No more sibling priority in our LEA

[BeehiveBaby]

At least that is how I understand it....admissions policy now as follows:

1 Looked after children
2 In catchment siblings
3 In catchment children
4 Out of catchment siblings
5 Out of catchment children

With priority given by distance within the last category with spaces IYSWIM.

The Church schools are all doing it too, with other requirements but always with in catchment children who fulfil them coming before out of catchment siblings.

Is this common? A good idea?

I will admit that I was planning to move having got DD1 into the school of my choice, but would remain well within walking distance of the school (very densely populated area). I could even have moved closer to the school on the other side actually and be out of catchment (or in our case, parish) as it is on a County border.

In Surrey we don't have catchments so it's all on distance as the crow flies after looked after children & then siblings.

I really feel they should introduce a rule that if you move more than x miles away then you lose you right to a sibling place.

"I really feel they should introduce a rule that if you move more than x miles away then you lose you right to a sibling place."

I think that is what this is designed to achieve, as the catchment areas are new too (from what I read in the paper of disgruntled parents who don't agree with being put in a catchment when they may have got a place at a different school under the 'as the crow flies' system).

I think this is fair enough. Why should people be able to get one kid into school, move a few miles away and get siblings in before local children?
Here, the sibling link only applies within 2 miles of the school which is fair enough, I think.
But I think the rule should be waived for families who are directed to an out of area school.

it used to be "distance by a suitable walking rounte" - you can imagine the rows and arguements about short cuts across fields!

In some ways I think catchment is better because around here there are several areas that are a no-mans land where the children don't end up in any of their nearest 3 schools.

'In some ways I think catchment is better because around here there are several areas that are a no-mans land where the children don't end up in any of their nearest 3 schools'

I agree. Someone on here put it beautifully when describing very urban areas using the as the crow flies rule. The schools' variable 'catchment areas' become islands in a sea, but if you are in the sea, you are stuck with no school for miles.

I agree there should be a distance limit on sibling places.

There should also be a distance limit on church places. In my area people are coming from up to six miles away on church places meaning some people who live 1 mile away can't get in.

'There should also be a distance limit on church places. In my area people are coming from up to six miles away on church places meaning some people who live 1 mile away can't get in'

ITA. One of the schools had an extremely complex admissions policy that looked like it could have resulted in this happening. Haven't checked since all the others have changed though. I discounted anywhere with a complicated card stamping, letter writing, headteacher bribing policy.