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'm in Scotland and for us it's :-

Catchment children.
Out of catchment with a sibling already at the school
Out of catchment, whoever is nearest gets priority.

I had to apply for both of my girls. We are literly 4 doors out of catchment, school is 5 mins walk away, can see it from our house but our catchment school is over 20mins walk away and you have to cross a main road.

So even though we're out of catchment my children go to the nearest school to our house. Also being in the school nursery doesn't give you any more priority either.

My twins nursey is oversucscribed - reception told me today she has 5 'unborn' children on the waiting list ;)

We have cared for children (including traveler children we get a fair few near us - they stay just long enough for the boys to make friends then they move on :(

multiples

date of birth

distance from nursery

DD went there - made NO difference :(

They scraped in at 3 simply as they were twins - they will go full time in sep - because they are twins - out of the 20 places available in september for 'full timers' 8 are taken by twins. Some with prescident over current part-timers. It does not sit well with the other parents.

I think that it quite fair, they shouldn't expect to come above those in the catchment area or looked after children.

I also think it depends upon how big the catchment is. For example, many schools have a catchment area that is quite large, but the reality is that with oversubscribed schools, it is only if you live within a few streets that you are assured of getting in.

Siblings living a mile away may get in over first born children living a few streets away - but that it because they still fall into the school catchment.

Most catchment areas overlap considerably.

Are you suggesting that first born children should get into an oversubscribed school even though siblings live further away - but are still part of the catchment?

This applies to both Primary and Secondary schools BTW.

Our area goes by catchment children, special needs/looked after children and siblings come last. One year none of the siblings in Dd's nursery class got in and quite a few older siblings left the school. Then 3 years later numerous siblings didn't get in and so one mum took them to one school and 2 mums did the younger ones. They all got a place by p3.

But if I was catchment and didn't get a place I would be annoyed too.

Makes sense to me.

Beat this for over subscription - a standard 30 pupil, single form intake has this year had 24 siblings and one looked-after child, leaving just 5 non sibling places, and additionally 2 of those places went to twins who are apparently given priority in our area over other children in the same category not just of they are child 30 and 31 where there would be an understandable exception. So in effect there were actually just THREE non sibling places in my school this year - it's ludicrous. From speaking to friends who didn't get first borns in we think that the effective catchment this year for non siblings was about 130 metres. My friend is only 100m from the back gate entrance to the school but because the measure point is the front gate she's screwed as the sports field lies between our street and the school building and her measured distance is about 190m. Our two or three streets have been enormously disadvantaged by moving to straight line distance from shortest safe route which went to the back gate in all previous years compared to those on the front gate side of school this year. As a result instead of going to a school she can walk to in three minutes (we've timed it) she now faces a two mile drive each way twice a day. And she's not even number one on the list, we think there are two other children even closer who didn't get in. It's maddening!

That twins thing is mad Sparkle. That's effectively saying twins have more right to their preferred school than other children isn't it?

I was once in a ballot at school for places on a popular trip. The PE teacher - who was married to the sodding maths teacher- explained that they had decided it would be unfair on the two sets of twins if only one twin got to go, so they have put each pair of twins' names in twice. I was 13, it still annoys me and even then I knew the maths was dodgy!

This happened a lot when I lived in a large new housing estate in South Glos./North Bristol. There were 4 primary schools that served the estate and all their 'catchment's' overlapped so everyone living in the estate was within the catchment of all 4 schools.

2 of the schools were the bottom of a list of 73 schools in the LEA league table, the other 2 schools were within the top 20 of the LEA league table.

Everyone wanted the top 2 schools, Utterly nobody (with any sense) wanted the bottom 2 schools. There was so many young children (being a new housing estate) that the schools were extremely oversubscribed.

For the top 2 schools the LEA had to come out and measure to the nearest metre which child's home was closest. Every year they had to come out and measure with a contraption. They worked on the distance from front door of the school to the home but would take into account official and recognised footpaths as well as driving routes.

In 2007, one of the top schools had only 5 non sibling places out of 30. Most of the siblings lived further away than our first born child, but did live within the new housing estate so were officially within catchment.

Our school changed the sibling rule recently after many problems, now it goes

children in care
siblings in catchment
catchment
siblings out of catchment
other children out of catchment

There seems to be much fairer placements since the change, but I suppose it never pleases everyone!!

No catchment here at over-subscribed school, sibs get priority even if live 20 miles away. That twins thing is so wrong! It is right if they are 30 and 31st but wrong to go to the top of the list!

Babylon - pre-school/school nursery places shouldn't affect reception places at community state schools in England afaik. If it does - complain!

DC3 only got a primary place because of DC1 and DC2. We're catchment, and it's only in-catchment siblings who have priority.

I have a friend who was in Australia for a year whilst her husband was on sabbatical. They knew when the sabbatical was due to end and it could be verified by the University. They were renting out their property in the home town and the occupants had a contract with definite dates, but the LA wouldn't allow them a place at the primary for their daughter. Consequently, my friend spent one year with her children at three different schools (two primaries and one nursery) and the subsequent six years with the children at two. Possible, but hellish.

My friend who was forced to go to the local catholic school is losing sleep over this - they don't have sibling priority, Catholic children from anywhere in the city trump siblings of existing pupils. Several families have had to move existing older DC out of the school into the school of DC2 because they can't be in two places at once at 9am.

Not all schools do it this way. DS is at a school that prioritise catchment children over out of area siblings. Plenty of whining there too. I guess over subscribed school just can't win. Every parents thinks their lil darling is the most worthy of a place.

Each school sets its own criteria. Most school in this area gives priority to siblings in catchment, catchment children then siblings out of catchment. This has resulted in some out of catchment siblings not getting a place at the schools their older siblings go to in the over subscribed schools.

Our school does catchment over non-catchment siblings. One family has her Year 3 DD at our school and Reception DS at the next school along. She's lucky in a way, as normally it's oversubscribed too.

If you choose to send your child to a school you're not in catchment for, or move once your first child/ren is/are in school, then you should understand there's a risk you might not get subsequent children in.

A policy favouring catchment children, with or without siblings, over siblings of out of catchment children in the fairest approach.

Maybe they could introduce a system that means you have to give up your place and move your child's school if you move out of catchment?

That is how it works where I live in California. If you send your child to the local school and then move house your child may have to move schools at the end of the year. Helps stop people renting a flat for a couple of months before school starts. You also have to show papers such as a recent utility bill. Of course it doesn't stop someone offering to pay grammas bill for a while.

I think the sibling rule is totally fair and right. Of course children should be able to go to the same school as their siblings.

School involves the whole family, not just the one child. Of course it's right to admit in-catchment siblings as one of the main priorities.

But not above those in the catchment area. It is a risk you run if you send out of the catchment.

I think once a child has a school place their siblings should have a place even if you move out of catchment. It would be tantamount to saying 'You cannot move house' or 'if you have to move, tough, you lose your school place' otherwise.

Common sense should prevail over absolute fairness , imo.

What's the point of having a catchment area if you allow out of catchment children's siblings into the school? If you subsequently move, it's a risk you take on whether siblings subsequently get in.

Older siblings can move to younger siblings school. I know plenty who have moved that way.

Parents would abuse the system for a good school. Luckily it doesn't allow them to jump the queue. Catchment comes first. It is a risk-you have to work out if it is worth it.