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 should be annoying is not those who have moved out....what about those who move in just to get the catchment area?! Those are the ones you should be annoyed with. For all mothers with first borns going into school, how would you feel if YOU had to put your "imaginary 2nd child" into a differnt school? Let's see how you're gonna do drop off at the same time. There is no ideal solution. Just a system which has worked for many years, so far. Deal with it.

The sibling rule has long gone in schools round here. Partly because there was no satisfactory way of defining a sibling. ( Two parents in common? One parent in common? Under the same roof a minimum of 4 nights a week? What if you are siblings but live in different households and don't have any contact?)

it is an out dated rule, and is being phased out very fast.

Wow, I'm glad I moved to Scotland! What a headache it must be. Here you have to enrol into your catchment school and then put in a placing request if it's not the school you want your child to goto. We also moved 2 weeks after I enrolled DC2 and all I had to do was fill out a 'right or remain in the school' form for both kids. DC2s intake was 39 kids which is the most the school has had in years. It's 39 again for this August! Largely due to a new housing estate and another school that imo is really over subscribed!

I think the schools all over the country should operate the same system as they do in Scotland all children within a certain catchment are zoned to the local school within reason it tries to accommodate sibling links. It stops people monopolising places if you live outside the catchment area. And it's fair for everyone. Unless there is a special reason which should be considered.

What tickles me is that I bet these parents of a firstborn/only child who think sibling priority is 'unfair' are the same ones who want their child to go to the same school as his/her friends from nursery. But they're fine with splitting up young children from their siblings? They like the idea of someone else's four-year-old DC2/3 having to go to a different school from their sister/brother in year 2?

We have just got DD1 into an excellent school some distance away (9 miles) we are very rural though so there are only 3 schools closer.

Sibling priority played a huge part in this decision as siblings have priority over distance so we know that DD2, DC3 and a possible DC4 will follow getting priority over a child living next to the school.

Without that priority I think we would have chosen our village school.

It doesn't seem fair to give siblings out of catchment preference over catchment children in oversubscribed areas.

Sibling priority played a huge part in this decision as siblings have priority over distance so we know that DD2, DC3 and a possible DC4 will follow getting priority over a child living next to the school.

That could change if a large housing development is built or if there is a high birth rate one year, they could change the priority if this happens to catchment kids if catchment kids end up having to travel 9 miles to your school because the schools in between are full, what if the parents can't drive so can't get them to a school further out than their catchment school because your DCs 9 miles away are in before them in their catchment school? There is a chance you might not get siblings in if they change the preferences like other schools are staring to do

SpinDoctorOfAethelred i done exactly that and at the time didn't think about what would happen if i couldn't get siblings in, i wrongly assumed if DC1 goes DC2 goes, i didn't read the criteria's but realised after talking to people in the yard when she first started that living outside the catchment there was a good chance i wouldn't get dc2 in due to catchment kids first and a few other people not getting a sibling place having kids at 2 schools. I should have checked before i applied and spent a few month's panicking what would happen if i got 3rd choice which was a long way from my house. I did look into moving Dc1 back to catchment and putting that as dc 2s first choice, checked but there were no places there either as it was oversubscribed so i just had to hope i got in, if i hadn't i would have had to take them both and put them in 3rd choice school or try and do 2 school runs in the opposite directions. I should have just applied to catchment school to save the stress of waiting for her place. if it had of been out of catchment siblings first then i would have had problems with the other parents and my Dc taking their Dcs space as that year they were way over on applications. DC2 would have rather went to catchment school as well where all her friends went

I think sibling priority within the catchment area makes sense. Siblings who live out of catchment should not get priority.

As far as possible, children should be able to go to their local school. I think it's wrong if places are blocked by siblings who live further away. Yes, it's a hassle to get your kids to two or more different schools in the morning, but surely that's the price you pay for choosing a school out of catchment? It's a risk you choose to take.

Kampeki, how would you suggest "sibling" is defined?

Sorry, I don't understand the question Charis. My comment applies to full siblings, half siblings, step siblings, whatever.

If you choose to send your older children to a school outside the catchment, then I think you should accept that there is a risk that siblings - of any definition - may not get a place at the same school.

one of the reasons this criteria is being abandoned, Kampeki, is because no one can define " sibling" satisfactorily.

You say you would include step siblings, and half siblings. Many step siblings and half siblings never meet, and may in fact not be aware of each other's existence. Some meet occasionally, and are vaguely aware of each other. Some stay overnight together every other weekend. Some might see each other twice a week,

Where do you draw the line?

It's very difficult to work out the fairest system. The changes in our area (mentioned above - removing sibling priority for any child more than 1.5 miles away or not nearest school) are clearly intended to try to make people attend their nearest school.

In the long-term, there are advantages to that, but the layout of our area (small city surrounded by multiple small villages and hamlets and a couple of bigger places with schools) means that there will be some areas where families will never be able to plan properly.

e.g. there is a large village a few miles from us where the school has become oversubscribed in the last 3 or 4 years, due to new houses and increased popularity, i.e. children who would traditionally have travelled to another school only slightly further away are now going to the improved local school. This means that children living in the countryside around the village haven't got places and have been allocated other schools much further away. Now that they've lost their sibling priority, child one might be allocated a school they don't particularly want several miles away, and they won't even have the certainty of knowing they can get their other children into the same school, because they'll have no sibling priority there due to it not being their nearest school, and the younger children won't have a sibling at their local school to bump them up a priority level.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but the current changes have unfairly penalised people who live fairly close to popular schools, but not right on the doorstep in overpriced houses.

If we had a third child, we might well find ourself in this situation. DC2 at DS1's current school (sibling priority maintained for siblings of children offered places before that change, but only as long as THAT sibling remains there) but no priority for hypothetical DC3 who also won't be close enough to get into our oversubscribed local school. I'm fairly sure I know which school we'd get into and it would be about 4 miles away in the opposite direction to DC2's school, and a couple of miles away from the secondary that DS1 is likely to get into.

Chairs you are wrong. In fact qualification under the sibling rule is very clearly and simply defined - if the child is a permanent resident of the same household. It has to be their main address. Yes you have half siblings who have never met but they would not be applying from the same address.

NynaeveSister, I am not wrong, it is not clearly defined at all. This is the reason why my school, and others locally have abandoned this criteria.

What if both children are there 50% of the time, but not the same 50% of the time. do they have to overlap by 10%? 20%? 70%? What if two totally unrelated children are resident at the same address? What if the children are cousins that live at the same address? What if they are cousins that live together 10% of the time? 50% of the time? 80% of the time? What if they come from a culture that does not differentiate between cousin, and sibling? What if they are second cousins? What if the child does not have a main address, many don't, they are in shared custody arrangements, or kinship fostering, formal or informal.

There is no way of drawing a line. That is partly why the criteria has been abandoned wherre I work.

How long do they have to have been at the same address? two weeks? two months? how long do they have to stay at the same address? Hw long do their parents need to have been together, in the case of "step children" two weeks? two months? do they need to be engaged? do they need to be married? can the father still have his own address somewhere else as well?

The list of questions just goes on and on and on. There is no way of defining "sibling"

Even if they are full blood siblings sharing both parents, they might not live together.

I have always had two children at different schools. Youngest is in Year 3. Plus I commute for work. No nanny or au-pair. So absolutely doable and I don't buy all this moaning about how impossible it is. Not easy or ideal - but it is possible.

I do agree that it is not fair to give siblings priority if the family is no longer in the catchment. In my area, there is a very popular school (with massive house prices around it) - when we bought ours, an identical house just 1 mile away was about 70K cheaper. So the plan for many parents is to buy the house in catchment, get the oldest child into the school and then move away/

How about instead of scrapping the sibling rule, every child is automatically allocated their closest school (like the Scottish system). Siblings automatically go to the same school. Now that would be really controversial...

(I agree Charis1 the definition of sibling needs a little work but I am sure we can sort that out).

I think it is the whole notion of choosing a school, like you might choose a new car, that has skewed things up. Schools don't seem to be a shared community asset anymore.

Whilst I'm at it, I'd also scrap faith schools ... (runs and hides)

I can understand it at primary but not secondary. My brother, sister and I went to different senior schools, all had to catch two buses, I had the longest journey and needed to get the bus at 7.50 and got home about 5. Never though anything of it, in fact the bus journey was the best part of the day.

I wonder if people ever lose money by buying near a school and planning to move? This crossed my mind as 4 years ago my DS and DDIL were hopping mad that they couldn't get a place at nearest school when they moved after original allocations but before September, which was also even nearer to me to handy for granny pickupts. My neighbour got her child in and she had moved in the same month but obviously she was closer.

I volunteer at DGCs school and when I was there yesterday there was a new child in my DGSs class. She came from the school they couldn't get DGS into. I was chatting to her while we sorted out her books and she said she was one of three children from that school who had started at the school that week. I aksed my neighbour what was going on and apparently they have gone from outstanding to bordering on special measures in 4 years. This seems to be due to a new HT.

Not sure if house prices have been affected yet, maybe not due to catching ment senior school but it does show how things can change.

Catchment not catching ment. I can't even blame autocorrect, maybe it is dementia! I do seem to be having more problems with typing, I'm hoping it is just because my fingers have a mind of their own and it doesn't always agree with the one in my head.

It is usually defined as children who live in the same house as part of the same family for the majority of week days (to allow for the fact that some children split their weeks between homes - it is only week days that count).
There is no limit how long a family have been together and of course no need for parents to be married.

And if the "family" got together 48 hours before submitting the application? And if the children spend exactly 2.5 week days together? And if the partners are estranged but still living under the same roof - (very common indeed) and if the children are on two sides of the estrangemnt and forbidden from having contact with each other? And if the" family" is a fluid unit spread over three or four addresses, very common in some cultures.We gave up in the end. Every single definition we came up with had 10-15 families querieng it and attempting appeals based on challenging it every year.

People who move out of catchment after getting their first child in shouldn't get priority. Sibling priority only for siblings within catchment. If it's so important to keep your kids together, don't move away. Should be flexibility where people haven't moved but the catchment has, though. (In my county, catchment alters depending on no. of siblings and location of children applying, and has also changed from walking route to as crow flies.)