...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?

Schoolfury thank you for the information about totes - you live and learn!

When you say "last year" was a bulge class do you mean the class that started in 2013 or the class that started in 2014?

You may yet be OK. For the entire 30 places to be taken by siblings you would need to be sure that at least 50% of that intake year had a younger sibling in the same age group as yours. That is far from certain. In my DC year one class about a quarter of the children are only-children, and the rest are about half and half between being the youngest child of the family and the oldest. Where they do have younger siblings they are over a range of ages, so I'd guess this class of 30 will contribute only about 4 siblings to the 2015 reception class. Look back to the records for a non-bulge-class year - how many non-sibling places were there? And what was the maximum distance admitted for non-siblings?

YANBU op, but I disagree.

It's an unpopular pov - but personally I feel that siblings should have the highest priority - other than looked after children, which I understand should come first. I think siblings should be put before those in catchment.

If it's a very over subscribed school then the first sibling to get a place would presumably have been in catchment when they were offered it. Then by the time sibling number 2 comes along may for whatever reason no longer be in catchment.

I think it's a 'lesser evil' for a parent of an only or oldest child to not get into their closest school, than it is for a family to have the choice of having primary dc in two different schools (nigh on impossible to organise) or to have to remove an already established and settled child from a school because their sibling can no longer get in.

I guess I blame the religious schools for taking state funding and resources away from non-denominational schools

They don't. The funding a school receives is dependent on the number of pupils it has. If a non-faith school is full its funding is entirely unaffected by the presence of religious schools in the area. It can only be said to be affected if it has empty spaces purely because parents prefer the faith schools.

nor do I want them coming home with Christian propaganda

Church schools vary, as do community schools. Some church schools are not very religious at all. Some community schools are pretty religious - more so than some faith schools. Take a look at the schools involved.

Two of them are faith schools and we wouldn't get in

It doesn't matter whether or not you are genuine followers of the faith. The school is not allowed to make subjective judgements on the strength or otherwise of your faith. Most church schools give priority based on regular attendance at church, although some RC schools also have require the child to be baptised. If you are willing to attend church regularly for a while you can get your child into a faith school. In many areas the only reason people can't get in to faith schools is the number of non-faith parents attending church simply to get a place at their preferred school. If that didn't happen non-faith applicants would stand a decent chance of getting a place.

On the subject of this thread, I'm afraid that is an inevitable side effect of bulge classes. If the school gives priority to siblings and the bulge class is for one year only it becomes harder for children without siblings at the school to get in for a few years. The school cannot give priority to siblings but exclude siblings of the pupils in the bulge class. It could remove sibling priority completely but I'm afraid it is too late to do that for 2015 admissions.

Why is it a lesser evil, Vermillion? Why should only children be less important than other children?

We have a very similar situation near us. A number of religious schools and a few regular schools with small catchment areas for non siblings. The areas you can get in from have shrunk and this year a number of reception kids were going to be shipped over to the other side of the borough until a bulge class was put in after much (understandable) parental protests. Great for them of course but has the effect of bumping my children as upcoming entrants in favour of siblings of the bulge class and the school doesn't have the room to take extra on an ongoing basis.

The council doesn't have to appear to have any plan to rectify this situation even though it has been well known for years the birth rate has soared in our area over the past decade. It is wildly frustrating and we're having to look at private options to ensure a school place whilst for may reasons I'd prefer them in the local school.

Only when it becomes possible to get two children to to different schools in opposite directions at the same time and pick them up in a similar fashion will it be fair to remove sibling priority. Even though I haven't moved, there have been a couple of years where I don't think I would have got a child into our primary, even though my firstborn got in on distance alone. It would make sense to amend the sibling rule to somehow include a criteria about not living further away than the address used for the older sibling's application. This is for primary only. I don't think sibling priority is essential for secondary education.

I agree that schools which are allowed to practise religious discrimination have no place in the state education system.

I disagree Vermillion, although I do very much believe in sibling priority, but not for those that have moved out of catchment.

It's right that siblings should have priority, because it is a massive ball ache for families trying to have to juggle school runs in different directions or having to move a settled child, but I think that's a risk that parents have to take if they choose to move. Even though I also know that sometimes people have to move home when they don't really want to because of renting issues, it just doesn't seem fair for local children to miss out on a place because of children with siblings living outside of the school designated area.

Siblings should only get priority from the same address as their sibling got in on, or if they are still in the catchment.

ArcheryAnnie for what it's worth I agree with your views on faith schools but I think you're being unrealistic regarding siblings. Can you imagine how difficult it would be to have to get children to separate schools for the same pickup and drop off times. It's overly dramatic to say this equates to your child being 'less important' than a sibling.

Two of them are faith schools and we wouldn't get in

It doesn't matter whether or not you are genuine followers of the faith. The school is not allowed to make subjective judgements on the strength or otherwise of your faith. Most church schools give priority based on regular attendance at church, although some RC schools also have require the child to be baptised. If you are willing to attend church regularly for a while you can get your child into a faith school. In many areas the only reason people can't get in to faith schools is the number of non-faith parents attending church simply to get a place at their preferred school. If that didn't happen non-faith applicants would stand a decent chance of getting a place.

This just isn't true. The Catholic schools around here won't even give you an application form if you aren't Catholic, and their requirements for being a "proper" Catholic don't just include regular, provable attendance at church (ie a form signed by a priest), but baptism before the age of 6 months (baptise after 6 months and you can whistle for a school place, you heathen) and involvement in the church.

And even without these restrictions, "being willing to attend church" just isn't possible for many people, and not just eg parents who work at the weekend, or whatever. One of the side effects of so many faith schools in London is that non-denominational schools have a very high proportion of children of Muslim parents - the priest isn't going to be fooled if you rock up on Sunday wearing a hijab, and your own mosque might take a dim view of it, too.

(A side issue, but I think we are also storing long-term problems up for ourselves as a society by having Catholic children only mix with other Catholics, Muslim children only mix with other Muslims, CofE children only mix, etc etc.)

ILovePud I know, but that's an argument about the inconvenience to the parents, not the welfare of the children. I agree the faith thing is more important, but it does bug me that my only child is pushed to the back of the queue for something that is nothing to do with him. It's not overly dramatic when it has very real consequences for his education and his ability to socialise with other local children.

WooWoo seriously people have to move for all kinds of reasons, jobs loss, family breakdowns etc. Would you want to heap having to uproot the kids from school or making parents take on the impossible task of getting children to separate schools for the same time on top of that? I imagine that those who get one child into school then leave the area completely but still want to send their kids to the school are a small minority anyway.

To answer the why the sibling rule needs to be there as a lesser evil...because otherwise you end up like me with three DC at three schools. In our LEA its in care children, church going siblings, other church goers, in catchment siblings, others in catchment, out of catchment.

DS2 is out of catchment because thats the only school that had a place when we moved to area. His little sister is now 6th on the selection criteria and very very unlikely to get a place next year when she's old enough to start. She wont get in to the in catchment local primary because that only ever gets to third selection on the criteria.

Goodness knows how many miles we'll be travelling next year to get the school run done and what the cost will be to get them all to school.

Fortunately it will start to unwind as an issue in three years when DS1 and DS2, based on current admission rules, should be able to attend the same secondary thats only about 8 miles away through town traffic!

Two have clashing pick up drop off times and it would be about 40 miles a day to take all the children. I'm a full time carer/ SAHM but I have to use a combination of paid childcare/ family help and a taxi to get my children to their respective schools.

I can believe that there are thousands of children crossing boroughs to get to primary school in London. I regularly travel by bus across SE London in the rush hour. I see dozens of families travelling to primary school on my bus route alone. These are not just people who can't or won't walk a short distance. The great majority are travelling a couple of miles or more. Some of them might have moved since getting the place but I think most were allocated a school a long way from home because they didn't get any of their top preferences.

One reason for that is faith schools discriminating (perfectly legally) in favour of children from their own denomination. Children who have been baptised at the right point in early life, and whose families attend church regularly for long periods and make sure that the church in question is recording their attendance so they can confirm it on the application form. Not exactly an equal opps policy, is it? No wonder faith schools in inner cities tend to have lower numbers on free school meals.

I feel your pain. Been through similar crap in the last.
Good luck

ArcheryAnnie, I disagree that it's just about the inconvenience to the parents. How do you get (for the sake of argument two though it could be more) kids to different schools for the same drop off and collection times. One child would have to be late everyday and miss out on some of their education and what would happen at the end of the day? If you think that your child is suffering negative consequences for his education by not going to your school of choice then how can you deny that other children would be effected if the policy was changed to deprioritise siblings. It's shit that your son hasn't got into a school local enough for him to easily socialise with other local children but that doesn't mean you should be looking to make life harder for other parents and children.

MisFor - that's inconvenient for you, but why should I, as someone who has to work to pay the bills, also have a long school journey to make to drop off my kid to a school a long way away?

You chose to have three children, I chose to have one. Both are valid choices, but your choice is being prioritised above mine.

"It doesn't matter whether or not you are genuine followers of the faith. The school is not allowed to make subjective judgements on the strength or otherwise of your faith. Most church schools give priority based on regular attendance at church, although some RC schools also have require the child to be baptised. If you are willing to attend church regularly for a while you can get your child into a faith school. In many areas the only reason people can't get in to faith schools is the number of non-faith parents attending church simply to get a place at their preferred school. If that didn't happen non-faith applicants would stand a decent chance of getting a place."

As this was in response to me... around here ALL RC schools require the child to be baptised (several of them even specifiy "before the age of six months"). And the "attend church regularly for a while" is three out of four Sundays for the last three years (they take a register... in fact, because some parents were popping in to get registered and then sneaking out when they just used to have a register to sign, the local RC church now hands out slips for parents to "sign in" on at the start of Mass and then collects them up at the end and bases their attendance list on those, or so I hear from Catholic friends locally).

The C of E church also required the child to be baptised. It only requires two Sundays out of four and only for two years, but in addition parents MUST do at least one of serving on a church committee (e.g. PCC), holding an office (e.g. churchwarden), being in the choir, being a reader/steward/doing the flowers, being a member of the church's visiting scheme, being a Sunday school teacher or being on the church magazine team. A particularly marvellous detail is that in theory only ten out of the thirty places are faith-based and the rest are "open" to anyone... however, all the siblings of children who got in on the faith-based option are counted against the "open" places rather than the faith places so in practice all children who attend have parents who fulfil the church criteria (except that some years they only have 19 siblings and one single child from a non-religious family will get in; they'll need to live 50m or less from the school to stand a chance, though).

So, yes, they are faith schools and we wouldn't get in. If you're not a practising Catholic then you need to have had your child baptised and started regular church attendance by your child's first birthday, which is impressive planning ahead. If you're not practising CofE then you have a bit more time to play with but you still need to get your child baptised. Technically speaking, no, there isn't a "genuine follower of the faith" criterion, but there is a very definite "standing up in public and promising that you are a genuine follower of the faith" criterion. If both parents happened to follow a different non-Christian faith at least one of them would need to actually renounce that and be accepted into either RC church or C of E before a priest/vicar would agree to baptise a child.

ILovePud - on the practical stuff, most schools (primary and secondary) have breakfast clubs, so you can drop kids off safely much earlier than school starts.

I haven't seen anyone offer solutions to all the problems my kid faces because of the various factors (mainly faith, but also other things inc sibling rule) that limit his ability to access local schools.

ILovePud, of course I wouldn't want to make things more difficult for a family in circumstances like that, but I do think that if the family wants to ensure that their second and third children get the school that their first child got on distance criteria, then they should have to move to somewhere within the catchment. The catchment not neccesarily being within the distance of the last place offered, catchments often go wider than that.

I agree it's only likely to affect a small number of children, but even a small number makes all the difference when it's your child that can't get a place at their closest school because of siblings who could be from miles away.

Lots of schools already place out of catchment siblings as a lower priority than in catchment first or only children, and I think those are the ones that have got the best possible criteria.

Woowoo, I know from experience how difficult it can be trying to move more than one child who are already at school if you move area. We did this and ended up with a faith school because that was the only type of school that had places, it's a nice school but we're atheists and I feel very uncomfortable with a lot of what is taught as fact. I know others who have moved and ended up that their only option was to take up places for siblings at different schools.

Grade 3 isn't failing. The only schools my child has a choice of going to are Grade 3s. If you go up the road to the council estates near me they only have 4 or 5s.

If a child is properly supported in their learning by their parent then they should still do well at a grade 3 school. Personally when my little boy goes I intend to make sure he's really well supported at home so that we can help with any short comings, I'd also like to get involved with the school to see if there's any way we can help it improve.

To be honest I feel like as a decently educated parent who lives in a not so well off area rather than being desperate to get my child out of the area into another school I have more responsibility to support my local school and help make things better.