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.

"The same mums moaning about it would soon moan if they had another child and didn't get into the same school as their first born."

You got there first, DontHaveAtv. Add to that the suggestion that those moaning mothers try getting Peter to school A at 9am and Paul to school B, three miles down the road.

At 9am. And remember that not everyone is fortunate to have a car. So, the siblings system seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Our area does siblings even if they have moved out of catchment. I struggle with that one. I can see that is hard for siblings to move schools, but at the same time there is a big problem round by us with people who move into the tiny two bedders round the couple of best schools, move as soon as DC1 is in, then the people who buy those houses can't get a place at a school anywhere near them. Not helped by the London baby boom....

It is a primary school. The school does not differentiate between siblings in cathment or those that aren't, all siblings admitted. To try to prevent 'grannying' (those using grandparents address) those applying for the first time must also submit 2 forms of proof of address, one being a uitility bill.

The primary schools nearest me apply similar criteria to those MrsCarriePooter mentions. We had situations where children living two streets away were unable to gain a place at the village school, yet those several miles away (with plenty of other schools nearer by) were able to get in because of their siblings, so the rules were changed to address this.

People were buying small houses for a year or two, getting their first child into the school, then fucking off elsewhere safe in the knowledge that their other children would be fine.

Siblings should have no priority at all come Seconday however.

I don't think it should apply if you then move out of the catchment area really and thought that was the case now in quite a lot of areas.

These same people would surely be complaining if they had any other children later on who then couldn't go to the same school as their sibling and their school run journey became an utter nightmare due to this.

I think this is the fairest way of doing things and no, you shouldn't feel guilty! Mind you, my eldest was confirmed her place weeks ago (just had to email/write back confirming that yes, I did want her to go to the chosen school) so I suppose I would say that. Sooooo glad I no longer live where I used to (Watford) as I there's a chance I'd be feeling pretty cheesed off right now with the whole school place thing.

I support sibling priority, but I think there is a problem in some schools where people move away after DC1 is in, and the distant siblings take priority over local families, leading to ever-shrinking admissions footprints and more families in the black holes where they get no school offer at all.

I'd give perpetual sibling priority only to siblings of families still resident at the same address as they did when DC1 admitted (or another address closer to the school). I would also establish a "siblings catchment" to about the 2mile free-transport limit, and still give priority in that radius. But no sibling priority to those who moved further away.

Around here it works as AnnaFender said.

My eldest joined an out of catchment school half way through primary. My youngest didn't get in at reception as he was a sibling out of catchment and came after the catchment children.

It seems as good a reason as any other TBH.

Fair enough, I have heard of people not being given places at preference for above reason. I think that is fairer because it doesn't seem fair having in catchment children having to travel really far because out of catchment siblings are getting in.

I am always surprised at how many people drive to DD's oversubscribed primary based on the tiny catchment area!

I think that siblings who live out of catchment should come below firstborns who live within catchment but above firstborns who live outside catchment (as Anna describes).

However that is not the system with our (notoriously oversubscribed) local primaries. Our local schools put siblings out of catchment ahead of nonsiblings in catchment.

This means it is perfectly possible (and frequent) for a parent to live very briefly in "prime" catchment to ensure they get their first child in, then move 1 year later to somewhere cheaper/easier to find a property, and get successive children in anyway.

Meanwhile those living long term on the edges of catchment stand no chance of getting their eldest in (or any other DCs) because so many places are taken by siblings.

It's the most sensible idea.

Imagine having 2 or 3 or 4 children at different schools, having to be dropped off and picked up at the same time.

How is that possible?

Getting one child to a school is easier than getting several children to several schools.

I'm not convinced on siblings whose families have moved further away either. If you want your kids to all go to the same school, don't move (or accept that it will scupper your chances). People should be able to go to their nearest school.

The biggest problem with school admissions in England is that it creates all sorts of 'black holes' where kids can't get into any local school at all because they fail to meet incredibly tight distance criteria, so they end up with a school on the other side of the city. As the extract distance criteria vary every year, you can't ever be certain you'll be ok. That's just utterly stupid, and creates anxiety followed by resentment among parents.

Believe me, exactly the same happens with secondary schools (buying or renting in catchment then moving away after first child in), with extraordinary consequences. For eg. my two closest secondary schools are co-ed and as I have a girl and a boy, they would be perfect for me. But no, I will be sending them to single sex secondaries in the next borough because despite being close to both schools they are both oversubscribed to the point of insanity.

I think its fair, you cant be in two places at once.

I agree too that those with 1 child who dont like it will love it understand why it makes sense when they have 2..3 etc DCs!

I have one child and she will never have siblings, but I can see the sense in the sibling allowance, after all, what are parents going to do? Schlep one across one side of town and potentially another over the other?

I'm sure if my child has to go to a shit school because of this specific rule I will have a different opinion

Watneyshed That is what goes on here and I find that maddening. We have moved house whilst DC1 has been in the school but have stayed in the catchment area (we live even closer to the school in fact). My opinion would be that it is those types who are really out of order.

Sadly siblings do not get priority at DS1's school. I think it's the same order of priority that Anna listed. DS2 has been turned down for a place there in September. Am going to appeal but don't stand much of a chance as having a sibling in the school is apparently not a ground for appeal :(

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.

that does seem illogical.

IMO, siblings policy for primary schools is simple pragmatism.

For secondary - NT children can usually get to school themselves one way or another. Most(all?) schools have as a high priority 'Children with special medical or social circumstances affecting the child where these
needs can only be met at this school.
Professional supporting evidence from, for example, a doctor, psychologist, or social worker,
is essential if admission is to be made under the criterion for special medical or social
circumstances, and such evidence must set out the particular reasons why the school in
question is the most suitable school and the difficulties which would be caused if the child
had to attend another school.' - I'd hope (though unfortunately probably will be told otherwise) 'social circumstances' would include impossibility of travellign elsewhere.

Our local school don't seem to have the sibling rule at all, I think it's a sensible rule to say that it makes sense for kids to go to the same schools as their siblings. Of course the obvious solution is for all schools to be of an equally good standard and then there wouldn't be all this argument in the first place. A small village near here has a very small local school. There are only spaces for about 12 children per school year. This was perfectly adequate until a few years ago when a developer built on some fields in the middle of the village. The entry requirements now are based firstly on proximity to the school, which means that people who have lived in the village for years, and have older children in the school now cannot get places for younger siblings due to the new houses being built between them and the school. This has resuted in a fair few (% wise) having to transport children to 2 different schools at least 8 miles apart - not really practical is it? Why the council didn't take this into account when allowing these homes to be built is beyond me, why couldn't they have built an extra classroom at the same time??

re parents who move later on, perhaps it might be fairer to say that their children have to transfer to the other school? But several children at different schools is daft and unworkable.

That's silly. It's not discrimination. Every family has an only child/first child at some point so everyone struggles with this in the same way (unless twins, obviously).

our school did not used to have a siblings policy but they have had to introduce one. It's the one bit of the system that I think is sane - children go to the same school as siblings, families get continuity, practical benefits of not running across town to deliver 2 children to 2 different places aat the same start time etc etc.

I think this is a real GOI (get over it )

How can it be discrimination? The first child would have had to get in under the 'unfavourable' criteria.

Makes no difference at our local school, it is distance from school purely. Im in Scotland though.

If you move, or apply to a school that isn't your nearest, you shouldn't expect your second or third child to get first dibs. It's a risk you take.