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 hear what people are saying about siblings when they don't live in the catchment area any more, but it is very difficult to change schools for some children and sometimes impossible for parents to be in two or three places at the same time... Sometimes they need the place exactly because they are not in the catchment area anymore and the school run can be a nightmare.

Quite right Sholes. If you can't be in 2 places move the elder.

am I right to think that catchment areas don't exist anymore, it's more like a general "distance from school" rule? Or did I dream that?

Non-catchment siblings getting into a school with priority over catchment children makes a mockery of the catchment system and leaves it open to abuse.

So pleased to have moved out of London before the whole primary school places became an issue for us.

You can argue all you like, but if you go to the education office the criteria is very clearly set out for all to see.

The education office will also have a map.

They will also, no doubt, have a crow.

There is no "catchment" as such in our school. Siblings then closest first. How on earth would you manage primary aged siblings at different schools with teh same start time?

That is your problem-the risk you take.

"I aways thought it was unfair tbh, as It does stop a lot of children getting their school of choice"

Um... surely it just stops different children getting their school of choice if you don't have the sibling rule.

If you have 90 children applying for 60 places then 30 children will be not getting their school of choice however you arrange it.

I think it would be reasonable to have a limit as to how far the sibling rule applies, but not sure how far would be reasonable-maybe twice the non-sibling area or something.

I think the sibling rule is very fair. It is impossible for many people to get two children to different schools at the same time.

As for just move the older child, it would be unfair to disrupt them and besides, their might not be any spaces available.

Your LEA will tell you their criteria. You might be lucky, like Kewcumber, but hers is rare. You can moan-it doesn't change things and being in 2places at once isn't their problem-the risk was yours. Harsh but true. There is no doubt people would rent, get the eldest in and move-people go to great lengths to get a good school.

I'm in NI and my dd1 primary school (faith) works on parish catchment area then siblings at school. I have just spent the past few weeks in a blind panic incase dd2 didn't get in. We are not in the parish although attend the chapel, have dc3 baptised there etc.

We heard today she got in but I think we were exceptionally lucky. When dd1 applied for the school 3 years ago they were giving places away.

Of course it is unfair to move the eldest but it is your problem. The criteria is set. I t is up to you to weigh the risk.

It sounds sensible to me. Having kids unnecessarily at different schools is daft. Here in Scotland the catchment area is king though.

It wasn't lucky for me! DS is an only - in his year 17 of the 30 places were taken by siblings, remaining places were taken by people living no further than 900m away!

I refer you to my post upthread - 24 siblings and approx 130m! It's madness!

I think the sibling rule fair. it makes sense. How can you get 2 young children to school by 9am if you have to take them to 2 schools far apart?

And what if you have to move out of catchment because of circumstances (divorce?) and not because you rented a house just to get into a school?
Surely it wouldn't be fair to unsettle a child even further by making them move to a younger siblings school as they had to move out of catchment?

Our three local primary schools are all faith schools, and all of them place faith/active church involvement above everything which results in lots of split families. The appeals stats documented by the local LEA are just staggering! The only schools I can really judge against were the village primary and large rural comp I went to and both put siblings over anything else. It bothers me that educating siblings together isn't a priority around here, but what can I do? It isn't even catchment around here, as it is such a low priority. So it's a matter of playing the game to get into one of the local schools or end up having to send my child to a school miles away from our home, both our workplaces and all their friends. None of these options sit that well with me.

I think having kids at different schools would make it too hard for too many parents, it wouldn't be sustainable.

exexe, it is going to be unfair to someone no matter what, whichever system you pick.

Not sure about the rationale that it's hard to get children to different schools as a basis for selection by sibling. If only single sex schools were available, or were what a parent wanted, i.e. the best, then such difficulties wouldn't be part of the objections.

Sibling priority is unfair. So someone unfortunate enough to be first-born is put second? The needs of the child, not the convenience of the parents are paramount.

The needs of the child, not the convenience of the parents are paramount

The needs of the kids are all equal, so you drop down to the next selection criteria....

No, not all have equal needs. SN children, get priority in some schools, certainly in the one my DD would have gone to in the UK.

Every family has a first born. The needs of the first born child will be met, as they will receive a school place somewhere, even if it isn't the parents first choice.