To think that siblings should not get priority when it comes to applying for secondary

[ReallyTired]

I think that sibling priority is essential at primary school level, but compeltely unnecessary at secondary school. My children will be at different schools as one will be at primary and one will be at secondary and I am sure we will cope.

Why is having two children at different secondaries any less doable than having a child at primary and a child at secondary? I find it unfair that a family can move into catchment of a top secondary, move out of area and still get sibbling priority. It is crazy that some children have to take a bus to school because they cannot get into the comprehensive that is walking distance of their house.

Secondary school children without special needs do not need mummy to take them to school. I feel that community secondary schools should just have a distance/ catchment criteria.

yanbu, I think we may be heading for 3 at 3 different secondaries, too, their choice.

I'm baffled by these areas without free transport, is the government site wrong or is there something I'm missing?

link

"All children between 5 and 16 qualify for free school transport if they go to their nearest suitable school and live at least:

2 miles from the school if they?re under 8
3 miles from the school if they?re 8 or older
Find details on free school transport from your local council.

If there?s no safe walking route, they must be given free transport, however far from school they live. Contact your local council if you think that the walk to school isn?t safe."

There are rules in relation to free school travel and our area works it from bus stop to bus stop so the fact that my dc had to walk a mile to get to the bus stop this end wasn't taken into account, at one school they also had a half mile walk at the far end too. If either of those distances were taken into account they would have qualified but the distance for the bus journey was 2.9 miles so they didn't however the full journey was 4.4 miles a bit too far to walk.

It is interesting what a council will consider a "safe" walking route IME!

I always say on admission threads if a family move further away from a school then they should loose their right to sibling priority. It would stop the short term renting one just make it more of a medium term one or push up the local house prices even further though.

In my area there are secondary schools that you cannot get to by public transport.
There are also not enough places on the school bus. So if your children went to different schools, how would you get them there?

I have had this situation - ds1 at one high school, ds2 at a different one (their choice) ad, had we not moved tomScotland, I would have had ds3 at a third school (he didn't pass high enough up the 11+) - that would have been three completely separate lots of uniform and sports kit.

In our case, I didn't ask for, or expect any sympathy, because it was our choice, but I would have been very pissed off to have been forced into that situation because the sibling rule had been abolished.

I have to say, though, other than the uniform cost issue, it wasn't a huge inconvenience. Ds1 was walking distance from school, so if the weather was very bad, I could drive ds2 - in fact, I could detour and drop ds1 off, if absolutely necessary. Parents' Evenings never clashed (luck or planning - I never knew). It might have been worse when ds3 went to secondary school, but at the point when we had two in different high schools and one still in primary, it seemed to work OK.

My sister and I never had uniform savings from going to the same high school. Shirts and trousers are cheap enough to buy new for each child and were worn til they fell apart anyway. Blazers were the big ticket uniform item but by the time I outgrew mine it was battered and a bit disgusting and my poor sister wouldn't have wanted it anyway!

I don't think sibling rule should have priority over distance and special needs/talents but it should be used to differentiate between otherwise equal kids, like both no special needs, both living in the catchment area, neither gifted and talented (academically, sports, music etc), but one has a sibling at the school the other doesn't then the one with sib should get the place

Oddboots ^All children between 5 and 16 qualify for free school transport if they go to their nearest suitable school and live at least:

2 miles from the school if they?re under 8
3 miles from the school if they?re 8 or older^

If they don't go to their nearest school because they were turned down for a place then the above does not apply. So they get you every which way.

FWIW my 4 DC went to 3 primary schools and 4 secondary schools between them. We had one year when all 4 were at the same school, and a few years where they were at 4 different schools (20 miles apart). We survived.

Different schools suit different children and siblings are different. I can't think of any school within a 15 mile radius that would have been right for both of ours. DS needed a sport heavy academic hothouse. DD needed somewhere small, gentle and nurturing. Our local comp(s) didn't offer curriculums that were acceptable to us at the time although I think there has been some improvement subsequently.

DS I suppose would have fared better at DD's but a convent wouldn't have had him. :)

Surely the old "don't have two plus if you can't cope" comes in here.

Every reason cited is convenient only. Not necessity.

no safe walking route generally means no footpath at all or having to cross an unmanned and ungated railway line, a slightly dodgy area not wanting to use an underpass would not count

tends only to apply rurally in countryside like the speed limit is 60mph with no footpath

the distance should be measured by the shortest possible walking route

we live in scotland we are 1.5 miles from nearest primary but will get free transport as half route from our house to outskirts of village has no footpath, secondary is 10 miles away so she will get school bus then too

some children live 35 miles away from the nearest secondary

That is such a simplistic thing to say, Duckydaddles - I didn't have a crystal ball when I had my children, so how was I supposed to know we would end up with three of them at different schools? What about the parent who would be able to cope easily when the sibling rule puts all their children in the same school, but who finds the rules changed between one child and the next - how were they supposed to know that would happen?

And when a school blazer costs £65, and sports kit can cost over £100, wanting to be able to pass some of it on is more than just mere convenience.

We live rurally. The secondary school is over 3 miles away, hence the children go on a school bus. There is no choice, because if they went somewhere else we would have to get them to school ourselves (we both work full time).
However, DS wasn't offered a place at this particular school and was offered one some distance away. The LA were going to arrange a taxi to take him there. Maybe counties which are more rural are more geared up to sorting out school transport.

Like everything in life it really isn't as easy as people make out.

I know several parents that will not allow their children to walk/get a bus home ever. I can see how removing the sibling rule would be better for the children.

However, I also know of parents that live several miles away from the nearest bus stop and for them it makes sense to have all the children at the same school (rural areas, no footpaths).

There is also the problem of cost of transport, although it is stated that pupils 16 and under will get free transport, this does not always happen.

I agree with OPs who have said siblings should get priority only if they still live in the catchment.

What if, due to family circumstances, they have had to move house, out of catchment?

Then it's harsh but it seems less harsh to me than children who live in the catchment being refused a place because children who don't live in the catchment anymore are given a place due to sibling rule.

Allowing for looked after children and those with special needs I'd prioritise siblings who live in catchment, then children who live in catchment without attending siblings, then children who don't live in catchment but have siblings at the school.

What do you class as catchment area though. We don't have official catchment areas where I live so how would you decide where catchment is?

We do Jacks so I guess people's answers on this thread are going to be influenced by the system where they live.

We have a complicated system of which two schools with availability are closest and if you are closer to your second one than someone else to their second they get the first and you get the second, its to try to limit everyones travelling distance. It's unfortunate for me that I live pretty much in between two and which one I would get would vary every year thankfully though I currently have none at secondary and when I next do she will be the only one. I don't think any system would be right for every area.

dackyduddies. We had no choice in the number of children. We had twins. So are you saying its just tough for them if they don't get into the same school?

And you cannot say it is just convenience reasons. There is cost involved in going to separate schools and some people cannot afford it

Just read something - so do people think that once at secondary (11+) children can be left unattended at home all day?
(I don't think I'd trust my 12 yo to do that - maybe I'm wrong?)
No issue for us - we are right on the boundary and have no real choice - nearest secondary is 11 miles away - a 30 min drive (60 mph twisty roads and 30mph villages) - 60% of the children are bussed in on school buses - there is public transport but infrequent if eg they miss the school bus they will be at least 2hrs late...
I think if spaces became limited our area would take priority at that school...
Having said that I think siblings should have priority - for the uniform etc but also so parents know the system and teachers etc...

Our dd was fine at home all day from about 12. Not five days a week between 12-14 and she does have an older brother (3.5 years) in and out. But utterly responsible and trustworthy.

Catchment areas are designed to prevent school black holes in rural areas. It ensures that there are enough places for those who HAVE to catch the bus to school

"And you cannot say it is just convenience reasons. There is cost involved in going to separate schools and some people cannot afford it"

There are costs when children are forced to travel by bus to secondary because they cannot get their nearest school. It is not just bus fares but time and the child getting tired as well. Obviously a child in a rural area will have no choice but to commute, but why force a child who lives near a school to commute? Siblings who live in catchment are likely to get a place anyway.

I think that citing costs of school uniform is lame reason for the sibling rule. If you have a son and a daughter then you will not be able to hand down blazers and PE kit. Given how my son treats his school uniform I doult that my daughter will get many hand me downs.

The cost of school uniform is not that high. It costs £200 (brand new) to kit out ds for his secondary school. The school has a second hand shop and we have had six months to save up.

Really tired. It is not just uniform costs though. Different days off mean that parents need to take more days holiday or unpaid leave.

And to say the cost of uniform is not that high is a slap in the face to some. You may have £200 just laying around but a lot won't.