To ask what your thoughts are on siblings getting priority at over-subscribed schools?

[goingeversoslowlymad]

So the letters have gone out advising parents which school they have gained a place for their 4/5 yr old for September. As happens every year as dc1's school is badly over subscribed, there have been people who have lost out.

The school admission criteria gives priority to children who already have siblings in the school, after they have been admitted it then goes down to catchment area and distance from the school. Is this the norm most places? There was quite a lot of bad feeling today when I was at the park. A few of the mums were really angry and saying that the school is discriminating against first-born and only children as it is making it impossible to get a place. I felt a bit guilty as DC2 was one of those who got a place.

I can really see their argument and really do feel for them but what is the solution? I would not physically be able to get my children to 2 different schools in the mornings. Sorry if this has been done before but would just love to know if there is a fairer solution.

What are looked after children? Just curious.

I don't get all this stuff with primaries in the UK.

Here each school has a zone. If you live within that zone, your child is automatically entitled to a place.

You can make an application to out of zone schools but it's at the head teachers discretion if they give you a place or not.

A small handful of schools don't have zones and anyone can apply to enrol, again at the head teachers discretion if you get a place.

But mostly, children just go to their nearest schools as they are automatically entitled to a place.

Yes but midnight, what happens if over the space of a few years the number of children of school age in that zone doubles, or even triples, as happens in London boroughs? It is not a sustainable system in a highly mobile and fluctuating population area.

The school gets bigger and adds more classes. the school doesn't know how many children they will be taking from one year to the next but they adapt I suppose, they have to. It's the same throughout the whole country including big cities, if your in zone, you get a place.

Where we used to live, our in zone school was a 5 minute walk away, it also had over 1000 pupils attending already.

Sorry, x-post tiggy

Yes, that is a problem I guess.

Loads more housing going up here but I don't suppose we'll ever be anywhere near as densely packed in as London.

yes but in my town there are 4 primary schools, the 2 with the best ofsteads are oversubscribed every year, the other 2 run a 2 class year system and can't even fill one class. Its ridiculous really

last time i looked one with 60 places took 22 kids but the outstanding one had over 56 applicants for 30 places, tiny catchment area. There are plenty of places in my town, they still wouldnt be able to fill all the places

Ours is

siblings in catchment,
catchment,
siblings out of catchment,
out of catchment.

Which is much fairer.

Sibling rule may seem unfair on some - but logistics for all concerned would be hell without it.

Imagine three primary aged children from same house going to three separate primary schools... Mum may not drive - would that be taken into account? No, of course not. Children will be late. Ten times more traffic on the road. It's bad enough as it is.

Expense - no more handing down school sweatshirts etc. Having to comply with three different school demands, could you get to parent's night when they all seem to be roughly the same week? Christmas plays? Even speak to a teacher? Could you divide yourself up to fairly share your attention between your children's activities? Would any one school attract volunteers?

This is all crazy. Some people are going to fall through nets and life can always seem unfair. However, not having a sibling rule creates more burdens and hassles and ultimately it will be children who suffer.

I think that yours seems by much the fairest , Grapejuicerocks. (I assume that looked after children come top - which is their rightful place).

Tiggy
I'm in Wandsworth as well, and have a few friends involved in education in our and neighbouring boroughs, so was getting updates throughout the consultation period. All the objections were coming from parents who had played the system and were going to have to do a double school run if their second child had to, god forbid, go to school near their new (read 'actual') house and the older one still had to be ferried 3 miles to the 'outstanding' school they scammed their way into by renting a flat for 6 months.

Just in case it isn't totally clear, I'm very much in favour of what has happened, because the abuse of the system was so rife and blatant that the council was beginning to look like a joke by not doing anything. It was especially bad in the highly desirable 'Between the Commons' primaries, where schools had an official catchment area of about 150m, yet at drop off and pick up times, roads were completely snarled with cars - go figure...
The only people who are going to lose out from the change in rule are the Buy to Let landlords who have bought up the Ex-LA flats within catchment for the sole purpose of renting them to families who want to use the address to apply for schools.

It is no coincidence that those flats rent for 50% more per month than ones just outside the catchment...

Sibling rule may seem unfair on some - but logistics for all concerned would be hell without it.

In that case then if you know their are or will be siblings and school operate catchment kids first it would be wise to apply for your catchment school, the one where you know you will get all 3 in instead of risking and out of catchment school.

Ive done it myself and scraped siblings in my the skin of their teeth but knew it was a chance i was taking and could end up with kids at different schools. If i could go back i would just put them all in catchment school

Oops ignore typos, i dont think its fair my kids getting in before people in catchment when i live further away. mine operate catchment kids first, if people apply for out of catchment schools knowing they could end up not getting siblings in becase they have bypassed catchment school then its not really the achools fault, its a gamble the parents have taken knowing its difficult to get kids in that school

In that case then if you know their are or will be siblings and school operate catchment kids first it would be wise to apply for your catchment school, the one where you know you will get all 3 in instead of risking and out of catchment school.

Hah!
No, primary admissions are really screwed up now. People get turned down for their catchment school. Especially if the catchment school is religious, and you are not. So you apply to your next closest school. But wait, you're applying out-of-catchment for that one, so you don't get in there, either.

Some people really do end up with their first child at schools some distance away without having engineered it that way. At which point, their lives will become unworkable without a sibling rule.

Our LEA is:

Looked after children
SEN
Siblings in catchment
Other children in catchment
Siblings out of catchment
Other children out of catchment

This is fairer and I hope to get a place for DS in due course as we're slightly out of catchment. The school is 3 form entry so I'm optimistic of places but we might have to wait. I do however think that it's fair that children in catchment should come before our DS.

Hah!

Apply for the school you are likely to get in then, not 3 schools along because its outstanding. Lots of people bypass a school they would get into to get their DC into the better ofstead rated school.

Thats who i mean, i thought it was obvious.

Ye-es, but the point I'm making is it has all become a huge muddle. Much of it can be traced back to this mockery of 'school choice' and the people fighing to get into the better OFSTED rated school, but the end result is lots of other people can't send their children to their catchment school.

People who have done what i done is who i mean, got their dc in after bypassing a catchment school they would have got a place in, where all their siblings would have got a place as well. If you do this knowing the school operate a catchment kids first system then you dont get their out of catchment sibling in then thats a gamble you as a parent have taken. I know a few people with kids at 2 primary schools who now have to do 2 school runs or have had to move dc1 back to catchment school when a place comes up because they wanted the better school out of catchment. we now have 4 schools 2 massively oversubscribed and 2 struggling to get kids there, the people who get them schools never wanted them or put them down but you cant fit a whole town in 2 schools.

Much of it can be traced back to this mockery of 'school choice' and the people fighing to get into the better OFSTED rated school, but the end result is lots of other people can't send their children to their catchment school.

Thats the point i am making

Sibling priority makes perfect sense. If they didn't take priority, how are parents supposed to be dropping kids off at different schools, at the same time?

That, of course is the main argument in favour of sibling priority Chunky, but if parent knew in advance that there was no sibling priority and therefore all likelihood that DCs would be at different schools, perhaps they would be more inclined to use their local school for DS1.

Doesn't solve all the problem, as I know in some areas people struggle to get thier nearest school (because of siblings?) but in most areas it would make a big difference.