouldn't get in this year on distance alone. Luckily our council still apply the sibling link, which was introduced to put an end to the ridiculous situation of siblings being at different schools.

It's not our fault if there's been an influx of young families into the area or a baby boom so I will feel no guilt whatsoever if DS gets in ahead of a few children who live slightly closer.

Yes siblings should get priority at application stage but ONLY if they still live in the catchment area. If not then, both/all children should move to their closest primary school and free up the space for local kids.

Primary schools are part of the local community they should be available to local kids regardless of faith. Local schools for local people.

Don't be so ridiculous - I cant just "decide to baptise" my child, because if I rocked up a a church I would be questioned and interogated about my background and faith - especially if the right church for a local school that everyone wants to go to. Any vicar or priest worth their salt would quite rightly say no because they would see right through me and realise I was just doing it to get my child into a good school - as opposed to being bussed to a failing school 2 towns away. Yes it really is that stark a choice where I live (Surrey) - which is why there are so many private schools - which all the smug people in church schools castigate as being "unfair" and "2 tier"

Plus round here, it is not just a question of being baptised. It and has to be in the right faith, in the right diocese, and the vicar/priest has to submit a recomendation - which he/she will only do if the family have been regular church goers for many years and attend sunday school every week. Apart from anything else, why should my children be discriminated against becasue they like to play sport on Sunday mornings?

It would also make me a massive, massive hypocrite.

Can you really not see how a system which gives priority to a parents beliefs is unfair?

Gah, meant to put * there and put ^ there by mistake...

Sorry for random word - cuddling an ill child while writing on my phone.

But the fact is, Twoflower, that this fact is irrelevant for people who are atheist or of another faith.

And the schools still discriminate against children who have parents who are atheist or another faith, by treating them differently. It's immoral.

Would you agree that all faith criteria should be abolished for all state faith schools, so that all children are treated equally during the admissions process?

I have found it frustrating. I was allowed to choose a nursery place for my DS as he was undergoing assessment for ASD. He eventually settled so very well and has blossomed. I have now discovered that the rules have changed and he will now not necessarily be given a place in reception. I am desperately disappointed as it has been such a life changing experience for him and he has made a few friends (with difficulty, he has Aspergers), loves the school and is proud to attend it. I know how difficult it's going to be for him to move again if we don't get the place. I did write to the admissions team and ask why I was allowed to choose a place while the diagnostic process was taking place but then that choice was going to be revoked, it seemed ludicrous. They just responded that it was "the rules". Bloody rules. However, I guess it is better to wait and see than start panicking just yet....

We did ours online but then had to print a form to fill in and send so we meet the criteria. This seemed barmy - whybrid can't it all be done online. I'm not convinced they'll match up the forms and we ticked the box to say they have a twin sister but there was nowhere to put that child's name. Presumably they'll check surname and address bit on not convinced. Slightly concerned I'll end up with all 3 at different schools. Currently I'm ignoring it and hoping for the best.

Why should we pay for it though? It's like saying if you want your child to attend the only outstanding rated school in the town, whilst every other one is in special measures then you should have to pay for it, what rubbish. I contribute heavily like do all other parents to put children's school, YOU are not paying for it!

I've lived in villages so it's not particularly stressful as they just go to the village school (and they have extra classes if a large year group), the year groups are getting larger though, there are 76 in reception but only about 50 in the other years in the school.
The stressful part though is that we moved in May before ds1 started school and instead of being placed in at the village school, he was placed at another one several miles away until we could prove our address. (The other one was actually a better school but due to not driving there was no way I could get him there).
When I explained I couldn't get him there and asked if they could tell me if he would be placed at local one when we had proof of address they said no, he would just go on the waiting list.
I actually started looking at moving house again (renting) so I could get him to school!
He was offered a place at the local one the same day we sent the necessary documents in.
It really pissed me off that they couldn't just say he'd have a place once documents were received instead of leading me to believe he wouldn't!
So that was stressful. I do think all schools should have to accommodate all children in catchment even if this means getting more staff or building more classrooms (the secondary school near me is doing just that).
It would be so much simpler if kids just went to their nearest school (unless there were specific reasons why they couldn't).

No I'm not suggesting this at all, I was simply stating a fact, that of they decided to baptise their child then they would then stand a better chance of being admitted to a catholic school, that's a given really though.

Completely agree, mellicauli. If you want a specialist education, like a faith-based one, you should pay for it yourself, and not get the state to organise and pay for it to the detriment of other children.

yes, yes, yes.

Now that there is effectively no choice for large numbers of pupils it is time to remove faith as an admissions criteria. Faith is something for the home setting to teach if they feel it is appropriate.

Could not agree with this more. I think it is disgusting that we effectively have a 2 tier state system in this country where only certain children are allowed to even apply for better funded and generally better performing schools depending on whether of not their parents happen to be (or pretend to be in the VAST majority of cases) a particular religion. When I tell friends in other countries about this they are genuinely gobsmacked that we have free schools but that only some children can go to. My child might grow up to be the next pope - but he is disallowed from attending swathes of very good schools because I happen to be an atheist. Disgusting imo.

In a nutshell the problem with primary schools in England is that they vary so widely in quality, ethos and clientele. it's not like that in other countries.

But my children do mix with children from other faiths and of no faith for that matter. In my daughters year there are at least 10 non Catholics and they also mix with other chidkren from a variety of backgrounds when they go to brownies, beavers, ballet etc etc. I chose to send them to a faith school primarily as I wanted tnem to learn more about their faith and it just so happened to be the best performing school by a mile in our area.

They are not being discrimated against, in most faith schools there is criteria that allows for non religious children, but of course they have the right to admit children of faith first. If parents are that bothered they can always have their children baptised but ofcourse for some this clearly would require too much erffort from them.

If you treat a child less well than another child because of their faith, then you are discriminating against that child. That's what discrimination means.

And as for baptising their child - are you seriously telling atheist parents that they should lie to the church and to their children, or parents of other faiths that they should forcibly convert in order to access local state education, and that if they don't do so it's because they can't be bothered?

Do you realise that not everyone is a Catholic?

I don't have a problem with faith schools being state funded, but I think admission criteria based on faith is totally wrong. Faith schools should have to use the same criteria as any other school.

The thing about saying any old
Schools in scotland is pretty dismissive actually. From my own experience both employed and as a parent there doesn't seem to be the same angst about failing schools up here. I'm not saying there aren't bad schools but I see on here about so many parents worrying about failing schools It just isn't an issue up here to the same extent. And in bigger cities you may be in the catchment for more than one school. I live in a very small town and we have 3 primary schools here so even here you can be in catchment for more than one at a time as there is overlap.
There are plenty Catholic achools most others are non denominational.