The Big School Admissions Swindle!

[jojo28]

Eleanor Palmer's catchment area this year was 167 meters - roughly the length of Roman Abromavich's yacht and sadly for the local community the co-hort are almost as privileged.

The Evening Standard wrote an excellent article www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/revealed-the-legal-loophole-letting-pushy-parents-rent-the-best-state-school-places-8878941.html yesterday about the legal loophole parents exploit in order to bag a place at a so called 'prime primary'. I and other parents got royally screwed this year by Camden council's tacit acceptance of fraudulent applicants for Eleanor Palmer School.

Camden's current admissions criteria is one they sheepishly admit favours the well resourced and knowing.Councillor's and members of the admissions scrutiny panel wring their hands and point their fingers at their legal departments all but crying 'they made me do it!' whilst honest applicants get sent to the back of the queue. Other boroughs like Bromley, Hackney, Merton have stricter criteria in regard to address and temporary renting, unfortunately they are in the minority.

Our experience this year has made us acutely aware that this is a problem that effects parents and schools nationwide. Sadly there seems to be little will on the part of the Department of Education or the majority of council's to close this loophole and make the admission code for community schools as fair as possible. Is it time to push for a judicial review? The School's Admission Code states boldly that all council's admissions policies must 'fair clear and objective' is that your experience? Please add your anecdotes and opinions below.....

The ENTIRE state education sector is gamed by middle class parents. Grammar schools - tutor. Church schools - pretend to pray. Comprehensives - move into catchment in time.

Campaigning about faith schools without recognising that the entire state admissions system is grossly unfair and unequal is absurd.

I used to live down the road from Eleanor Palmer. DD went to a school nearby (where Ed Miliband's children now attend).

Whilst I appreciate the unfairness of it all, from what I read in the Standard, what these parents have done is not illegal and does not contradict the admissions procedures. If the strict letter of the admissions process for Camden allows you to rent within the catchment and move out again - which appears to be the case - then I can't see that the sharp-elbowed have done anything wrong.

There will always be pushy parents who want the best for their children and who will jump over every hurdle to do so. Morality is fine but often goes out the window when its your own offspring's future that hangs in the balance.

I'm afraid I couldn't get het up about this, nor would I ostracise a parent who has exercised their right to ensure the best for their child. Life is unfair. Either lobby Camden or your MP etc, but giving the parents or their children the cold shoulder seems to be a case of misplaced anger IMO.

Patpig is totally correct.....if you have the money and the nous you can manipulate the system to your advantage.

My DS is in a Catholic school ....because they had a space when we moved into the area and nobody else did. On the whole I think parents have little choice, they can express a preference but unless they have the wherewithal to manipulate the system then it is very much luck of the draw.

tiggytape no, not exactly - interesting history here. The CofE controlled many schools through the National Society but there were non-conformist schools too. It started to change in 1870 when school boards were set up and lots of new council schools were opened. But both CofE and RC churches were offered 50% building grants and doubled the number of schools, then lobbied for and over the decades obtained up to 90% capital funding from the state. Some of the CofE schools became effectively council schools and voluntary controlled but none of the RC ones. Now we have the problem in a multi-cultural and/or secular society where the CofE and RC still running schools in areas where most pupils are of other faiths.

Patpig it is just one part of the problem, I agree, but it affects a third of primary schools in particular, whereas grammar schools come into play at secondary level.

I recognise that the church historically provided most if not all of the education in the uk, I also know the history of how church schools were incorporated into the state system.

However regardless of the history of the schools, the fact is that they are now funded by taxpayers. History doesn't justify allowing them to prioritise those of a particular faith.

It's not really about primary schools though is it? The real competition for resources, where the game gets serious, is at secondary schools. The wrong secondary school can destroy a child.

And grammar schools don't exist in most areas, it's finding your way around the admissions procedures for so-called 'comprehensive' schools that is the key for most people.

And the whole problem of catchment areas becoming minuscule is compounded by the fact that LAs have had little control over admissions since the Greenwich ruling twenty years ago which decreed that councils could not reserve places for pupils in their ares. Very few schools have defined 'catchment areas' with boundaries. The vast majority have distance as a criteria. The government has banned random allocation in LAs. Schools still have to be local and children have to walk to school.

Back to the OP. You can't stop parents moving in or out of areas. You can't have a residence test that discriminates against families that have to move due to family breakdown, eviction, rental agreements, etc. How do you crack down on multiple property owners/renters?

areas

PatPig the thread is about primaries. The complication here is people don't really live where they say they live.

It is trickier with primaries, but the automatic sibling policy really should be scrapped for secondary school. I just can't see any good reason for retaining it.

I live near to a hugely oversubscribed school which gives places by lottery, but even then siblings get priority! So one child gets lucky and then their 5 siblings follow. It is crazy and indefensible.

patpig the debate here is about primary schools and parents renting to get a place and then moving away. What ever the drawbacks of the different systems surely the principle that every child should be able to attend the school local to where they live and therefore have the benefit of the schools serving and being part of the local community, having the most humane commute and their friends living locally is a sound one. It is especially so at primary school, a time when getting a child and often younger siblings to distant schools can actually break a mothers ability to cope, especially if they work.

It is completely unfair and discriminatory that if you are not in a position to pray that your only choice will be a distant school. In this borough we have some of the most socially exclusive faith schools in the country, one has 1% FSM and it neighbours a community school with 10%, which is more representative of the local community. The school drop off at the faith school is wall to wall 4WDs, indistinguishable from a private school, whilst at the community school it is in the main children being walked to school, the catchment for 4form entry is down to 400m. At 401m the parents who didn't baptise by 6 months (which excludes a lot of devout Eastern European parents because that is not the custom there) have only the choice of a school 3 miles and two bus rides away. For the 4 year old that is 40 minutes at each end of the day on a route march between bus stops and for the mother with younger siblings it is almost 3 hours, and playing with schoolfriends after school simply not feasible, nor is having two working parents. That is a situation replicated in four out of the 6 suburban centres within the borough, and in one of them the Council, with a leader who is part of the Catholic establishment, gave the best site for a new school to the Catholic Church in return for 10 community places. At allocations there were around 30 parents between 100m and 500m of the new school without a place, even at a distant school.

I am not against faith schools, since they exist historically I see no reason why parents who are devout or culturally of a faith should not have the option of joining the faith schools communities but not at the expense of local children. The London CofE diocese has actually come out and said that it believes it's schools should be serving their community but they are toothless in the face of governors who want to preserve, even extend, exclusivity. Exclusivity and expansion of faith schools when there is a massive shortage of school places is the most absurd of all the unfairnesses.

There is plenty of data that demonstrates that schools that select on faith are socially and ethnically exclusive and less likely than a community school to reflect the social mix of the community it is in (grammar schools too of course and they too should be addressing the issue)

jojo28 yes, do know about the Fair Admissions Campaign (smile)

But again that's really not a faith school thing.

And faith schools are not necessarily socially and ethnically exclusive.

You are looking at this the wrong way around.

'Good' school in most cases means 'socially exclusive'.

There are some 'bad' faith schools, which nobody wants to go to. These are not socially exclusive.

It's not about faith, it's about competition for a scarce resource, namely a 'good' school, by which is generally meant 'one with an intake of bright, middle-class pupils'.

Any school that becomes oversubscribed is socially exclusive and the exclusion process will inevitably favour middle class parents. This is true whether the school is faith, comprehensive or grammar.

It doesn't matter. Faith schools have a slightly easier route to becoming socially exclusive if/when they become popular, but it's not unique to them.

In London the competition for resources is most intense because of population density, demographic changes, pushier-than-usual parents and other factors. Getting rid of faith schools might change the battlegrounds but it doesn't change the war - you can still be sent to a 40 minute journey to school without any faith schools in your area because of others out-competing you for a particular school.

My local school's catchment has shrunk to about a fifth of its size since becoming 'Outstanding'. It was still good before. Families are researching schools online and moving to the area fully informed, including from overseas or being promoted at work. Ofsted ratings, SATs results, etc. have become so important, and the government wants to have even more 'diversity' with more academy chains operating primaries and more free schools. Not all primaries have nurseries or wrap-around care attached, so that also differentiates them. Will the anxiety subside? No, it will just get worse. Choice, and not getting it, makes you dissatisfied. Shortages make you anxious. More diversity + shortages = panic, cheating and inequality.

jojo28 a community school with only one-form entry is a rarity in the LA where I live. This is compounding the problem, especially if it is surrounded by other tiny schools, faith or otherwise.l Is it possible for it to expand?

Straggle makes a good point about research online. The problem has increased exponentially because not only can people more easily get info about schools, they feel they have to now, for that reason!
The suggestion that sibling priority in primaries should only apply if the family hasn't moved seems really sensible. That way, families are not automatically penalised for annual variances in the catchment, but if they move, they do so in the knowledge that they revert to the normal non-sibling priority.

Patpig You are coming at it the wrong way round, if you come at it from the point of view that every child should have priority in access to a local school, good or bad, then at least a lot fewer will have such ridiculous journeys, or be forced into home schooling etc. The Faith Schools around here in prioritising faith applicants from further away are excluding the local community. I get that if they were bad in some areas they would be unsubscribed, I come from the North East where teh Catholic Schools that have long served immigrant communities continue to serve that function, and indeed not just the immigrant community but the local community. However pressure on places in London is such that even faith schools that were bad a few years ago are now oversubscribed, better to get a place at a faith school and work from the inside to improve it than to have no place or a place at a school you cannot access.

As I said I have no problems with faith schools if they are a choice but around here with a third of the schools exclusive faith schools, two thirds in some suburbs, they have become a vehicle for gaining advantage and of social and ethnic exclusion, and if you look at the national figures that is happening more often than not.

I would add that the London challenge has gone a long way to unhook that connection between middle class catchments and outstanding schools, now OFSTED's focus is on the poor pupils who are underperforming in those schools in leafy suburbs.

Something I'd like to address is the preoccupation of the middle classes with outstanding schools! People far more knowledgeable than myself have written about this - where's Fiona Millar when you need her? A great deal of research suggests that children from (for want of a better word) middle class families do well in most school settings. It is the values about learning that are instilled in children within the home, how they are supported by their parents from day one to get the most out of their schooling that makes the difference. So naturally when you get a school like EP where the majority of children are from these types of homes you get a school that does very well in SATS and Ofsteds and then the madness begins..... Last year a temporary renter swindled my friend out of his school place. He got offered the school in Camden that no one wants the school that middle class parents roll their eyes at and say over my dead body. Well his children went to the school, he had no choice and guess what? They are happy kids; doing well at the school and thriving.... it's amazing! His family have got right behind the school and the teachers and it's working well for his family, so that now he doesn't think he'd move back to the legendary EP.... this family is my inspiration they have moved beyond the neuroticism and fear and realised that 90% of the success your child achieves at school is down to your families attitude and values. Help to create a good local school - go there, get involved, create something for your community. What you are modeling for your children is priceless - you are embodying all those things people like to pay lip service to but rarely actually put into practice. Caring about everyone in your community, embracing diversity, building a fairer society, respecting and understanding people from different walks of life.... It always makes me laugh when you see celebs & stars banging on about how they want all of these things and peace on earth but as soon as they have kids what do they do? Pack them off to private schools or in the case of Blair, Clegg and David Milliband selective state schools, it speaks volumes about their sincerity and outlook on life.

Good post jojo

Fiona Millar is so sharp. Great article from her on fair admissions here.

I properly love Fiona Millar, Straggle. She is a great riposte to anyone citing Blair, Abbott, Harman etc and their hypocrisy. She sent her children to not particularly desirable local schools, sticking with a primary that went into special measures, chairing the governors and helping to improve it for her local community.

And as Jojo says, as far as I know her children have all done fantastically (I don't know her but know people who do and I think her kids have all gone onto Oxbridge and all that).

She is spot on about admissions. Community comprehensives, in London at least, are never fully comprehensive as so many of the middle-classes are off to faith schools, privates, selectives, so that the schools that are left have a disproportionate number of some of the harder-to-reach children. And often do incredibly well by the full range of their pupils.

Disappointing if her DC have chosen Oxbridge (appreciate that at that level it is the child's choice, not their parents, so give FM and AC a cop-oiut clause) because would surely be better for bright kids to go to other unis to help theri standard rise (to apply the same logic FM applies to schools...)

Shooting@pigeons, a 'local' school can easily become very exclusive due to demand. In that case people who live close by can be excluded from it and commute a long distance.

Stopping abuse of the system by the people in the OP's article only widens the catchment by a very small distance. It doesn't change the fact that people are going to say 'but it's my local school' when the nearest school is a good one (and distance isn't really the issue here - there will be other schools in near distance, we are talking about London here), and desperately look for something else when it's a bad one.

According to the DFE website there are 19 primary schools within a mile of Eleanor Palmer.

The stats are here for Camden:

www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/download/asset?asset_id=2963374

On page 67

The most oversubscribed (the 'good' schools) were:

Emmanuel - 170 applications for 15 places (half the intake, the other half is on faith)
Fitzjohn's - 339 applications for 30 places
Fleet - 273 applicants for 30 places
Eleanor Palmer - 235 applicants for 30 places
Christ Church Hampstead - 174 applicants for 27 places

And the least (the 'bad' schools):
Netley - 71 for 60 places
St Alban's - 36 for 30 places
Argyle - 79 for 60 places
Carlton - 94 for 60 places
Brecknock - 99 for 60 places

Becoming a 'good' school is mostly down to random chance, albeit that it is determined by your intake. The most oversubscribed places, which are all single-form entry, have a big advantage in admissions because by taking in only one form it's much easier to attract 30 middle class pupils than 60.

Conversely, the two-form-entry schools are far more likely to be undesirable, because the microclimate of middle class applicants is far less likely to arise by chance (when you have only 30 pupils a year, it's possible to have a good year, some good teaching, some good SAT results, and then wham! you are at the top of the league tables and everyone is applying) when you are taking 60 kids in each year.

Apparently there might be an overall shortage of primary school places in Camden as a whole, but then if you read the comments here where numerous people rejected Carlton:

www.kentishtowner.co.uk/2012/07/09/why-it-matters-camdens-hidden-school-places-black-hole/

it seems that a lot of people that claim to have no local school actually did have a local school (Carlton), it just wasn't 'good' enough for them, and so they took whatever steps they felt necessary to find somewhere better, be it go private or whatever else.

'Boo hoo hoo my child can't go to the local school' is very rarely the issue.

It's more 'boo hoo hoo my child can't go to the best school in the area and I won't settle for anything else'.

PatPig - wow - interesting figures! So even the least 'desirable' schools are oversubscribed - what happens to those numerous children whose parents can't afford to go indie - are there undersubscribed schools in neighbouring boroughs?

They're not oversubscribed - those figures include those who have put it anywhere on their submissions list i.e. they were all non-first choices.