Guest post: "My son wasn't offered a primary school place"

[MumsnetGuestPosts]

No offer possible.

Unfortunately it is not possible to offer a place for your child at any of the schools you stated as a preference in your application.

The email came in at 7.45pm, after a day of texts from relieved friends who had got their school offer, and growing panic at the multiplying 'WE GOT IN' statuses on Facebook.

Rewind three months to this time two years ago and we had just submitted our primary school application form for our son Buster. We'd diligently visited and included six schools all within a mile of our house, and all with great reputations. While a lot of people seemed to be a bit panicky about not getting a place, I was confident in the system – and with so many good schools near us, and all our neighbours at our most local school, I thought we didn't have anything to worry about.

When we got the news, my husband Doug was working away. I phoned him immediately, shouting at him that he must have cocked up the forms. He hadn't. The main issue for our closest school was that of 60 places, 42 were taken up by siblings and a further six went to church places. That left 12 places, so the catchment was a tiny 399 metres.

There's thought to be quite a lot of mystery around how schools allocate places, but most of the time it's pretty straightforward: most councils have criteria for looked after children and those with special needs, then siblings are prioritised, church places allocated (if they have them) and then it's down to location. Despite this, it's easy to get caught up in the hysteria as people around you start attending church or temporarily move to an area to improve their chances of getting in to the best school.

I was surprised at how emotional I felt about it. I resented the people now talking to their kids about big school, getting excited about uniforms and moving on with their lives. There were a couple of heartbreaking moments when Buster walked past our local school and said 'I'm going there mum'. I felt utterly useless.

So, we started our campaign for a school place. Alongside 22 families without places, we met and fought with the council, drafting documents supporting a bulge class in an existing school. The issue for us was that two new free schools were scheduled to open, neither of which we'd applied to because of their locations – and why should we, with so many great schools on our doorstep?

However the council wouldn't budge, because despite the fact that the provision wasn't 'ideal', it was there (albeit in the wrong location), and apart from our group of parents, it didn't feel like there was anyone else championing the cause. By July, it was clear we weren't going to get a place at any of the schools on our list, so we started talking to one of the free schools.

As it turns out, Buster is having what is probably the best possible start to education that he could have. He has no idea that most primary schools aren't a Portakabin in a car park. The staff are fantastic and the school, fully aware that the circumstances weren't ideal for most, have done everything they can to make everyone ok with the situation, getting families involved in transforming the concrete play area.

Instead of being one in a few hundred pupils, he's one in 13. They do things that wouldn't be feasible with more children: go on welly walks, make use of the local park, go to swimming lessons. He started to read and write in the first term and the class have really bonded. After the first few weeks settling in, he has regularly said to us 'I love my school'.

I've learned that ultimately the staff, children and their families are what make a school, but I understand that in the end we've been lucky – this wouldn't be the case for everyone. The system is wrong. For example, the sibling policy needs looking at; something isn't right if someone who has moved out of the area retains a school place for future siblings which means that people who actually live and work in that local community can't get in and have to travel to another community.

There is also huge contradiction with two areas of policy; the pressure to build housing versus an increasing demand to build schools. The two compete with each other for space and invariably schools lose out.

The biggest issue is that these fundamental concerns are fairly fleeting for most. Those of us who have borne the brunt of it end up making the best of a bad situation and moving on. So who is fighting to improve the system?

The system however it's changed will be unfair to some people.

In Scotland, if you are in catchment you get a place if the SCHOOL has space. Not the year, the school. The schools have to rejig classes to fit the child in.

PrimaLass So children can be moved to another year? If that's the case, that will be unfair to some people - those children!

Attainment is linked to attendance mainly, I think, by common causes of both poor attainment and poor attendance eg families who can't get their DC to school consistently are facing circumstances that also affect attainment (serious illnesses, moving a lot for whatever reason, other instabilities or issues..)! And indeed, resolving those problems long-term would likely help. But otherwise, missing the odd couple of days (rarely! not 15% of the time) won't affect their attainment. As you can see I don't buy the scare-mongering either :)

There's a middle way on siblings that some local schools are now using as gaming is rife.

Siblings only get priority if they are still living at the same address as when they applied or living within a defined distance (about twice the actual catchment - in most cases a kilometre when most years the catchment is around 500m). This allows for some flexibility - eg moving from a flat to a house still within walking distance - as well as giving greater certainty that younger siblings won't miss out if it's an unusually popular year. It does help to stop the situation where parents get their first kid in while living on top of th school for a year or two, and then move away while retaining 'good' school places for future kids.

I went to primary school in London in the late 70s / 80s, way before the whole concept of "choice" or league tables for primary schools was brought in.

I went to a school my parents liked the look of that was 2 miles away in a neighbouring London borough. Got in no problem.

I have no idea how typical that is but I do know if you tried to do that these days you wouldn't have a hope in hell!

This is a really interesting post - every cloud has a silver lining I guess, and it sounds like Buster is having a wonderful time. May be I shouldn't be so complacent about Grace getting her next school place! x

The school situation in my area is the same as Jassy re siblings. We have also been told by the local school (which incidentally I was unimpressed with - but am having to put down because we are on the very edge of catchment of the neighbouring schools) that should we get a place we have to provide a copy of our child's birth certificate and evidence of the child living at our address, not the parent. By this they ideally want a doctor's letter / appointment letter. It also has to be a child's main residence, so if you have shared custody they would have to prove that the agreement is mon-fri or the majority of the week days at that address. I guess they've been 'burnt' by too many that have manipulated the system

Hi - I think that compromise is one working in some areas. I wouldn't expect the sibling catchment to be as small as the catchment used to assess applications that changes every year, but within a certain radius as you say is sensible.

That sounds sensible!

I think I know where you live, having looked at your twitter. The school place situation is indeed awful here. Are you not worried about the eventual proposed location of the school, though?

The implication here is that people who rent in catchment and then move out are somehow playing the system. Of course they may be, but it's wrong to assume this is always e case.

It may be just that rentals terms tend to be pretty short. It is not unusual to rent a place and tenancy not renewed. Very insecure and disrupting for families. No guarantee they can find another rental in catchment. What about people whose circumstances change (redundancy, divorce, ,death etc)?

Changing the sibling rule would mean that non-home owners are penalized in yet another. Non-home owners tend to be younger & poorer. Again I do think this would not be at all fair.

(I am actually a homeowner too BTW, so I am trying to be objective rather than just push my own advantage)

My school was given 3 weeks notice by the LEA to create a bulge class one year in January as there were 55 children in borough who were already 5 and had not been offered a school place by December.

I think secure tenancies and stronger tenant rights would help too. Many renters have to leave; their DC shouldn't suffer for it, and those pushed out near-forcibly probably don't have a ton of choice within 400m or 1km of a popular school. But under strong tenants' rights, longer tenancies, etc that situation would hopefully be much more rare.
I don't by any means think everyone who rents in catchment and moves out is playing the system (deliberately). BUT - if they move 2-3 London boroughs over but keep multiple spaces at the most popular schools... ultimately those neighbourhoods (and LAs) do pay the cost and local DC cannot access local schools.

Near where I am, which I think is also near the OP, we are not talking about renting in catchment and being forced to move. There are genuinely quite a number of people who buy near the school they like - a small property, OK for a few years with a couple of small children, expensive (but it's only for a few years). They get their first child into whatever school and then buy a different house, much more suited to life with two or three children. The second house is normally in a place where they would have been offered a school place they weren't keen on. I walk my child to the locally unpopular school every day. I see tons of families who are walking twenty minutes as opposed to our five minutes and I do not think they were all forced to move by rental agreements. I really don't. They are affluent people who have played the system. I would actually quite like to see a rule whereby those who own homes near their school and then move a long way (this could be far less than a mile where we are talking about but have a significant effect on property prices) are penalised.

As it happens, I put our locally unpopular school first on my list as I did not listen to the hype and have been v happy with it. But you would not believe the hysteria in this part of London with respect to school places.

Actually, the walking families are the least of it. The driving families, clogging up roads that are already too full, make me want to scream.

That's just not possible in London. If everyone was guaranteed their most local school or even a local school, there'd be hundreds of children in some year groups.

I guess it would mean very, very defined catchments.

PrimaLass So children can be moved to another year? If that's the case, that will be unfair to some people - those children!

One child wouldn't be moved I don't think. But it is room in the school that counts. Composite classes are not unusual.

You couldn't have defined catchments like that where I am. It would be impossible. The population is both v dense and v fluid. Plus there is no room in the schools! My DD's school has recently expanded from PAN 45 to PAN 60 and it has been very difficult for the school to manage. The tiny playground is the main issue but it's actually now genuinely hard to fit the whole school into the hall for an assembly. God knows what it will be like in a few years when the whole school is two form entry. There is certainly no room to expand further but I wouldn't be surprised if it is mooted at some point.

Eating lunch is also another major problem. The staggered times are impacting on the provision of lunchtime clubs - genuinely educational and life-enhancing stuff like choirs.

Hence one of the reasons we don't live somewhere busy Ambroxide (we moved away from London which meant rather large career sacrifices). My son is in P6 and there are less than 15 children in his class (of course that also has its problems). We have a huge grass playground and woods.

Ambroxide - I completely agree with you. While I think we should make policies that don't make life more impossible for vulnerable families, in a lot of highly sought-after schools that's exactly what's going on. And I think that's not what sibling policies should be for.

My daughter has had a mixed bag of class sizes but her worst year was the year she was in a class of 16 for slightly complex reasons. In fact, she shortly afterwards moved into a class of 34 and it was way way better. I would not want my child to be in a class of less than twenty after Reception age, knowing what I know now. We have considered moving away from London for other reasons but in the end actually the quality of the schools we have access to was the thing that made us stay, crowded as they are.

And not everyone has the option to up sticks and move, necessarily.

I don't think you can say that people are playing the system by buying a bigger property when more kids come along. Forcing people to buy their bigger house in catchment or stay in a house smaller than they need isn't going to free up any school places.