Primary admissions change seems unfair

[Faxthatpam]

I kind of just need a little rant, sorry.
My LA has this year changed its admissions criteria. Out of catchment siblings now take priority over in catchment applications. As a result my son has not got a place at the local (high achieving and heavily over subscribed) primary school 5 minutes away that his much older brothers attended.

I readily admit that I am very partisan here (and a tad bitter ) but I do think this is unfair on eldests and onlys, and in my case, much the youngests too! The problem is that it will just encourage - and this has happened a lot this year already - the practice of renting for a few months in the catchment to get the first in, and then repairing back to the large family house often a long way out of catchment, even out of borough. As someone who stayed in our too small but in catchment house until the 'last' was in before considering a move, I think this is plain wrong.

I understand the arguments for a sibling policy - it is impossible to take 2 children to 2 different schools - but surely that is something you choose to do when you decide to move out of catchment. It is an informed choice (in MOST cases - I understand that some may be forced to move for other reasons). We chose to stay in a smaller house until our children were all in (we were lucky when we did move in that we found a house to suit in catchment, in fact nearer the school than before, although this has not helped us with our last!).

It just galls me when I see the cars pulling up outside the school I have walked to in 5 minutes with my older children for 15 years. Out spill the kids from miles away, while I schlepp with my youngest a lot further away, to a school which they would not touch with a barge pole. It is in fact a perfectly good state primary just not in the top 50 in the country. My only problem with it is that my son does not want to go there, and can't understand why he can't continue with the friends he made at nursery .

It is unfair, and silly. I think siblings in catchment should have priority not those outside.

Stay on the waiting list with fingers crossed??

Thanks ducks, am hanging out on waiting list with everything crossed!

Couldn't agree more. Ours has done the same and the two other local schools which are not 5 mins away have a seriously bad reputation. Furthermore, I don't drive so will now be compromising my career in order to get DS to school because of this stupid policy. He is an only child & we purposely bought a house we THOUGHT was a sure bet for the close, good catchment school. More fool us.

Not everyone has the choice to stay in catchment though. Perhaps they have divorced, been forced to move as they were renting etc.

Do agree it's hard if your child doesn't get a place at the closest school

that is a bit crap! ours has

children in care/and sn
in catchment siblings
in catchment
out of catchment siblings
then out of catchment and done on a distance basis.

we are a TINY bit out of catchment, ie on the other side of the road to catchment. when we moved here we needed places in years 5 and year 2 and there were spaces available, so the next two have got in on the sibling rule but NOT ahead of in catchment children, which is totally fair imo! and had we not got a place i would have waited for one to come up, it woudl have been a pita, but i would have totally understood why it happened! and thankfully at my kids primary there is a high movement of children (lots of people from the local uni ie staff and students use it and they are oftne here short term)

anyway i have no idea why your lea has done that, i would be asking questions to the lea and local mp as it is not good practise or recomended i dont think.

there should just be ONE list of admissions criteria that all schools have to stick to.

I disagree OP.

I think out of catchment siblings should get priority. Having young DC's at different schools must be very difficult to juggle.

Yep I def agree with that 5. Shd be same criteria across the board.

Hope - I did say in my OP there were exceptions - divorce etc. but the criteria has to be for the majority of situations, there will always be a minority for whom it will be unfair. I think this is unfair on the majority tbh.

I think I will bring it up with LEA and MP.

Sara - yes it must, but as I said, so don't move out of catchment.

it would have been impossible for me to do BUT i KNEW when i applied for my younger ones to go that they were NOT priority and catchment area was, i banked on the them getting but knew that if they didnt it was tough luck.

i only put the one school that their siblings attended on the list, i didnt put a second/third choice as i didnt want another and couldnt physically get them there. i just said i would home educate until a place became available.

if you knowingly send your children to an out of catchment school or then knowingly move out of catchemnt you are making the choice that you may not then get a place.

i knew there were risks and i ummed and ahhed but its not fair that people that live a stones throw from a school dont get in because out of catchment siblings are taking up places.

I agree with the OP. if you live out of catchment you need to realise that a sibling may not get in. And this policy encourages renting for a while in catchment and then moving out.

Really feel for you Boymeets - that is seriously unfair. They have moved the goalposts on you in a crap way.

I also think it goes completely against the idea of creating a school community - something that is very important at primary level. Parents are miles away and much less inclined to join in with school events etc. which is such a shame.

Another irony is the LEA is very hot on pushing its walk to school policy! Ha!

yes all those in catchment first should get priority. If those out of catchment with siblings are not happy then maybe they should look for schools in their own catchment

Personally, I think that there should be a rule that if you move out of the catchment of a school where you got in on catchment, your DC should only be allowed to remain in that school til the end of that KS before you have to move them (the argument being to allow the DC who now live in the in-catchment house you sold to attend the catchment school!).

THAT'D sort it.

One might cry 'unfair of the poor children, it's not their fault their parents are playing the system to the very edge of cheating, but I'd say- them's the breaks, you live with the ebbs and flows of your family situation, and, if you feel you have to move 'for a job' etc, (the reality being you want a bigger house in a 'lesser' catchment), you need to bear in mind that many seem prepared to travel 70 miles to work in the SE, so if you really HAD to move away, you'd be waaaay out of catchment or any sort or 'reasonable travelling distance' for a DC!

That's a good point Tiggy, catchments are also an issue here. The shrinkage you speak of has affected this school as it has improved dramatically over the last few years.

The trouble is the LEA has changed the way the local catchments work here too so there is one 'super-catchment' for all primaries with boundaries overlapping and distance measured to each used as the tool for admission. This double whammy change with the sibling policy has meant many people who would have got a place last year with no problem have found they have been scuppered this year. Our street is literally a 5 min walk and was well within the previous catchment area, now all of a sudden (with over 70% of places going to siblings) we can't get our children in to the local school.
It's a moving of goalposts which seems very unfair, and not great for the school community, which now consists of a few children living pretty much on the doorstep of the school, a few with older siblings living within the old catchment, but most living well outside. IMO this is not a fair system.