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.

I think as ever it depends on the area.

Around here it is going the other way - at least one school I know has moved siblings up the priority list recently.

The reasons for this are:

Most schools around here are over-subscribed
There are no "catchments" - due to over-subscription - any distance criteria are as the crow flies
Most schools around here have religious entry criteria
People have difficulty getting their children into any schools near them - many just want one that's reasonably local. Most of the schools around here are pretty good so it's not about getting them into the "better" one rather than the local one - it's about getting them into a reasonably nearby school full stop

Many schools put religion and distance before siblings. So a family who have not moved house and still go to church will not get a place for a 2nd or 3rd child at the same school, for instance.

The impact is that it is getting more and more common for non-cheaty, quite ordinary families to end up with children at more than one primary school which of course is really really hard. Moving the other children to the school allocated to later children is usually not an option either as most schools are full.

So anyway, some of the schools realise that this is unsustainable and are changing their policies to push slblings up.

Personally I think this is a good thing as to face a situation where through no fault of their own it was common to have young children at different schools would be a disaster for so many different reasons.

If the siblings live within catchment, it makes sense!
If not, then they should not be subject to the rule and just allocated in the order that everybody else is.

There's a family up the road with 4 kids. The first 2 are in the outstanding massively oversubscribed local school. The rules mean the next 2 will get in. That's one family with 4 places. I know of many people who were declined a place. Luckily DD's in but it must leave a bad taste in the mouth to be driving your kid across town past your neighbours kids walking to the school up the road after bagging 4 spots. Tbh though I genuinely can't think of a process that would be fair to all.

Equally though the idea of having a family have to be in 4 places at once, it's literally impossible. And to have that as quite a normal thing to do.

Someone I know ended up giving up her job and homeschooling as there were no other options for her. I don't think forcing that type of decision on anyone is positive TBH but round here it was heading that way.

I really think it does depend on area.

yes Capricorn, but is this family of 4 children all in catchment and reasonably close to the school? If they are, then why should these children be disadvantaged just because they are a sibling?

Someone at work raised this.

She was applying for her child to go to school and said that she felt sibling places were unfair, as she wanted her child to get into a certain religious school and she didn't want siblings to "take places". I pointed out this would mean families having a literally impossible task of being in more than one place at once (well barring people with two children only & two parents both with flexible jobs etc) and she looked a bit foxed, I don't think she'd thought about it past "those children are ahead in the queue for what I want, so I want them gone).

She has had another one now when she's back off mat leave I'll have to see if she's changed her tune

To me it's just obvious that siblings should be able to go to the same school.

I am continually amazed when people say they are not! It would be hell round here if all the families had multiple schools to get to all at the same time. Loads of people have 3 kids, that's 3 places at once!

This comes back to the idea that people shouldn't have more children than "they can afford" really. Posts upthread saying oh well you cut your cloth, if you have more than 1 child you need to accept they may end up at different schools and you just have to deal / pull them and home school or whatever. So if you want only one school trip you need to have only one child etc.

My local junior school has recently split the siblings so that local children take priority over non local siblings.

It went through consultation with almost unanimous Support.

It is the fairest way. Otherwise you can have a situation where one address is effectively used for 2 applications, the first for the sibling who used to live there and the second for the new family.

We don't have catchment areas - it's distance measured as the crow flies. the school Ds1 attends has recently increased in popularity (coinciding with it getting an outstanding ofsted which it didn't have when I applied for Ds1). ds2 (who we will apply for a place for next year) would be unlikely to now get a place on distance alone due to increased popularity, but should get a place on sibling priority. We haven't moved house.

In this circumstance should a child nearer the school get a place ahead of Ds2 and cause all sorts of grief with drop offs and pick ups? I already use multiple forms of childcare to manage my working longer than school hours, so multiple drop offs at before school clubs really isn't an option.

WhirlpoolGalaxyM51 i don't see it meaning that at all, i have 3 and could possibly have ended up in a situation where 3 went to different schools, dd1 non catchment, dd2 followed as out of catchment sibling and last kid in, dd3 not sure what position she came in at

DD1 non catchment i then had catchment as second choice, not sure how it works but i understood it as i would forfeit my catchment school as 2nd choice for people who applied for it as first choice in the catchment, had there been 30 kids in catchment i could have ended up with 3rd choice school (not entirely sure if this is correct), same then applies for dd3, i doubt i would have gotten into 2nd choice catchment school with dd3 as there are now more houses in the catchment for catchment school

So for me making a choice to send dd2 to non catchment school i really could have buggered it up for dd 2&3, i was extremely lucky i got them in, 3rd choice school is in completely the opposite direction to my DDs school, there is no way i could have done it, i would have had to removed dd1 from school after she had settled and put her in 3rd choice school as non were at and age where they could walk themselves, i realy don't think i would have gotten in to catchment school on second choice.

Looking back it was risky and stupid, i should have just sent them to catchment school as first choice as i would 100% have got a place, i can see it from my front door. DD2 was the last kid in, thats how tight it was, i could have been in a nightmare position

Yeah that's how it is round here waxy with families who haven't moved or done anything different, with one child at the nearby school and the other not getting a place there.

I agree with you but as ever with this stuff it seems that there are different challenges in different areas. So for areas like yours or mine it makes sense to give siblings precedence, in areas where like people say they are getting one into the "good" school, when they could have gone to the local one, and then moving away, then different rules might be suitable.

Like I say around here they are going the other way, at least one school has, still plenty where siblings come below other options though and families end up in all sorts of difficulties.

I don't really understand your post either.

School allocation works differently in different areas. We do not have catchment areas. There is no "catchment" school option for children here, no school they are guaranteed to get into.

So you get allocated a school for DC1, there is no guarantee that DC2 will get allocated the same school.

I don't really understand how that would work. If siblings are not given priority then clearly in an area where there are not enough school places and most schools are over-subscribed, then many families will end up with children at different schools. And not because they've tried to fiddle the system or anything.

I know families this has happened to, and it is an absolute nightmare for them.

Areas are really different. Round here the majority of schools have religious entry criteria, which complicates things even further.

Waxy - in your situation all siblings should have priority.

We are talking more catchment schools when

The objections (and rule changes) are about 4 siblings who live 5+ miles from the school all getting in based on the fact that back in 2011 the family lived really close to the school and got their first child a place.

This is what is unfair. Siblings in catchement great, but it is fairer if local children get priority over, out of catchment siblings, because families like the family above (barring some exceptions who had no choice) didn't have to move. They chose to move and that choice should factor in other subsequent children in their family who shouldn't have priority over local kids.

So for me making a choice to send dd1 to non catchment school i really could have buggered it up for dd 2&3

I suppose the point here is

That in some areas

There is no such thing as catchment, and due to population density, all the children are local

I agree "singing* . You have to think about the chances of further childen getting in, if you choose a non catchment school.

There are exceptions as with some of you above, where you can't get into your catchment school. Mostly that is because of other siblings, some of which the older child got in in lower birth years. Chicken and egg situation.

some areas have no such thing as a catchment school!!!!

"After bagging four spots"?

Capricorn, they're not taking more than their fair share! They're local children, each with a right to a place.

And in waxy's situation - I agree it would be good if her children could go to the same school - but around here with quite a few schools - they wouldn't be able to.

Hence the schools moving towards a siblings policy, rather than the reverse.

It really does depend on what the situation is where you live!

It's hard on parents who want to get a shoe in to an over-subscribed school, but it would be harder on parents who already have a child at a primary school, in particular, to have to get their children to 2 different schools for around 9am. I can understand why the sibling rule exists, though it makes less sense for secondary, when kids are often travelling independently, anyhow.

Here siblings trump catchment, but even in bumper years our last admission has gone on distance so all catchment children got in.

As an example, child A lives three miles away, and got in under the sibling rule. Child B lives 500m away, and didn't (until the waiting list).

The catchment is an odd shape, so you can be very near school without being in it.

But child A's older sibling had got in because it was her nearest school with any spaces. If A hadn't been allowed priority at the school, that family would have been disadvantaged twice, even though they hadn't moved. Their nearest school was 29/30 siblings that year, mind you

So I do think it's possible that "siblings that haven't moved further away" could be fairer than the current system, but "siblings in catchment only" wouldn't be.

More than half our school roll is FSM. Many of the families have, since the first child started, been moved further away by the council. Not by choice. For some it was because their estate was pulled down and redeveloped and all the families rehomed for instance. Others are with private landlords who sold their property forcing them to move. Where they are within a short bus ride of the school they have opted to stay, for continuity for the children. I don't think it is fair to penalise them. I wouldn't assume that all families who move are doing it on purpose.

I think this is very simple.

If you have more than one child, it's a complete nightmare trying to get them to different schools. The sibling priority is there for a good reason. The alternative is having loads of kids late in every single day.

Anyone with kids at two different schools (often where one has gone up to secondary and the other remains at primary) will tell you that it's a pain, but you manage because that cant be helped. But actively removing the priority for siblings on school admissions just prolongs this massive pain and, for many parents, can be completely unworkable.

The only people who have a problem with this are people who only have one child, or people whose pfb is about to start a new school