How would you organise admissions criteria and priorities, if you ruled the world?

[Blu]

Having read so many threads with so many people navigating difficult admissions processes, people 'gazumped' for places by temporary renters, people in 'black holes' between catchments, children with no place at all, I have been trying to work out the best system.

My opening proposal is:
1.Priority admissions to Looked After / medical and social needs - as in most admissions codes

1. Siblings
2. A lottery amongst all children for whom the school is the closest school

4 If any places still unfilled: a lottery for all children for whom it is the second closest school

1. Open lottery.

If I ruled the world, I'd improve all schools so it wouldn't be an issue. Oh, and make chocolate free.

Abolish league tables, faith schools and have everyone attend school nearest to them. Take away private schools' charitable status.

Lovin' your lottery. Blu. Your system actually is really fair, I think as nearness to school is still important but it stops 'leapfrogging' even in the nearest-to-school area. I'm quite keen on lotteries nowadays as my own dc's are school place lottery kids. We couldn't possibly afford to not just move but leapfrog to the roads next to the school

no faith criteria
priority to LAC/SN
open lottery for oversubscribed schools

Actually I'd add that sibling places only apply if it's your nearest school. Round here the roads are clogged up because people move once to get eldest into primary, then move out but continue hauling their kids across town for years and years afterwards

I don't think the lottery would work universally as there are areas where there are simply not enough places, and unlucky children could find themselves rolled over from school to school and still not get a place anywhere (possibly compounded by lack of transport links, depending on how closest was measured, as existence of eg good bus/tube/train links makes a huge difference to actual accessibility).

And also fiddling with the admissions system doesn't fix the real problem of why parents swerve some schools. The answer isn't to tinker with admissions - it's to improve schools so no-one feels the need to look much beyond their nearest couple of schools anyhow.

I would have ablity banding so that every school had its fair share of the very bright and special needs. I would also look for a system that eveny spreads the rich and poor children across schools. It would work in my town where there are five secondary schools in close promixity. (Ie. within 2 miles of my house and many other people's houses)

Some of the most popular schools take children from either a ridicolously small area. I would also stop schools selecting on the basis of faith to stop competitive church going.

I think a secondary school should have a pupil intake representative of children in a two mile radius if its in a very built up area.

I think that siblings should only get priority if the parents have not moved more than a mile since the older child started. I don't know what to do about temporary renters.

No faith schools allowed.
Priority to LAC/SN
And then give each school a proper catchment - defined by street - which would apply to sibling priority too.
Everyone goes to their nearest school. If it's full then the govt have to build a new one. In a very ideal world of course.

i would make everybody go to their closest schools.
and I would like to stop schools being different in standards.
If a school is not doing well, then a head of a school that is doing really well should be seconded there to pass on their experience and knowledge to help improve it.

Hmm - I was a bit unsure about siblings / siblings in catchment, because what about people who really do need to move because they have more children, but can't afford a house in the same area? Or those who are relying on a council house transfer and can't get one in the same catchment. It would be v hard to have primary school children at differnt schools, I think. Althugh I never went to the same school as my brother.

I would move the sibling rule down too as it would prevent people moving to an area getting their eldest child in and then the rest would be automatic even if they moved out of the catchment area.

I would abolish parental choice. I would have catchments which ensure even socioeconomic mix ( this is not that difficult in the majority of cities as rich and poor areas inevitably border each other) and no child should have more than a 30 minute direct bus journey. Appeals only if very compelling medical/ social reasons. Furthermore I would have streaming in the schools with the top set having max 30 pupils middle set 25 pupils and lowest ability set 20 pupils. I would stop faith schools and single sex schools

I would have proper catchment areas for schools, available for all to see on a map (the town I grew up in still does this) and ensure that each catchment includes houses from poor areas, nicer areas and posh areas to avoid the ghettoisation that happens sometimes (and the £40k premium on houses next door to the better schools). You would know when you moved in which school your child would go to.

I would then ensure that each school was broadly the same standard, and if there was a school (like my DCs first school) that was consistently failing year on year I would remove the HT and put in somebody who could pull it up. I would also only give schools a limited time to improve because for each year they fail that is another cohort of children whose chances are being reduced.

Failing my catchment system, if admissions are being made on distance I would include siblings in that too. I would rank all the applications in order of distance from the school and then only if there was a tie would a sibling get priority over a non sibling. My DD started school this year and our nearest school had 15 siblings (in a 30 intake) before they'd even started. There is a child 4 houses down our road further away from the school who got in because she has a brother in Y6. If they are using distance as criteria then it should apply to everyone.

Blu, where would the children who lost out in the lottery for nearest school go?

"Take away private schools' charitable status"

Risky. As charities, they would then have to be wound up according to law regarding charities, which means all assets owned by the charity sold and reused in line with the charities charitable aims. They would close as schools, and the assets be sold and the proceeds given to other educational charities.

And the state sector would then have to buy or build and equip schools for 7% of children currently in the private sector, plus employ teachers for them etc.

Can we actually afford to increase the schools budget by 7% (especially now)? With that much more having to go into schools, what would you cut to cover the new costs?

I don't see what independent schools have got to do with admission criteria into state schools. This is just another bit of independent ed. bashing.

The sibling rule must remain at primary level. However, as has been suggested on MN before it should be split into 2. Siblings where you still live at the address used for the original entry or closer/still in catchment and then, after "catchment" children, siblings where you have moved.

mumzy, you think bright children deserve less attention?

I woud also like to know why "take way independent schools' charitable status" has anything at all to do with admissions criteria.

I think it is grossly unfair to have criteria based on proximity to the school; some children don't live anywhere near any school and others live close to several. If you want a catchment area system they should be defined such that every dwelling in the country is within the catchment area for a single school. That way educational black holes would not exist.

well, that's very normally the reason why catchment is such a good idea - it means that all schools can be equal in standard.

and it would mean that small village schools that were closed under margaret thatcher wouldn't have to be closed - (and most of those had little buses that picked up children fromthe local area)

I don't have a problem with the way it works at my DDs school TBH:

1. Looked after children etc
2. Siblings in catchment
3. Catchment
4. Siblings out of catchment
5. Out of catchment

Yes, if you are a sibling out of catchment it's a pain, but it's a fair system I think.

I'm not a fan of very small village schools, though. I think bigger schools are much better for children. Living all your life up to age 11 in a tiny school, perhaps with mixed year classes, is very poor preparation for the modern world with its huge institutions.

UpTheAldi - hopefully the children who didn't get in in the lottery for their nearest schoool would get in to the lottery for their second nearest school. And if not that then an 'open lottery' for any other schools that they choose to enter the lottery for.

So there would still be a problem if catchment schools could not accommodate enough children ofr the catchment.

Bonsior - my system as a catchment which is 'the children for whom the school is the nearest school' - so some schoools would have a huge catchment, some sould have a tiny catchment boundary to one side, where there was a nearby school in one direction, and a wide catchment on another side if the next school in that direction was a long way away. But all children within that catchment would have an equal chance of getting in. At present only children who live nearest have a chance.

But it doesn't solve things like underprovision of schools.

Re 'improve standards' - yes, of course - but in truth many parents (judging by MN threads) parents look for more than the actual standard in the school. There are schools, esp in london where the standard of schooling is very high, very effective - but because parents do not like the demography of the intake, or do not understand how average attainment in league tables works, they try and go further afield.

My DC's school has the same admissions criteria as Bramshott's and I think it is fair. In over subscribed years an out of catchment sibling might not get in but parent' know that is a potential risk when they send their eldest child to the school/move out of catchment.