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 problem is that OP isn't in catchment for her son's school. She has been assigned a random new school a long way from her house. That's why I think she will unfortunately probably be relying on the sibling rule she wants to get rid of.

I think she made a better point when she said when you must expand local services at the same rate as you expand local housing.

BTW - It sounds like your Free School experience was bad. But we had the same problem of kids without school places back in 2008 before Free schools. And it happened again, children didn't get places every year for next 8 years. You do have to question their contingency planning.

BTW - It sounds like your Free School experience was bad. But we had the same problem of kids without school places back in 2008 before Free schools. And it happened again, children didn't get places every year for next 8 years. You do have to question their contingency planning

I don't doubt it! But our LA did manage to build a couple of new primaries just before 2010, which was just about keeping pace at the time. Unfortunately the population has continued to grow as we're (slightly) more affordable than some neighbouring boroughs but still with good transport links. And fuckloads of flats built where you could build schools - so more families, but no extra education provision.

So we're kind of screwed as even though the LA is trying, too much is outside their control. It's a terrible system - too many cards held by those who aren't properly accountable.

I applied for six out of my 8 nearest schools (others were 100% church places). Got an excellent school a mile away as previous bulge classes meant nearer ones were filled with siblings. It's expanded to 3-form entry, but despite huge pressure in the borough, is still undersubscribed - because the real pressure is at the other end of the borough which is high-density housing, and if kids were sent from there to our school, the borough would have to pay for travel as over 2 miles. So they squeeze portakabins in instead.

Bulge classes make it even harder to plan - local school was told to take one for 3 years in a row with v little notice, and assumed this would continue. It didn't in dc1's year, so that year group is almost all younger siblings at that school and eldests at dc1's school - which means distance admitted will flip round over the next couple years.

Short-term leases make it all so much worse. If you are having to move every 6 months or so as many do in London, then fretting over whether you can get your children into the same school is a nightmare - siblings have to be priority for primary, unless the parents own a house and didn't get child 1 in from there.

Alternatively we adopt the German model where 5yos are expected to travel independently on buses, all roads in towns are max 20mph and strictly enforced, with lots of manned crossings, and remove parents from the school run - would solve problems of children at different schools, cut traffic, boost children's exercise... shame it won't happen here. (resigns self to 4 miles a day walking for the foreseeable)

I think the idea that in catchment siblings have priority with the exception of those, like the op, who were forced to accept a place for dc1 out of catchment is a good one. (Someone mentioned this ages ago). It would solve the problem of the op, and stop the calculated moving for school place then moving away.

Our LEA has changed the criteria so it's looked after, sibs in catchment, new in catchment, sibs out, new out.

It means our DS might not get into the same primary as his sister as we're slightly out of catchment but she'll be in year 6 when DS starts. I do think it's fairer that in catchment children get priority.

I'm Scottish and living in England. When I was fretting about ds starting school I looked up what it was like getting into secondary schools in Scotland. I saw a state school there that has its catchment area defined as a list of addresses, rather than just a map area. This is so that people can't buy plots of land withing the catchment area and build houses in that area in order to get into the school. That must be one very popular school. It made me feel a fair bit better about the already difficult situation where we live.

purple I know someone in the same situation. Her DC2 is in year r in their catchment primary but her DC1 is in year 6 in the one they are slightly out of catchment of. It's not too bad as the schools aren't too far apart. The older walks to school by themselves. It's easier with a larger gap definitely.

Back when their DC1 apply for schools there aren't any pressure on local school spaces. Everyone gets into whatever they choose.

My local school (not in London) has a last offer distance of under 0.5 mile and we have no flats and a lot of woodlands. So even then not all catchment children without siblings get in. I would only assume a lot more local children would miss out if siblings are prioritise over local children. There are not the same pressure on places before.

To Londoners, we have drawn catchment and they are a lot larger than a 1 mile radius. The last admission is under the category of catchment without sibling. There are just a lot of parks and woods, and no flats.

Ipsos I think you must be talking about Jordanhill. That is indeed a special case and one of the couple of schools outside the normal local authority framework. It does outperform all other Scottish schools but it is flattered by its demographic and the fact that it has an additional selective intake for senior students.

I can see the need for a sibling policy for primary schools as DCs at that age need to be taken to school by a parent and having to deliver children to several different schools possibly large distances away could be a logistical impossibility.

However I can't see any justification for such a policy in secondary schools as a NT 11 year old is perfectly capable of getting to school by themselves, and indeed the vast majority would rather poke their eyes out with a stick than be ferried to school by a parent!

Jassy, I think you are awfully near me or in the neighbouring borough!

Howabout yes that's right. I felt stressed just reading it their catchment guidelines. It's really stressful dealing with catchment areas where I live too. Before ds started school, parents from other catchments were constantly going on about how "their school" was better than ours. Oddly, our school had turned out to be very nice and was given a rave review in the next ofsted grading and the other schools were all downgraded. It boggles the mind really. I totally agree with the OP that it's the kids and staff that make the school. The kids in the class really matter and we've been lucky with out class.

I live outside London now but have a similar dilemma. Our nearest schools are all ranked good (none outstanding). To ensure I get a school place I have put my nearest school down first. While it is a school ranked good, I don't feel like it is a good match for my child. I suspect it will slip at the next ofsted as the school has new management and feedback is very mixed. I also have other reservations. I am in catchment (just) for two schools but this is my nearest and I don't want to gamble on being given a place 3-4miles away at one or the new branded (I.e. Closed because it was shite and now, even though it's the same staff and pupils, they are pretending it's new and great with their new name and uniform) schools. I think 'choice' doesn't really come into it. If I had a choice it wouldn't be this school. We also don't get 6 Picks here. If we did we wouldn't qualify for our next nearest schools anyway on location and religious beliefs

With such a problem in England and particularly in London, why on earth is the government not pursuing a school-building policy? Sounds like they bloody well should be.

Because apparently the market (through free schools) will sort it out for us without state intervention.

In fact: school building is expensive, and meanwhile the government is able to blame provision problems on local authorities, so there's no need to spend the money.

Ambroxide - I'm in Kingston (or a bit of it anyway!)

I thought you might be. I am in Richmond.

We do have a free school locally. They have a small class intake and catchment is just 0.1 of a mile.

Oh and I think free schools can create their own admissions criteria so that doesn't automatically resolve the school crisis

I am in Scotland too. We have to apply to our local school or put in a placing request. The number of classes in the first year (P1) varies depending on numbers of in-zone children - over the last few years at our school between two and three and a half classes. Every year all the classes across all the years get re-jigged to maximise class size depending on intake (maximum 25 in P1 and composite classes, 33 in others). If you move you don't need to move school but siblings will need to put in a placing requests which I think jump the list above other placing requests if there is a waiting list.

Oh, and we also have the so-called "Curriculum for Excellence" so it is not all good up here!

TooExtraImmatureCheddar the free market is supposed to sort this out. Local authorities have lost their abilities to open new schools from 2010.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35313804

they need more places to give a choice and not just whatever is left.
im in a village last year distance was 0.343mi for a 60 intake
im in favour of siblings provided still at same address/no further or the twice the other distance.
the uncertainty makes me angry. theyve had 4 yrs to tackle this. they have doubled the intake at closest school. but built so many houses with more planned when what they need is a school.
though it is likely caused by low intake yrs people getting in from large distances so causing lots of sibs. increasing the pan also does this reducing the distance a few yrs later.

My two young children both have statements so the education authority always have to honour our first choice of school. So different now from when I was their age!

Practically, unless we are prepared to fund more capacity than is needed, I don't think there can be much choice. Each school is built to teach a certain amount of children - too many and they won't fit, too few and the school won't be able to cover overheads.