Primary school admissions - 14 miles apart

[Ruralparents]

Hi all

I thought I’d join to mine your collective wisdom!

We live in rural Cambridgeshire, 6 miles from our nearest school in one direction and 8 miles from the next nearest in another.

Back in the depths of lockdown we had to a choose a school for our eldest to start at in Sept 2021. My wife teaches at the school 8 miles away and so we chose it because it would be handier. We didn’t know if our eldest would get in there but she did. And it turns out that her catchment school, 6 miles away, was oversubscribed.

Now, in 2023 our daughters school is over subscribed and our youngest has been placed at the catchment school. These two school are 14 miles apart! We lost our appeal and have now got the prospect of trying to manage a 28 mile school run, twice a day.

Cambridgeshire council don’t care, they are hiding behind their protocols and passing the buck.

We asked if our eldest could move schools to be with our youngest and they’ve refused because her year group at the catchment school is oversubscribed.

Out of catchment siblings get the same priority as in catchment siblings in Suffolk and Norfolk, but not Cambridgeshire. And when you live 6 and 8 miles from the two schools it’s fairly obvious you’re going to be at the bottom of the admissions list when either school is over subscribed.

Has anyone had any joy appealing on the grounds of unreasonable journey times etc? I just don’t think anyone should be made to do over 10000 miles a year on the school run. School transport hasn’t been offered but even if we can get it, someone still has to be available to put a 4 year old in a taxi and to collect them etc, it doesn’t help the logistics.

There is an ombudsman, but I think they have just rigged the whole system in order to do as they please and screw those who live out in the sticks.

I didn’t say you would change offers, I said HTs cannot lawfully retrospectively change the criteria places were offered under. Different things.

As I posted, if you did that and the appeal was successful (which it shouldn’t be) it would be open to legal challenge. It would go against the appeals code, therefore as @PanelChair posted upthread, it can be overturned by the courts. You may get away with it, but that doesn’t make it lawful and no-one should be relying on getting away with acting unlawfully.

Are you suggesting lying? Fraud? Whoever heard of a farmer who couldn't drive?

Nothing would change, admissions criteria don’t take into account whether the parent(s) can drive or not.

Wouldn't the family in 1st place on WL raise a challenge here as then they'd be looking for two pupils to leave before being offered a place. I'd be surprised if any authority would be keen to open themselves up to domino challenges.

Circumstances would be different. The parent being a teacher at the school is the key. I could put a strong argument together about the significant disadvantage to current pupils on roll, staff well-being (including staff asked to cover this reasonable parental leave), and the functional running of the school.

Oh FFS…

1. I’d do it
2. The LA would tell me I’d done the wrong thing
3. I’d point out how unreasonable the situation was, point out a number of ways that they had recently broken the law and failed to implement their own policies.
4. They’d say ‘oh, ok then, we’ll allow it this time’
5. Rinse and repeat…. I have these conversations with my LA every single day of my godforsaken life.

The child is only the ‘excepted pupil’ until the next child leaves- likely to be day 1 in September when they don’t all show up!

Unfortunately, it’s the same for every HT in the land!

Have a lovely evening as I’m off 😍

To the OP, ask your partner to talk to their HT to see if there is anything they can/ are willing to do here. You might get the situation solved by tomorrow afternoon!

A school cannot legally change its admission criteria willy nilly. If a school is doing so, this lays them open to challenge. Any change to the admission criteria must go through a consultation process and there is a strict timetable that must be followed.

If your nearest school is more than 3 miles away by the shortest safe walking route, the LA must provide free transport for the child. If you apply to your nearest school and are allocated a school that is more than 3 miles away, the LA must provide free transport for the child. There are other situations in which free transport must be provided. Note that transport is only for the child. The LA does not have to provide transport for a parent to accompany the child. If there is adequate public transport, the LA can meet its obligations by providing a bus pass or similar.

So she quit her job so she could do the school runs and make it work.School lost out on a brilliant teacher they've not been able to replace. All for 8 miles.

Surely she still had to take dc1 to the school where she had previously worked. If so, why couldn't she carry on working there?

If dc1 had got into the same school as dc2, she would still have had to drive to both schools.

You may do it. That doesn’t change the fact it would be unlawful and open to legal challenge. It isn’t just the LA who would potentially pursue the legal challenge - as @myrtleWilson pointed out there are other parties who may.

The child is only the ‘excepted pupil’ until the next child leaves- likely to be day 1 in September when they don’t all show up!

Nowhere have I said otherwise.

Most HTs don't try to retrospectively change the criteria.

Point 6 on your list if any parent on the waiting list finds out what you've done is "lose appeals due to a clear breach of the law, resulting in classes over the ICS limit". It would be a straightforward appeal for the child at the head of the waiting list. You have admitted an additional pupil. Under the published admission arrangements, that should have been them, not the pupil you actually admitted. No amount of pleading about how unreasonable the situation was will get you out of that.

Point 7, if you are an academy, is the ESFA finds out and tells you your funding will be withdrawn if you don't stick to your funding agreement, which requires you to comply fully with the Admissions Code.

Some heads do play fast and loose with the Admissions Code. Most don't. Don't kid yourself that everybody does it.

It is worth noting that OP said way back that children of teachers already had priority within the school’s oversubscription criteria - number 6 iirc - but that the admissions this year had not reached this criterion - oversubscribed by number ?3a? . Op also said that there were many others caught by there not being sufficient space for siblings outside catchment, a higher criterion than teachers’ children, who were therefore going to a school not of their choice further away.

There are therefore potentially quite a number of families who would want to appeal - and win, on the basis of the head’s unlawful action - should the head break the law and adjust admissions criteria other than on the allowed timescales with consultation.

As a head, would having to create and pay for a whole new Reception class and staff team for it to accommodate 6 children admitted on appeal and now far over the Infant Class Size limit be worth it to retain a part time member of staff who might, maybe, if their DH can’t work it out (later posts by OP seem like a plan was in motion) have to leave a gap in your staffing a couple of days a week?

Sorry if someone has already responded @upstair123 but I wanted to address your comment as I know how particularly rubbish Cambridgeshire are about transport. If your child is starting a special school they must have an ehcp. If they have an ehcp they are entitled to transport. That’s the end of the matter really. Www.IPSEA.org.uk are a good source of information, support and really helpful template letters.

I'm neither deluded or being deliberately goady.

What I'm describing is part of normal family farming life for hundreds, if not thousands of families.

Some of our fondest memories are helping out around the farm. It's a wonderful experience and I feel sad that your children never got to experience that. But that's your choice.

I too am safety conscious and would always carefully supervise and never put anyone, child or adult at risk.

My friend, also from a farming family did sadly witness her brother lose his legs getting caught up in machinery when he was a child. He was not being supervised by an adult.

Whilst these horrific accidents do happen, I'm not disputing that, but they happen when they are not being supervised. To not supervise your children on a working farm is irresponsible, but no one is suggesting the OP does this.

I’ll never apologise for doing the right thing by members of MY school community. I can’t fight the whole world but putting the small corner I do have control over is all I can do. I do a job that some would consider ‘outstanding’ but I’m not going to give them the time of day.

I’d win the admissions argument in this instance, lawfully too. Most heads could.

I don’t think that things are as clear cut as you’d hope. It’s a bureaucratic nightmare.

https://www.servicestoschools.org.uk/Page/3395 sets out the statutory (legal) deadlines etc for changes to admissions arrangements quite clearly. I know it’s a particular LA but my understanding is that the law us the same for all LAs

Can you explain how you would change the arrangements for a single pupil starting in September legally and without what you gave done being subject to challenge?

How would your actions be lawful?

If you were the headteacher whilst I was a chair of governors, your performance appraisal would be very interesting. Our governors would have serious issues with your actions, given the potential to expose the school to serious reputational damage and having to admit all the children further up on the waiting list, once they got wind of the admission that goes against the published admission criteria.

Are there other legal obligations you think are optional?

I’ll let you have the last word, I’m not prepared to explain myself any further.

I’m so sorry that the systems don’t work, are full of corruption and fail to meet the needs of children and families that they are designed to support. The whole system is in a mess and I really fear that it is beyond repair. There are so many people within the system who are working hard to do the right thing, stand up and be counted etc… these individuals are dwindling. We’ll all be within a private MAT within the next decade, the focus will go and all the love will be lost.

Then anyone can do whatever the hell they like 🖕

Thankfully, I’ll be retired (or dead) by then.

Prh47bridge has hit the nail on the head with points (6) and (7) on the updated list.

I would say that stating that you would break the admissions law to favour ‘the person you know’, thus disadvantaging a family with a better claim to the place but that you don’t know, and then complaining that the system is corrupt is…odd.

The system is not full of corruption, although I would never deny that there is some. However, your actions as described here are clearly corrupt and unlawful. I hope you are not a head and are making this up.

This! I don't think anyone is suggesting the current process is without flaws -but that doesn't lead to a HT deciding on a whim who gets in...

I’d win the admissions argument in this instance, lawfully too. Most heads could.

No, no you couldn’t. What you describe is not lawful by any stretch of the imagination.

MATs still have to abide by the admissions code and appeals code.

I’m so sorry that the systems don’t work, are full of corruption and fail to meet the needs of children and families that they are designed to support.

If you think admitting a child who doesn't meet the admissions criteria, breaking ICS rules, and stopping a local child at the top of the waiting list gain a place is perfectly acceptable, you're the one who is corrupt.

I suspect this one is one of those fantasy heads though. Possibly a disgruntled parent who thinks their child hasn't got a place because the head has swung things, and is hoping to hear of other heads who have done the same.