...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?

I think they could do with a provisional list. So then thry would have little excuse to suddenly find they are oversubscribed and if they are new schools/ classes are needed. Its not like its a surprise as they know the birth rates.

I think it is an issue. Looks like ours have prioritised nearest school so siblings with another nearest school would be lower down, which makes some sense with this oversubscription.

I would get rid of faith schools/ ask them to join together to become private.

Its discrimination.
Or maybe rejig criteria to 1 nearest 1mile then faith.

Maybe more contraception (haha) would help as another thread said 50% kids arent planned.

Sorry, got my dates wrong. She started school in September 2008 not 2009. How time flies!!

Jassy don't assume that the issue you describe is exclusive to faith schools. In our area, there is a very long tradition of "In for [school we want to send DDs too], out for [good secondary school just out of catchment area]" I personally know of five families on my road who have done just that in the last three years. The primary is not a faith based school.

It's amazing that in a local, urban area, a huge proportion of the children are dropped off and picked up in cars. Trying to drive around our area, not even to mention parking, within a 0.5 mile radius of the school at those times is impossible.

No chance of a bulge in DD1's year. The school, which is on a small site, has eked out the last inch of space to put one in this year.

We're staying put for the long-term, but we're considering either grammar or private at secondary if the local sink comp doesn't become the amazing Academy it seems to be on course to be.

Don't write off CoE schools simply because you are not church goers. Some of them have less if a religious ethos than non faith schools.

It's not the ethos, it's the admission criteria.

Do you mean people move house at admissions time middlings?

we have a word for that, and it's not flattering. i am not disputing anything you said, just whether or not it is wrong or desirable to allow faith schools to continue the practice that you say they are engaged in.

I don't actually have any strong opinion on whether or not we should have maintained faith schools. If we didn't have them already I'd probably be against. As we do have them I'd rather not have to pay the hefty hike in taxes that would be needed if the government decided to abolish them. And I'm happy that the government is pushing faith schools to reduce the proportion of places allocated on faith grounds. It is a shame that the Roman Catholic church is dead set against this but CofE and other faiths seem happy to move in this direction.

Middlings, I'm not and I didn't suggest that. I said that the issue where sibling priority causes the most distortion and pressure on places is in faith schools and in situations where people move to get an eldest child into a school, then move away - which is more prevalent in non-faith schools because distance is a driving determinant of places in those schools.

Want - people move into catchment for their eldest child - sometimes for medium-term. They move out before their younger children start school, usually for a cheaper or bigger house where there is no guaranteed school place. The children still go to the original school despite no longer living in the area. I'm in favour of sibling priority for local children only.

House price pressure is another reason larger nominal catchments with lottery placement would be beneficial - house prices go up by a couple of hundred thousand as you get into guaranteed school place territory. It's mad.

I'm actually ok with faith schools in the medium term, given that worship is already compulsory and the historical legacy we are left with. I'd like to see them phased out long-term.

However, religious discrimination against small children is despicable and shouldn't be allowed full stop, let alone at state-funded schools. Faith-based selection criteria for state schools can, and should, be banned immediately.

That said, any religion that actually believed in its ethos of service would abolish faith discrimination anyway.

I'm in favour of sibling priority for local children only

That is happening at a growing number of schools for exactly the reason you give - parents getting their oldest in then moving away and relying on sibling priority.

I wish it would happen here!

I think this is an area where actually a bit more central government intervention and standard-setting would be really helpful. So much variation.

The trouble with even the 50% faith kids some CofE schools have moved to is that, with the sibling effect (siblings don't count against church places, but rather the sibling-and-distance cohort) there are very few, if any, true 'community' places left.

And your firstborn is being treated in exactly the same way as everyone else's was.

OwlCapone, I know that (except even that isn't true because faith schools) but my firstborn isn't being treated as well as other people's second-, third-, fourthborns.

You apply via the LA, not direct to the school. Faith schools are required by law to accept pupils of all faiths and none. They can prioritise children of their own faith but they cannot exclude children who are not of their faith.

Whether they can or not, they do.

I presume you mean they refuse to give non-Catholics their Supplementary Information Form (sometimes known as a Religious Information Form). They cannot refuse to admit a child just because the parents haven't filled in an SIF. I suspect the SIF is about getting information to confirm whether or not an applicant should receive priority on faith grounds. If that is the case it is not relevant to non-Catholic applicants so there is no reason for them to complete the form. The schools may be acting legitimately in refusing to give such applicants the SIF but they would definitely be breaking the law if they refused to accept applications from non-Catholics.

Again, whether they can or not, they do.

ILovePud, thanks for your last post to me. As it happens, the primary my DS ended up in, the one a long walk away, was the School Of Last Resort for that area, too - which is how I got my son in despite being way, way, way out of the nominal cachement area. I just had to ask and they said yes. As it happened, it turned out to be lovely, although not very academic at all. He was happy there, though his social life was a total pain as we lived so far away (and as he's an only child it was particularly important).

I didn't spurn lesser schools closer to me because their results weren't up to scratch. I just couldn't get a place for him at ANY school.

Faith-based selection criteria for state schools can, and should, be banned immediately

No it can't unless you are willing to spend billions of pounds doing it. The vast majority of faith schools use land and buildings owned by the church (or its equivalent for non-Christian faiths). These organisations might reasonably question why they are partially funding schools and providing land and buildings for these schools when they cannot give any priority to applicants of their faith.

Each school would have the following options:

• close down the school and use the land for something else, leaving a shortage of places locally

• become an independent, fee paying school. Given that this would make the school inaccessible for many it would probably also leave a shortage of local places

• sell the land and buildings to someone else so that they can operate the school. Whoever the "someone else" is (local authority or academy trust) it is likely they would require funding from the government to buy the land and buildings

• carry on operating as a state school despite the significant change in the nature of the school

I can pretty much guarantee that RC schools would not want to carry on as state schools if they cannot prioritise on faith grounds. Other faiths are harder to predict but it is likely that some of them would also leave the state system or close. So the taxpayer would be left funding the purchase of land and buildings or finding sites to build brand new schools.

OwlCapone, I know that (except even that isn't true because faith schools) but my firstborn isn't being treated as well as other people's second-, third-, fourthborns.

Not sure why you've brought faith schools into this. I wasn't talking abut those having already said that religious discrimination has no place in state funded education.

Regardless, your firstborn is treated the same as very other firstborn and that is fair. My firstborn also wasn't treated the same as other people's secondborn etc. Thus, every family is treated the same as they have the same chances at a place for their firstborn child. Had I not had my middle child, my thirdborn would also have been treated exactly the same as your firstborn.

Whether they can or not, they do.

I can assure you that they don't. It is impossible for them to do so.

The LA co-ordinates admissions for the normal round. People wanting places at these schools apply to the LA, not to the school. The LA sends a list of applicants to each school. All the school does is place the applicants in order according to their admission criteria and return that list to the LA. The LA determines who is actually offered places. The LA will check that the list returned from the school included everyone who was on the list they sent to the school. They would not accept a list that included only the Catholic applicants. So there is no mechanism whereby the school can avoid admitting children who are not of the faith. If there are not enough Catholic applicants to fill all the places any non-Catholic applicants will get the remaining places.

It may well be the case that there are so many Catholic applicants that non-Catholics don't get a look in. That happens at many faith schools. But if there aren't enough faith applicants to fill all the places it is not possible for the school to stop non-faith applicants getting places.

@prh47bridge I agree, it's a bit of a risk, and i think it will be faith dependent on how it goes. However, before outright banning state funding for religious schools (I think most preferable), you can start with baby steps by banning the religious selection criteria and see how they respond.

if many schools go along with it, a naming a shaming campaign might help, though it appears from MN that there is large amount of support for them despite the blatantly discriminatory policies.

However, I would like to know how much public land is being used for church schools.

it's something that needs to be addressed.

I would like to know how much public land is being used for church schools

Very little. Almost all church schools stand on church land. Off the top of my head the only exceptions I can think of are an RC school that has just been set up in Richmond and possibly some free schools.

Beg pardon Jassy, I misread your post......shouldn't be MNing at work! I read it too fast

I can assure you that they don't. It is impossible for them to do so.

Nope. Have direct, personal experience of this. I would be utterly futile for anyone to put a Catholic school on their order of preference form at all unless they have filled in the Are You A Proper Catholic form, because there will never, ever be any places left over once properly-certified Catholic families have applied, as faith places are given priority over distance, and children can and do travel across London to go to their parents' preferred school. This has held true in our borough for the last decade at least.

Technically what you say may be true - that if there are places left they can't bar non-faith children. But in real-world terms, this is irrelevant, because there are never any places left. To the point where schools feel absolutely confident in refusing to hand out forms at all.

Very little. Almost all church schools stand on church land.

just out of curiosity, how do you know this? Also, how maintains the schools? Are they maintained out of public money?

*who

On the who-owns-the-land thing, I think the mix will change a great deal in the next decade because of new faith schools coming through the free school movement, and having land/buildings bought for them.

On the buildings thing - I'd like to see a proper accounting of who has paid for what, since the faiths in question haven't always paid for the capital costs of newer buildings, and I'd like to see how money is allocated to pay for the maintenance of older buildings.

(PS prh47bridge, you might or might not like to know that I find myself reading your posts as if they were spoken in Mark Gatiss' "Mycroft" voice! You have a very precise way of talking, which I like, even if I'm disagreeing with almost everything you say!)