Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To be frustrated we might not get a place at this primary school?

47 replies

coffeeforone · 13/09/2019 17:20

We live very close to the school (about 200m). School has a defined catchment area which is quite big. We are of course within it. Unfortunately, based on previous three years, not everyone in the catchment gets offered a place. Looks like the 90 places are all used up part way though criteria 4 of the below list:

  1. LAC
  2. Exceptional Need
  3. Siblings
  4. Children living in the defined catchment area of the school*
  5. Nearest School

*"If the number of children in the defined catchment area is greater than the number of places available at the school, places will be offered to those living the furthest distance from the school, measured in a straight line”

in the past two years, the closest the allocation has been about 240m and 340m, so it appears we might live too close! AIBU to be disappointed by the realisation that DS's chances are so slim? Its such a great school Sad

OP posts:
Wildorchidz · 13/09/2019 17:22

Why are the children farther away prioritised over those living closer?

KindergartenKop · 13/09/2019 17:22

Why on Earth would they measure the furthest distance first? That is bizarre!

HeadintheiClouds · 13/09/2019 17:23

Those living furthest from the school are allocated first?? What a strange way to do it. Are you sure?

KindergartenKop · 13/09/2019 17:23

Are you sure it's not stating that the people admitted that lived the furthest away were 340m or whatever? That's what they usually do.

GeorgieTheGorgeousGoat · 13/09/2019 17:24

That’s got to be a (typo?) mistake?

PurpleCrazyHorse · 13/09/2019 17:24

I wonder if it's a typo. Usually places are allocated from nearest to furthest.

Muchtoomuchtodo · 13/09/2019 17:24

Are you sure it’s those furthest away first?
I’ve never heard this, it’s always been closest who get priority after the other criteria.
If it’s true then it’s bonkers! Where is your second choice?

Sausageandpicklesandwiches · 13/09/2019 17:25

That’s so strange! I wonder if they have made a mistake saying furtherest will get priority Confused. Have you called the school to double check?

Original poster
coffeeforone · 13/09/2019 17:25

This is what I need to find out as I've only just realsied. DS is due to start primary next September so was just looking at the previous years allocations when I noticed it had a defined catchment. Our second closest school is still fairly close (600m) doesn't have a catchment and so we will probably get a place there.

OP posts:
mrsmalcolmreynolds · 13/09/2019 17:25

Are you absolutely sure it's that way round? Ours is the reverse - i.e. if there are more people than places in a category then those closer get priority.

Haworthia · 13/09/2019 17:26

None of that makes sense. Your chances are diminished because you live too close?

haveuheard · 13/09/2019 17:26

I assume that's a mistake as I have never seen that on any admissions policy, and it makes no sense whatsoever. And yes many schools don't take everyone in catchment, we knew when we moved to our house there was a strong chance DS1 would get dumped ('allocated') at some random school as all the nearby schools were heavily oversubscribed. 3 out of 5 years he would not have got into our catchment school. Fortunately his year group was so huge they put in an extra class.

Original poster
coffeeforone · 13/09/2019 17:27

This is the exact wording. It says the same for the past four years,

OP posts:
Milicentbystander72 · 13/09/2019 17:27

I honestly think it's a massive typo. It just makes no sense.

RandomlyChosenName · 13/09/2019 17:27

If they’ve wrongly worded their admission policy, they’re going to end up with a lot of admissions appeals...

viques · 13/09/2019 17:28

Unless the school is situated on a small island and your house is poking up out of the sea this seems a ridiculous statement. Are you sure it isn't a misprint, and the distances they quote are not the furthest distances where places were offered?

SarahTancredi · 13/09/2019 17:28

That cant be right at all. It usually works the other way so those closest get in

ImNotYourGranny · 13/09/2019 17:30

I think you must have misunderstood the rule. I used to sit on school admissions appeals for various LEAs and it's always been closest to school get priority. I come across various priority categories but the tie breaker has always been the same.

SquishySquirmy · 13/09/2019 17:30

That seems crazy to prioritise the furthest away over the closest!
Are you sure it's not just (very) poor wording?
Eg, they mean the opposite of how it reads and your children will in fact have a very good chance of getting in.
I would assume that if the closest pupils in previous years are listed as being 240m and 340m, then these were in fact the closest applicants.

Milicentbystander72 · 13/09/2019 17:31

It's weird that they even lost the closest. Normally schools tells you the furthest allocated last year. It's makes no sense at all.

Loveislandaddict · 13/09/2019 17:32

Surely it means that anyone within 240m or 340m of the school has got in. Those who are 240m and 1cm away didn’t get in.

Cohle · 13/09/2019 17:33

Like PP I think there must be a misunderstanding somewhere - that sounds mad.

ImNotYourGranny · 13/09/2019 17:33

Blimey I've just googled it and it appears some schools do have that as their tie breaker. How on earth did they come up with that?

MrsMaiselsMuff · 13/09/2019 17:36

Is this in Surrey? There is one school that it comes up for over several years. I'd not heard of it before either. But I notice that some other schools in Surrey have a policy of prioritising those living furthest from the next alternative school, which would make more sense.

Gazelda · 13/09/2019 17:38

Have you contacted the school / LEA for clarification? This seems absolutely bonkers.