Totally shocked by all these appeal / no primary place threads

[eggsit]

Wouldn't it be easier to send all children to local schools? They would even know the number of children requiring places within an area.

At the moment our school has 35% out of area children clogging up the local roads.

kinda agree actually!!

If only it were that simple!

Sometimes local schools don't have enough places for all the local children, and surely parents are entitled to choose one school over another if they prefer it for any number of reasons there could be.

I'm way past the applying for primary stage, but one of my friends has just heard that she hasn't got a place at any of the three schools closest to her, and is going to have to do a 15 minute drive to get her son to school instead of a 5 minute walk. She is facing having to give up her job in a nursery because she will never get there in time now that she has to travel 15 minutes in the wrong direction.

Yes, but (to name just a few things)

the concept of parental choice (actually, what one gets to express is a preference, not a choice) is deeply ingrained in the admissions code and in the wider politics of school admissions and many people would fight hard to keep it

the 'local schools for local children' argument is very attractive if your local school is excellent or offers something that your child wants or needs (such as wrap-around care or a languages specialism), much less so if your local school is failing or offers something you definitely don't want (eg is a faith school for parents not wanting that)

predicting the number of school places required isn't as easy as one might think, because of rapidly-shifting patterns of migration (national and international), peaks and troughs in the numbers going into private education etc

not every school has the capacity to cater for all the children for whom it is the nearest school

because the law sets a limit on infant class sizes of 30 pupils, it isn't possible - and isn't a good use of resources - to run one school with a reception class of (say) 33 pupils and another one with 37

even so, the use of distance to school as the main admissions criterion (after looked after children, special need and siblings) does give the most local children priority in getting a place

I can see all the arguments with numbers, but distance should surely be the main criterion. In theory, schools should become more 'equal' if the hoards of high-octane parents had to use their local primary (i.e. didn't have the opportunity to apply to the local outstanding one).

Our school would obviously suffer from my proposals, as it would lose a third of the children!

I've got a lot of sympathy with your views, Eggsit.

As a member of admission appeals panels, I will work with whatever the admissions and appeals code define as the rules and policy, but I also get to see some of the less desirable outcomes of those rules. It seems to me that one thing that undermines the local character of schools (at least in this LEA) is the priority given to siblings. Because we don't use catchment areas and rely on distance to school, siblings retain their priority even if the family has moved miles away, and meanwhile children living nearer can't get a place. Is this why your school has a third of its children coming from outside the area?

No, we're talking nearly 140/400 children! It's more that the parents don't want their children going to schools in the middle of town for some reason. (And we're only a 'good' school - nothing special.)

But egg, you get a "good" school and house prices in the catchment for that school go up and up. So the "hoards of high-octane parents" who have to use their local primary can still choose the best school for their children.

In a suburban area near us, which is very popular with families there are three excellent schools. People who live slap bang in the middle of this affluent suburban area don't get a place at any of the schools, on distance grounds, as the area is now so packed with families who want to get their children to a good school. So they have to drive their kids past these schools to one the other side of town. It would be nice if this situation could be avoided.

True, but those parents living slap bang in the middle of the affluent area would, if distance was the primary criterion, get a place at those 'good' schools, wouldn't they?

Where I live last year (and this year I think, next year probably too) there was a shortfall of 200 reception places - so even if everyone had gone to their local school, there would still have been 200 children without a place.

I do happen to agree that children should go to the local school. DD goes to the local school, she is the only one of her pre-school friends to go there. However, I can honestly see why people avoid it. It's not the friendliest/most stable/warmest place I've ever seen, no play equipment in the playground, massive issues with staff turn over and attitudes etc. I wonder how different it would be if it wasn't missing the whole section of the local community who made the effort to get their children into the local 'good' schools (through years of church attendence - including the atheists etc).

I should add that DD loves her school, lots of friends, lovely teacher, parents have been fine etc. Still lots of issues there though.

That's what I always think about the hysteria to 'get in' somewhere, Omi. If only parents would put half the energy they put into panicking about catchments, moving, praying, sucking up to the vicar etc into improving what's on their door step for ALL local kids, not just their own, the situation would be very different.

Local school my ds goes to suffers through old reputation it is valiantly trying to shift. If only local 'middle class' families would take a good look at this improving school rather than run away screaming and drive their kids to other more 'middle class' schools.
My ds thriving there and it has just achieved a 'good' ofsted- but still sharp intakes of breath when I tell people what school he goes to. Pisses me off...
[Feel serves them right when they complain about traffic and parking when driving their kids to other schools. Nasty old me!].

I think in the US schools have defined catchments too & if you move out of the catchment your children have to move schools. Probably easier to manage that in sprawling suburbs though than in a town here that has grown organically.

One of the problems in my area is that there are lots of single-form entry primaries. Often most of the spaces taken up by siblings.

DD School is filled from out the area if you move into the hamlet ( not even big enough to be a village at any other time other than before recetion you will fight for a place.

88 places and there is only 8 dc locally in right age group everyone else has to drive in at least 2-3 miles.I had to appeal dd was offered lace 11 miles away.(age 6).I won eventually as they agreed she has right to be educated locally as anything soically locally is done by the school ,no community hall or park etc.It is a outstanding school but more so i wanted her to be able join after school activties , school events etc .
Where if had to go 11 miles it be school transport which does not allow for any out of school activites

I live in Surrey and LEA has been closing excellent and not so good schools for the last 5 years and there aren't enough localish places full stop. We are having chidren shipped here there and everywhere.

According to the LEA families do not live in flats (said to the parents of a school where most of them live in maisonettes) and that the buidling of 400 low cost family homes will increase school place demand by 2. Yes seriously that is what they said despite the local borough council telling them about the huge rise in birth rate.

It's a nightmare. I truly think if you move house more than x miles futher away from a school you should lose your right to sibling places critera. Around here that distance would only need to be 0.5 miles though!

I'm not my dd is in year 1 and still waiting for a place at a school in our LA!!

My kids have been to a variety of school; we always go for local as a main thing becuase we belive in the community. My experience was that the unwanted council estate school was as warm and nurturing a palce as the posh lcoal one they are at now.

More than that, ds3 was moved from a school that rejects many to an SN unit in a school that serves a most unusual place, a community of LA houses that look as if they were dropped into the middle of the countryside; a poor community. Falling apart, under funded and......... bloody wonderful. If we could get there with all of tehm (ds3 gets a taxi) we'd be there like a shot, to the bemusement of the many posher local types who glance askance at ds3's logo'd jumper when I collect the others!

We've even rejected one of the best top 40 schools in our country to send ds1 to somewhere with massive pvoerty issues but that because of this has developed speicalist teaching for his disorder. Ah the looks from others with similar kids but more of a keep up with the joneses approach! Yet it's my ds1 whose work is jumping 2 years with only a day's specilaist input, cannot wait to see what he's capable of after a few terms.... (year 6, can cope in year nine classes at BAse, in bottom sets in Priamry) And we are applying for out of catchment permission to the nearest non faith school becuase it's far nicer a school than the local for ds3, just as academic but warmer and with much more acceptance of difference.

So many people base their concept of what makes a good school on reputation and shininess: in reality the minute you hit a hurdle it is caring and warmth that matter. And they tend IME to thrive in places where the parents haven't spent five years competing to get there (and don't want litt;e SEN Johnny reducing the grade average...) and where the teachers have chosen to want to work with kids who have needs beyond that of being forcefed facts.

cargirl but then what haens when people have siblings in differnt schools and then maybe dc1 at a school but move a bit so dc2 has to go to the nearest school but they dont have a space for dc1?

like eachy ds3 is in a sn unit but attached to ms and he is thriving there even though people do eyebrow thing when they hear the school and where it is

One of the big areas where people haven't got school places is Surrey. The number of extra applicants this year in Surrey is more than enough to fill a whole primary school. It is a large county with quite a lot of rural areas. Until recently there were falling rolls, and until about 10 years ago they were closing schools because of surplus places. It also has a large green belt and other restrictions on building new schools (which also costs a lot). It is also somewhere where a lot of people move into the area after the birth of their children.
Surrey did know a few years ago that the birth rate was increasing, and seemed to stop closing schools then. However there was no indication at the time that a lot of Eastern European migrants would be moving to the area, and that the recession and excessive private school fee increases would also put pressure on school places.

I'm not saying Surrey is perfect, but it does have a lot of problems. Also pupils in rural areas may be closer to school A but transport is better to school B.

Nevermind in the old days before parental choice, when it was very hard to get your child to an out of catchment school even in an effort to avoid those who were bullying them.

I'm with you Peachy.. my ds is at school [primary] with 'disadvantaged' catchment but teachers are enthusiastic and caring and bloody great. I get sharp intakes of breath from mc mums when they realise which school he is at but he is happy and thriving and finding the holidays too long!

JustCallMeGrouchy but that is the parents choice IYSWIM, it would have to be a distance determined by the school and very dependent on local issues. How is it fair that you can live next door to a school and not get a place when every other child lives 4+ miles away and is driven because they have older siblings at the school.

I'm only saying if they move further away from the school than their original location it's not stopping people moving house just from blocking schools for local children.

In some areas that could probably 5 miles but there crises in some parts of London and Surrey are chronic. People buy 2nd homes and live in them to get their eldest child in and then move back to their main residence a few miles away - how is that fair and how else can that be stopped?

In fact many people do end up with siblings at different schools not through their choice and not because they've moved house!

mummytime Surrey only closed one of my local schools aobut 4 years ago and 2.5 years ago they tried to shut another - they couldn't because they made a mistake in the consultation process so fell under the new laws which meant it had to go to an independ adjuticator who said now and listed more that 5 reasons why it couldn't close!!!! They also shut one about 5 miles away about 3 years ago and funnily enough we are now having children bussed from their for junior school.

Surrey LEA have lied through their teeth. They have systematically shut/tried to shut the schools situated on the most valuable land in terms of selling for housing development around here - I kid you not! They certainly haven't gone with any choices that were in the best interests of our dc. Our infant school was turned into primary - the school playing field is so small they juniors are having to walk to a different school for some PE lessions, it was the school with the huge playing field in the town centre that they tried to close!

Because of their mistakes we have actually ended up with an extra 15 reception places instead of 15 fewer but we know have 3 local infant schools and no junior or primary schools that places for those children!!!!!!! Plus we are having junior aged children bussed in from 2 other "towns"/areas - the crises is really going to hit for junior places this September and then ever after..........

I work in a junior school and more than half of this year's Year 3 come from outside our catchment area. I think it's because there are now very few families with young children in the town centre/south side of the town which our catchment covers. My Dc went there, they are now 23 and 21 and the parents of most of their friends still live in the same houses as they did then, or if they have moved they seem to be replaced by families with older children/teenagers - I think the houses are just too expensive for young families.
But there is about to be an explosion of building in the area, so I think the catchment areas will be up for change pretty soon - they have just finished consultation on changes to the secondary catchments, I think primary will be next.