to be completely baffled by Primary School admissions

[PrincessScrumpy]

Our catchment school is a 30 minute walk (with a 4yo) at least but closer school is over subscribed. It's done as the crow flies - well I'm not a crow so cannot fly over the secure airfield to get dd to school. Anyway, I've accepted that we will have to keep our 2 cars (financially I had hoped to be a 1 car family). However, the catchment school is also over subscribed so I looked at others.

I have been advised to put a safe option down - well, even the local less good primary is over subscribed so what can I do? It looks like they need a new school in the area!

I'm sure you don't get transport for a school more than 2 miles away around here.

Also, loads of people around here only put down one or two options on the basis that "the council have to give me one of my choices". They are all up in arms as they have (obviously) been allocated less good schools which were not oversubscribed, rather than getting their choice they put down of the best local school.

Transport not provided for less than two miles except in exceptional circumstances in our area.

Custard - Let's say I did mean next door as in a block of flats. If there is "DEFINITELY no coin flipping involved" and "no degree of common sense can creep in" then how would it be resolved?!

I never said my situation would be applicable to everyone - not many people are likely to also have a third choice school which happens to be third closest to their house AND undersubscribed - but I don't think the advice you gave in your original post (put down as first and second choice schools you 'like' and have a chance of getting into on distance, and a third school you 'quite like' and would definitely get into on distance) is applicable for everyone either, because it doesn't take in to account how over or undersubscribed those schools may be - your advice stands only when all schools on your form are similarly oversubscribed.

I repeat again that I think everyone needs to look at the situation in their local area.

Ours says this on distance

"Distance
Distance will be measured in a straight line from the front
door of the child?s home address to the main entrance of
the school, using the council?s computerised geographical
information system, with those living closer to the school
receiving the higher priority. Applicants from the same block
of flats or those that live the same distance from the school
will be selected in random order and places will be offered
accordingly"

I have no reason to believe that they are misleading me

This all sounds such fun... Dd1 is only 3 this winter so two years to worry about it all BUT in our city there are hundreds of new flats and houses (and I do mean hundreds) , we deliberately moved this year to be nearer to a school we like, but what can you do if subsequently lots of new families appear closer to the school? We didn't know about one of the developments of 91 new flats when we moved, and these flats are between us and the school. :( one assumes the council takes this into account when they grant permission, but there will have to be so many 'bulge' years around the city to cope with the vast numbers of new housing.

Oh dear jumpjockey that's a shame for you.

My only advice to anyone is to get hold of the admission criteria for their area and read it! Our borough has it on their website and I'm sure it is easy to get hold of in all areas. Amazing how many people don't do this and go on random pronouncements that are often 20 years out of date.

Our area is an absolute nightmare with, (horrors) some children not ending up with any place at all some years

When I said toss of a coin, I meant names from a hat/computer random generation, so that's good to know.

Agree you can't know for sure how over/undersubscribed a school is until after the event but obviously you wouldn't put down any choices without talking to the school (who know from the health authority how many four-year olds are in the catchment, and know how many children at their school have siblings who are on the waiting list etc). It's an important point about the housing market - the reason my 'third' choice school is so undersubscribed is because it was forced to become a 1.5 entry school due to 500 new houses being built in the village. The recession put pay to that). But you would have most the information you mention (ofsted updates, resignation of a headteacher, new houses etc) at the same time as everyone else who applies anyway (if you leave it til the deadline) - it's just up to you as a parent to keep informed and make choices accordingly.

Anyway, seems we all agree this primary school malarky is a ballache. Will be very glad when it's all over!

Can I just confirm one more thing Custard as I'm getting befuddled? Our preferred school is closest to our house (which is why we want it) but it is a church school, and we are committed atheists, so I don't think we will get in (unless for some reason it is very undersubscribed this year - criteria: in care/siblings/church/distance). Could you just confirm we are not affecting our chances of getting into our 2nd choice school (bit further away) if we put the church school first? I don't think we are from you've said and what I've read on my LA's admission policy, but the prospectus for the 2nd choice school says "Where the number of FIRST PREFERENCES for our school is less than 60, all children will be given places. Where the number of applicants exceeds 60, places will be given according to [LA] admission arrangements". That would suggest we might miss out by not putting school 2 as our preferred choice (in the event that School 1 doesn't accept us).

Our area says that the flat with the lower number numerically and/or alphabetically takes preference. So 10A before 10B and 10A and 10B both before 11A.

Don't be certain the council have taken it into account JumpJockey. Our council in answer to similar questions said "families don't live in flats"!??!

Can I just confirm one more thing Custard as I'm getting befuddled? Our preferred school is closest to our house (which is why we want it) but it is a church school, and we are committed atheists, so I don't think we will get in (unless for some reason it is very undersubscribed this year - criteria: in care/siblings/church/distance). Could you just confirm we are not affecting our chances of getting into our 2nd choice school (bit further away) if we put the church school first? I don't think we are from you've said and what I've read on my LA's admission policy, but the prospectus for the 2nd choice school says "Where the number of FIRST PREFERENCES for our school is less than 60, all children will be given places. Where the number of applicants exceeds 60, places will be given according to [LA] admission arrangements". That would suggest we might miss out by not putting school 2 as our preferred choice (in the event that School 1 doesn't accept us).

In our LEA it says this regarding the preference system:-"
By law, schools must consider all children equally regardless of whether they have been named as first, second or third preference; this is known as equal preference.

The allocation of places is determined by factors such as siblings, religion and distance. Therefore it is possible for a child to be offered a place at a school they have named as second preference before another parent who has named it as their first preference.

However, parental preference is still important! If more than one school can offer your child a place, we must offer the one ranked highest by you on your application. Therefore it is essential to rank your preferred schools in the order you would like them to be offered."

Thanks Wormshuffler! - that's similar to (but much clearer than!) what my LEA says. So the prospectus must be wrong.

Thanks Custard (so sorry, I missed your reply until now!).

It is the school's prospectus which says this (it says "FIRST PREFERENCE" in caps), not the LA.

I'll tell the school and make sure they change it, but do you think I should report them as well? I assume it's just a hang over from when they were allowed to say things like this, rather than intentionally misleading?