...to be so angry and upset by this unfair school admissions policy?

[SchoolFury]

(Have namechanged as this is quite identifiable)

My DD just turned 4 in September, so is due to start Reception next year. Since Jan this year she has been at a preschool (nursery) which is part of a primary school.

It is our nearest school, and the only one for which we are in the 'priority area'. We actually moved to this flat in 2013 in large part because we loved the school so much

It's a non-denominational, community state primary school. We are in a part of London with a lot of faith schools (Jewish, Catholic, CofE) and we are a mixed Jewish/Christian secular family, so faith schools not for us. It's also got an Ofsted '1' (outstanding) in last inspection, though that is less important than the wonderful atmosphere, the sense of community and the fact that my daughter is really thriving in the preschool.

Under normal admissions rules, my daughter would be very likely to get a place there for Reception based on distance - we live less than 0.2 miles from the school. HOWEVER, last year the school decided to take a 'bulge' class, i.e. take 60 pupils in reception instead of 30. They took from a much wider area - up to 0.5 miles from the school - usually the limit is less than 0.3.

This means that siblings of those in the 'bulge' class will get offered places next year ahead of my daughter, and others in her nursery class who live closer, but do not have siblings at the school. I know personally of two families with one child in current reception, with a sibling a year younger, who will therefore get offered places ahead of my daughter even though they live much further away.

I am really distressed by this. The only other nearby school is a failing school (Ofsted rating 3) - not the end of the world, but we are not even in the priority area for it (very near, but wrong side of the road) so we may not even get a place there . And my daughter is so happy in preschool and has lots of good friends and good relationships with the teachers.

If my daughter had been a week older she would have started reception this year and would have got a place for definite. As it is, she almost certainly won't get a place, instead children living much further away will get priority for no reason other than the 'bulge' class taken this year. I have been told there is no chance of them taking another bulge class this year - so what's the point?

AIBU to feel really upset, resentful towards those who have got in this year, and most of all angry with the school for making this decision, which seems really short sighted and unfair on children in subsequent years?

His gender is irrelevant (it's others who've "met" him on many other threads who are expressing surprise at his being male). Tiggytape and panelmember (female I believe, although I may be wrong. It doesn't matter anyway) are also extremely knowledgeable on this whole subject.

Anyway, I'm sure they don't need or want my chipping in on their behalf. From all I have ever seen them post, they're rational and measured and do not get involved in spats.

Sorry, missed out admissions there!

Very few dc who got in this year will already have siblings coming in the next school year surely?

Our fear tiggytape. Our local school had a bulge entry this year so we're potentially buggered in 2016, despite being around 0.1 miles from the school gate. This area is so highly populated with young families and I've been blown away by how far the catchment went this year.

Yes, male I'm afraid. I tend not to refer to my gender when posting unless it is relevant, which it isn't on education related threads. Occasionally, on other subjects, I will make a point of mentioning my gender if I think it is important for others to be aware that I am commenting from a male perspective. And anyone who PMs me finds out immediately as I sign replies with my real first name.

As for whether I wear a nicely accessorised grey suit and have a sharp bob - absolutely no comment!

Thanks for all the nice comments.

clam, tiggy, I have no issue with either prh's gender or his expertise (although I, too, assumed he was a woman, if quite a Mycroftish woman...). I also had no problem with my own interactions with him, as you cam see for yourself. What I object entirely to is clam's "sit down and let the real expert talk to you, your lived experience is worthless" attitude. It's a really, really common way in which women's knowledge - real world knowledge - is dismissed.

Fwiw, our local RC school, takes children in order, taken from their website...

1. Catholic children who are in the care of a Local Authority.
2. Catholic children who attend a Catholic Primary School.
3. Catholic children who attend another Primary School.
4. Other children who are in the care of a Local Authority.
5. Children who are baptised or dedicated members of other Christian Churches as recognised by Churches Together in England (see note 4) and attend a Catholic Primary School.
6. Children of other Faith traditions (not included in 5 above), who attend a Catholic Primary School.
7. Children who are baptised or dedicated members of other Christian Churches as recognised by Churches Together in England (see note 4) and do not attend a Catholic Primary School.
8. Children of other Faith traditions (not included in 5 above), who do not attend a Catholic Primary School.
9. Other children who attend a Catholic Primary School.
10. Other children who do not attend a Catholic Primary School.

I know children who are not catholic but are practising other faiths who are at this school.

They are always oversubscribed as they had an outstanding ofsted rating in all sections, it really is a fabulous school. However, there aren't enough catholic children in our town to fill it.

Please please do not turn this into a gender argument. Prh, Tiggy , admissions, panel member etc put hours of help and free expertise and advice into the education boards. It's invaluable. I have passed the stuff I have learnt onto lots of friends etc I went into the whole admissions thing really really well informed too and yes I breathed a huge sigh of relief as we got a school we wanted and sibling will follow. Do we really care what gender such helpful people are ????

What doodledot said.

I have learned loads from reading the secondary education section which meant I was informed when making decisions for our dc.

Did you miss the post where I already said I don't have any problem with prh's gender, expertise, or exchanges on this thread with me?

What I do have a problem with is being told (in this case by clam) my own experience is irrelevant. Which is, whether you like it or not, very often a gendered thing.

Sorry archery wasn't directed at you per se - just a shame when lively topical interesting and sometimes heated threads spiral off on a tangent. Interesting aspect on RC schools btw

OK, fair enough Doodledot, thanks for clarifying.

One of my local RC schools would love to take more non-RC children, or to list a certain C of E school as a feeder, but the Diocese insists it prioritises RC schools.

In the US, there are a lot of RC schools, they are private but relatively low fees. I think if the religious selection was banned that is what would happen in the UK.
With C of E schools I think they would just lose extra funding, as on the whole the Diocese doesn't insist on religious selection and often encourages "community" places. But without C of E influence some donors might stop.
In my experience that 10% or building costs for C of E rarely comes much from the Diocese (as they are cash strapped as it is) but is usually raised by fund raising by the school etc.

22% of state schools are CofE and 10% are RC - so quite a large proportion of all schools and definitely enough to skew catchments, especially where faith schools exist in a particular concentration.

PRH, you raised an interesting point about the views of RC schools to non-faith children compared to the views of CofE ones - I'll admit that I have very little experience of RC schools (knowing there is absolutely zero point in trying to get my son into one) - plus I come from a country where all faith schools are fee-paying, often subsidised by the relevant church.

But what would the options be for the Catholic church if the state said 'ok, not more religious discrimination against five year olds'? 1 - go fee paying, and probably have to find significant church funds to subsidise Catholic education. 2 - Pack up their toys and go home, having decided that a Catholic education is not important for English children. 3 - be pragmatic

10% is a large number of schools so obviously it's an issue, but an interesting one and I don't think it should preclude proper consideration of the option - I know there are many who would be quite happy to see a hit to the public balance sheet in the short term (ie through compulsorily acquiring the premises of RC schools that didn't wish to continue providing a state education) if it meant breaking the church strangehold on school places in many areas.

I don't get the feeling that the CofE would be quite so entrenched - particuarly with Archdiosceses encouraging and pushing schools to be more inclusive in admissions, which the individual schools are resisting because it would change the character and majority class of their intake.

Catholic options under your point (2) also include "switch to a system of Saturday catechism classes for Catholic children" -- which is already the approach for Catholic children who are not attending Catholic schools but who are preparing to receive sacraments. The obligation is to provide them with a Catholic education, not necessarily to provide that through the medium of schools.

(bear in mind that under your point (3) there would be lots of Catholic children who were no longer getting into Catholic schools so they'd have to massively ramp up their catechism classes anyway to do that -- cheaper probably then to do away with involvement in / financial contribution towards the schools and focus on the classes)

OP - the Jewish school criteria seem eminently reasonable. No flower arranging, no baptism, just a matter of either being a member or turning up to the odd religious service. I appreciate you may have found this out a bit late, but it's scarcely social engineering or forcing you to sell your soul to the shul. And it's not even confined to Jews!

"What I do have a problem with is being told (in this case by clam) my own experience is irrelevant. Which is, whether you like it or not, very often a gendered thing."

At no point did I say your experience was irrelevant. You are reading things into what was written. And it could only be a "gendered thing" if I were male - which I'm not. I don't understand why you keep mentioning gender, to be honest.

The only issue here is that you were telling prh (in this instance) that he was wrong, whereby many of us on these boards know that he is extremely unlikely to be. So I pointed that out to you, as in fact you were the one who was discounting his opinions.

Nothing whatsoever to do with gender.

Just checking are you actually serious jassy in suggesting

compulsorily acquiring the premises of RC schools that didn't wish to continue providing a state education

That would certainly be an interesting use of a compulsory purchase order.

You do realise that the government would still have to pay for the land don't you? It wouldn't be free. Oh and the cost of legal fees fighting the CPO, and the cost of relocating and compensating the owners of the land.

Would you extend that to Muslim and Jewish schools too?

Are you generally quite fascist?

Yes, I am. It would be a judgement call whether to do compulsory purchase or simply build a new school elsewhere; the cost-benefit analysis would be an interesting one. And the value to the church would depend on how the property was zoned. I'm not an expert in this field but don't see why all the options to achieve fairer education shouldn't be explored.

For me, if faith schools were not prepared to participate in non-discriminatory admissions procedures that had been enshrined by legislation would have choices to make, and the state would need a backup plan - and a backup plan that reflected its past investment and the best outcomes.

Explain why fascist, please? What an emotive term for suggesting that the state shouldn't pay to enable religions to discriminate against children when it comes to access to education.