To think parents need to actually understand the school's application process before applying?

[evertonmint]

So we've just received school places. I've had 2 going through the system this year and live edge of catchment so it's been stressful. We were lucky to get what we wanted, as most people around here did fortunately, but I also made damn sure I understood the process, and understood what to do if we didn't get our choice, so that my application was as solid as it could be.

I feel incredibly sorry for people who haven't got any of their choices, who live in crap areas with huge competition. We could well have missed out but just managed to scrape in.

But I've been shocked at how clueless people are about the process, or deliberately disingenuous they are about the reasons why they've not got what they wanted. For example,

1. somebody complaining on a local Facebook group that the council's letter says they live 5 miles from the school when she can see the gates from her house. Loads of "that's terrible!" comments. She then later drops into conversation that she only moved to the village 2 weeks ago!

2. someone who didn't tick the sibling link box as she didn't know there was one so has been treated as catchment only and not got a place for her second child

3. people who think the process is unfair because the school isn't near affordable housing so it's unfair on poorer people (even though this is not actually true - housing is very mixed here)

4. several people who spent ages stressing that they wouldn't have a place even though they have a sibling there and are closer than most people in the school catchment so were virtually guaranteed a spot

5. person putting home schooling as second and only other choice to force the school to take their child. Child doesn't get a place, no place offered as parent expressed wish to home school. Parent now upset they have to home school and talking to their MP about it...

I've heard all sorts recently, and I'm just shocked that so many people don't appear to have read the criteria, or rely on what their auntie did 15 years ago, or are deliberately holding back a critical bit of info when trying to garner sympathy.

I have loads of sympathy for the children affected by this, but their parents in some cases have brought this on themselves and I just don't understand how you can be that lax when your child's schooling is at stake. This is not an education thing - several of the people mentioned here have degrees for example, several of the people who did it all right don't. AIBU, cynical, unfair? Or do I have a point?

jeee - what was David Cameron's daughter's first choice school?

Our RC primary only has about 60% applying under catholic criteria. The rest of the applications are from other faiths or no faith. Since it's oversubscribed lots of parents of other faith must want their children to go there. I doubt it's always been for their results though. They are a bit variable.

Perhaps it's got a good rep for pastoral care or behaviour management, Rafa.

pressed post too soon!

... even if it means they're taught a religion they don't support

I don't know about secondary applications, but the primary application process is clearly spelt out in my boroughs prospectus.

Bonsoir - I can't remember the first choice school, if I ever knew what it was... I expect it was another of the massively over-subscribed C of E London comprehensives.

But it did really irritate me that the Sunday Times, which is a respected newspaper (Murdoch factor notwithstanding) perpetrated the myth that you must put your chosen school down as your first choice or you'll massively reduce your child's chances of getting a place.

It has been stated several times by experts on school admissions that faith schools are not the cause of the shortage of school places but that still doesn't make a difference to those determined to blame them for every little problem with the state system.

brushing aside the explicit discrimination in the faith school process, which is completely forbidden in essentially all other parts of british society, faith schools cause huge problems in London. there are "black holes" in London (as i like to call them) where someone of no faith cannot live as there are no non-faith schools nearby. since most of these faith schools are oversubscribed, the faith criteria kicks well and early.

this blackmail by churches is just disgusting. No other organizations could get away with this, and this happens on a mass scale. Imagine a private sector organization saying that they will move their operations overseas if they don't get to discriminate.

The problem is that that school not existing makes all the other schools not exist either. Having a CofE school that offers all its places, rather than just reserving a few as the designated catchment school is a joke. One that was ok when the school half a mile away took children out of catchment. But one that is definitely not funny now the LA have expanded a school over 2 miles away to take our catchment children. Although at least they are paying to transport them all there.

faith schools cause huge problems in London

I understand your point but turning them all into non-faith schools would not create any additional places. It may mean that different people get left out but there would still be a group of people who couldn't get a place at a nearby school.

It is increasingly the case that CofE schools are reserving places for non-faith applicants. Any new free school set up as a faith school must similarly reserve at least 50% of its places to be allocated without reference to faith.

Unfortunately the RC church objects strongly to this and hence will not support setting up RC free schools. They even prevented an RC independent school in Liverpool from converting to a free school because it would only be able to offer 50% of its places on faith grounds, despite the fact that the school currently does not offer a single place on faith grounds - priority is entirely about the score in the entrance exam.

Isn't it the case that the church only provides 10% of the capital costs and 0% of the running costs? So getting to control 50% of the admissions is really a joke.

You could say the same about any selection process though-

Single sex- I'd be screwed if I had boys here, several good girls schools, not great mixed secondaries.
Faith
Distance- discriminates against those who can't afford to live close by good schools (where inevitably prices go up due to demand).
Academic- discriminates against those who can't afford 11+ tutors, or those without parental support. Banding discriminates against poorer intelligent kids, as usually the top band is the smallest distance.
Sibling- discriminates against only child families.

Free schools aren't any better- there's one set up here on a very expensive estate. You don't get in if you don't live in one of the very expensive houses It's pretty much a private school with fees paid by the council.

yy tiggytape.

My 2 nearest secondaries are 10% musical ability. One is girls only. Next nearest is lottery. Then two schools which have just taken over failing primaries, so the primary school children get priority, so there are no places for non sibling, non primary children. Then a "performing arts" school, so priority for dance and drama. Then a faith school. Then a dire "mixed" sex school, which is 90% boys, because all the girls went to the girls schools.

So if you're not
a)musically gifted
b)a girl
c) at one of the feeder primaries
d)not dance/drama orientated

You're stuffed. There are very few schools that select by faith, compared to schools with other selection policies. At least religion you can choose, you can't choose to be a girl or musically gifted.

Isn't it the case that the church only provides 10% of the capital costs and 0% of the running costs?

In the vast majority of cases the church provides 100% of the land used by the school and paid for the original buildings. Prior to 1944 the church paid 100% of the capital costs and most of the running costs. Since then the state has nominally paid all running costs (although for at least some schools the church provides additional funding) and has made a contribution towards capital costs - initially 50% but this has risen to 90%.

Sibling doesn't particularly discriminate against only-child families - every family applies without a sibling in situ at least once so has one experience of being lower down the pecking order. So I don't think you can say that it's discriminatory. It's bloody annoying if you happen to have a lot of siblings in a given year, but most families face that situation with their first child.

The faith thing is also discriminatory in villages. A village near us has a very CofE school, vicar in the school's a lot. Until they were forced to expand (refused for several years), kids who lived close to the school couldn't get in because the places went to faith families, and being a rural area they often lived a fair bit further from the school. Local kids couldn't get into their village school, while people from the surrounding villages could. And parents who didn't want their child to go to a faith school had no choice but to be shipped to the undesirable school in a town 4 miles away because no other school nearby had places for them.

I have been completely unable to persuade a few that putting a school down as first preference does not mean that you get priority over those who put it second.

This is not as stupid as it may sound, because this is exactly how it used to work in some places. My oldest dc is only 12 and when this was the system locally when he started primary school.

It made it impossible to risk expressing a preference for a non-catchment school, because by putting your catchment school less than 1st you went down to the bottom of the list for it, below everyone who had put it as a 1st choice, even children who lived miles out of catchment. This meant that if you then didn't get your top choice you couldn't fall back on your catchment school, so it was a big risk to try for any other school unless your catchment school was so awful you really had nothing to lose.

It's a much better system now that you can express a preference without being penalised for it by schools you put lower.

I think that sibling priority at primary school - as long as the family either live at the same address or closer or within 2 miles is reasonable, as for many families it would be very hard to get to two schools at the same time. I know that some families do choose that but it would be hard if that was the default and lots of people were doing it.

At secondary I can see no reason for it, and I say that as a parent who is likely to benefit from that priority. They go to school on their own, go home on their own. I understand that it is nice for the child and family to have that continuity, and for a very few children there might be exceptional circumstances, but there aren't the same daily challenges that there would be at primary.

In our county, siblings only get priority if they are in catchment. Other non-sibling catchment kids are next, ahead of the out of catchment with siblings kids. I think this is much fairer than the method you're suggesting, and am surprised any area allows out of catchment siblings priority over in catchment kids. I can see why that may be seen as unfair. But it's equally unfair on any family applying for the first time regardless of whether their family has one or ten children, so it's still not discriminating against one child families unfairly.

I also don't think siblings is as important for secondary school when parents rarely need to get their kids to school as they're old enough to ferry themselves (yes I know this may be problematic in rural areas it in general it wouldn't be a huge issue)

YANBU, but I have read our council's booklet several times (DD is 2) and as far as I can see, there is no school she would get into - there is no advice about that on the booklet! I think also that councils should explain clearly that whether you are able to get to that school/how near it is to your commute/whether it has any wrap around care, has no bearing on the decision process.

We don't have catchments in our county except for religious schools. So we could move right over to the other side of the county, keep DS1 in the non-religious primary school he's been offered, and still get sibling priority for DS2, despite living miles and miles away from the original school.

The sibling policy certain creates problems in areas where it's the absolute 'done' thing to live close to a particular school to get your first child a place there, then move a bit further away where it's slightly cheaper and you can get a bigger property, knowing that your subsequent children are guaranteed a place at the desirable school.

But stopping sibling priority in these areas also disadvantages children from families who move for different reasons eg family break up, so I don't know what the answer is.

Newname you can't choose a religion what an odd thing to say or do you mean people choose to lie about their religion.

Why would anyone put a child into a faith school of a faith they don't share?
Parents wanting an education that segregates girls from boys choose gender segregated catholic schools. Large numbers of local Catholic Girls school students wear headscarves, and equally large numbers of the Catholic boys school appear to be their brothers, judging purely by skintonewhen I encounter them on the bus. (Catholic is the only faithbased school option in Scotland).

There's been big hooha this year regarding spaces at the kids school. It's the best school in the area in a rich rural village.
For years and years a lot of the local catchment children went to private school meaning that the classes were only ever half full so out of carchment children got in, the school relied on these children to keep the school open and running.
Over the last couple of years less people are going to private school for primary with the added problem of 22 siblings this year including 9 out of catchment siblings
We live 4 miles from the school (rural so not as far as it sounds) and our next nearest school is 4 miles in the opposite direction so just not logistically possible for siings to attend different schools.