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.

In our area, out of 10 criteria, having a sibling already attending the school is only number 6. My friend's DC did not get a place despite having siblings already in the school.

In other words, siblings do NOT get a priority here.

I think it is a stupid system.

Around us, people rent flats near the school to get pfb in, then move away to cheaper streets and have three more kids who normally would not get into that school. It is nuts. What is more, it skews the system towards those well off enough to play it.

I apreciate it would be hard to deliver kids to different schools, so my solution would be:

Draw a realistic catchment around each school. If you live in catchment you have a legal right to attend that school, and the LEA must provide a place (this is how it works in other countries. It also means that when the council gives PP for a block of flats to go up in a catchment they have to pay more than lip service to its effect on school places). And the council would need to think about how to cater for black holes, instead of ignoring the issue.

If you move out of catchment your kids move schools. Moving house is, usually, a choice, and so this stops people gaming the system per the above.

Then you give people a legal right to apply to school outside of their catchment, at which they may be allocated a place based on distance if there is room - this is no different really to applying on distance now.

"What I don't understand is why having both dc at the same school is a big enough reason to give siblings priority in the first place, but physical problems with getting the dc to different schools does not count as a big enough problem to appeal on."

It depends on the area. I know people here who got given a primary school for their younger one, when the older one was already in a junior school, and successfully appealed on the ground of not being able to pick up/drop off, and got them into one of the infant schools which have different start/finish times.

Also we don't have catchments, the admission criteria is looked after children and special needs statements, siblings, distance from school. So some years people that live quite far from school get in, some years only people who live really near get in, it depends how many apply and how many siblings there are.

But I think the sibling thing doesn't count if you have moved more than a couple of miles away.

I personally do think it's fair to have the sibling rule. I know you CAN manage by using breakfast /after-school clubs but these things cost money. If you have to use them to facilitate your work that is something you factor in to how much you are earning. If you're not earning as a result of having to pay for these it's not fair to have to use them.

When DD2 started, out of 60 places 28 were siblings of existing pupils! We live just under a mile from school, would never have got in if not for the sibling thing.

On a different topic the church school thing really bugs me.

As we are not religious and do not live next door to the church school we only have one choice (ie no choice) of junior school but people who go to church have two choices no matter where they live.

It will never happen because of the money the church provides but I personally think church schools should not be allowed, it is a totally outdated idea and religion should have nothing to do with education.

Siblings should get priority BUT only if they still live within catchment. I think
siblings in catchment
others in catchment
Siblings out of catchment is farest.
Our local secondary is heavily oversubbed and has NO sibling rule.

I would also like to see more checks that ensure the system isnt played by people using grandparents addresses.

gabsdot45 looked after children means children in care or under social services

I just think people should take responsibility instead of blaming the school/system/other parents when they choose to go to the out of catchment school when they WOULD have got into their catchment school, then if the school operates out of catchment siblings, catchment kids you have a situation where people can't go to their local school so are disadvantaged and have to go elsewhere trapsing kids to the next school with spaces. I know theere are exceptions but i think out of catchment siblings, catchments kids is unfair. If you bypass your catchment school and they operate Catchment kids, out of catchment siblings then that's a gamble you have took, cant blame anyone for it , certainly not the kids who live in that catchment without siblings who get a place when you have to go to 2 schools.

I agree the system should be a defined catchment area, all kids in there go to that school followed by their siblings, you don't get a choice, if the schools not good then something should be done about that instead of wasting money on appeals and taxi's sending kids to other schools when they would have got a place at their catchment school had they applied instead of applying for outstanding schools.

I know there are exceptions to this but the current system doesn't work, bad schools are just left with people bypassing them and fighting for places at outstanding schools instead of the problems being addressed.

i mean people who choose to do it, not people who have no choice because of the system

As other people have mentioned Wandsworth announced earlier this year that they are going to restrict sibling priority to those living within 800m of the school for Sept 2016 admissions.

There was a long consultation which was quite interesting. Essentially, those in favour all lived close to the two most popular and oversubscribed schools in the borough. When we spoke to the Council's education spokesman about it in a thread on the local site she told us that it actually wouldn't make a difference to those two schools anyway. One is a foundation school and the other an academy meaning neither is bound by the Council's admission criteria and get to set their own instead. Both had flat out refused to limit their own sibling preference.

Oddly, all the articles about it in the press last week were illustrated with photos of the 2 schools in question with no mention of the fact it won't apply to them.

Haven't read the whole thread so sorry if this is a repeat, but the whole "catchment" thing doesn't exist for a lot of schools in London as it fluctuates each year. DD didn't get into our 3 closest schools. We are very happy with our 4th choice where she is going now, but the way things are going in our area with increasing Birth rates and families moving into the area, I would be surprised if DS gets in on distance alone when we apply for him in 2 years.

This is why I think the sibling rule is important. We have built up a community within the school that we are part of. If the sibling rule didn't apply and DS had to go to a different school I do think it would not only be unfair, but also quite damaging to the school in terms of parents being able to give their time to support events etc when they have children at more than one school.

I do appreciate it is hard for families moving into the area that will be closer, but I do think that living somewhere longer and having built up connections with the school community with older children is also very important to both individuals and the area in which they live

We have no catchment areas as such here, it's all done in a straight line from house to school. DD got our second choice school, which was very under-subscribed when she started. DS1 would never have got in there without sibling priority, (although DS2 might have been ok as his is a lower birth rate year) and as all the schools (including the school they are at) are at least a mile away, I have no idea which schools we would have got as all the nearest ones are oversubscribed.

Secondary schools here DO have catchment however, and we are outside the catchment area for our nearest one by about 10 metres....

The sibling rule is abused in our area.

Siblings in catchment should have priority over other in catchment children.

Siblings outside of catchment should not.

For years now in our area (Hampshire) the sibling rule has been applied as:

• catchment siblings
• catchment children
• non-catchment siblings
• non-catchment children

which seems perfectly fair, and stops people renting in a good school area for the first child (or getting the first one in on the waiting list), then moving somewhere cheaper while their siblings follow through.

If they removed sibling priority for catchment siblings, there would be ridiculous journeys if someone in catchment loses their sibling space to someone who lives 50 yards closer, and they end up having to move their child or manage 2 school runs.

Where I live, secondary school entry is complicated by a feeder primary clause.

Ooh my favourite subject, we weren't able to get our second child into our school last year so we're feeling everyone's pain. Our previous school's policy was kids in care, siblings in catchment, other children in catchment, siblings out of catchment etc.. That is the fairest but it doesn't make it any easier when you come out on the wrong side of it. When we applied for our first child things were different, the school wasn't too difficult to get into but wow things have changed in three years. Your children need to go to the same school, its not just about 'how you will get them there' its about them growing up together, having the same experience, school plays, supporting each other in the playground, all of those things. You commit to that school with PTA, bonding with other families, being part of that community. We moved our eldest out of the school and moved to a village. Eldest's class was ironically down to 25 by the end of summer term has everyone moved their eldest.

No it's not discrimination it's common sense u can't expect a parent with a one child at that school to travel to a different school at exactly the same time of the day to another for their siblings they need to stop thinking their child is owed everything on a platter u want to be that picky over schooling save for private school !!

I've read some but not all of the thread. I do understand the frustration for those who can't get into their nearest school. However I do think the sibling policy is important for many reasons, including school community - it's much harder for parents to be involved/volunteer if they are spreading themselves between various schools.

I also think there's too much focus on Ofsted. Many parents only want their child to go to a Good or Outstanding school and will do anything (including moving) to avoid a school Needing Improvement.
When my child started school 5 years ago my local school was Satisfactory (same as Needing improvement) I do remember some parents being quite vocal about how their PFBs would definitely not be going to it! consequently it had a low 'first choice' allocation and a wide catchment and children were coming to it from quite far away. However because I don't believe Ofsted is the whole picture, I visited the school, liked the feel of it, and had faith it would improve. Fast forward, the school has improved hugely (with help from parents like me), had a Good Ofsted, a brilliant new Head, and now the catchment area has shrunk and it's over-subscribed (partly because it has improved, and partly due to influx of families to the area).
If I was one of the parents whose older child had been allocated the school when it was 'satisfactory', stuck with it through the bad times, and now found my child's siblings couldn't get in because it had improved, I'd be pretty miffed.

I also think the sibling policy is being blamed unfairly when the actual problem is overall lack of planning for new schools, particularly in areas with lots of house-building / increased birth rate / increased migration. These things can be predicted, but have not been acted upon. The government has regulated that Local authorities are not allowed to open new schools except for Free schools.
LAs are only allowed to expand existing schools. This is very difficult to do in urban areas where the schools already have tiny playgrounds. (And probably sold off any playing fields they used to own for housing!!)
There has only been one Free school opened in my area and it's definitely not helped - in fact I know of at least 4 children that have moved to my kids school from the free school as they were so unhappy with it.
The whole thing is a mess.

Littlepicklehead I agree, school community is so important. Our school relies a lot upon volunteers for reading, trips, fundraising, events etc. I do a lot of voluntary work at school which I am happy to do because I am part of the community. If I was split between 2 or 3 schools I really doubt I would be so involved.

This is where I am glad I only had one. There is no policy that somebody is not going to say is unfair, discriminatory, etc., which being interpreted turns out to mean Didn't get my DC into the school of my choice.

I agree it's not fair if they've moved.

Like I say it was never my problem, but sibling-preference must reduce school-running and congestion at the gates. And how do you distinguish those who played the system from those who moved because of work or because they could just afford better?