Twins allocated different schools!!!

[gem2809]

Hi all,

Does anybody have any advice for our situation?? Our twin boys have been allocated different primary schools. One of our boys has a statement for special needs and was allocated a place at our catchment school back in February, whereas his brother has been allocated our 3rd choice school, which is approx. 3.25 miles across town!! We believe we have a strong case to appeal this but any advice would be handy!!

Thanks

We spoke with our LEA today, who told us that they knew our boys were twins, there is no allocation policy for twins and that they couldn't tell us where our other boy would be on the waiting lost. Extremely helpful!!!!

i was thinking that, hocus. this is just an oversight because of the statemented child. if both were nt then they would have been allocated the same school as a matter of course - it's just an administrative error.

on a slightly more practical note though - i would suggest just getting your child's paediatrician to write a letter for the appeal panel confirming that your twin with sn will find it extremely distressing dealing with a new school setting without his brother, which will be detrimental to both his health and education, and is easily solved by allocating the multiple a 'PAN +1' place for this school year.

we've used a similar argument in reverse, as my statemented child is younger, but was familiar with the school because of her siblings attendance there - not a sib application though (infant school/ move to out of county juniors). so in order to get named school best for child etc. at the time she was not independently mobile, and so the obvious choice wasn't an old victorian building . it is now an accessible old victorian building though.

the only difficulty i see is if the statemented child is already in a 'PAN +1' place. if they have included him in the named school within the PAN, i think your appeal will be fine.

but get a paed's letter backing up the necessity of having both multiples in the same school, for the wellbeing of the sn sibling. so your appeal is based on your sn child really, even though it's the nt sibling that you want a place for.

more than one way to skin a cat, etc etc.

Thanks for that. Have been on the phone all day to the professionals who deal with my ds, hopefully should have enough for the appeal!

good luck - i'm sure it will be fine x

That's very interesting about Hampshire's policy of exceeding the PAN for twins and multiple births. Unless they are employing additional teachers for classes with 31/32/33 they appear to be flouting the law, unless they have convinced the DfE that these pupils are 'excepted' (which, as innertiger says, is usually reserved only for pupils who have been admitted after a successful appeal and, even then, the status only lasts for that academic year).

I think people are confusing PAN and infant class size issues. Or I might be.

My take was that a smaller school might have a reception class with a PAN of say 27 due to the space restrictions or other practicalities. In which case a twin could be admitted under the policy about without prejudicing the overriding infant class size legislation which states that no reception class should have more than 30 children.

So in hampshire, if admitting a twin would take them to PAN plus 1 that would be ok. But there is STILL the other issue of not exceeding 30.

Eureka, Pooka, I think you're right!

I do all my admission appeals in densely-populated boroughs where the PAN is always a multiple of 30 and every reception admission appeal is an infant class size appeal. I tend to forget that there are parts of the country where the PAN may not be 30/60/90/120. So, yes, it is possible that in practice what the Hampshire policy means is that a PAN of 27 could be pushed up to 28/29/30 by twins or multiple births.

Our PAN was previously set at 29 to allow for an additional child admitted later

i suspect the schools in the majority of hampshire (certainly where we were applying) have a PAN of 30 tbh... maybe not for smaller rural, but certainly the majority... not sure

madwoman I have seen similar statements for the schools we have applied to (also in Hampshire). And they are all fully subscribed here with PAN of 30 (and one with mixed year groups too)

So I don't know who is correct, but the application rules as I read them implied a same cohort sibling would be admitted, even with a PAN of 30

I don't know what is going on in Hampshire but the Admissions Code and the law are clear. There are only 7 valid exceptions which allow an additional child into a class that already has 30 children. Being a sibling of a child in the same cohort is not one of them. The exceptions are:

• SEN children admitted outside the normal admissions round

• children moving into the area outside the normal admissions round when there are no places available within a reasonable distance

• children who should have been admitted in the normal admissions round but weren't due to a mistake

• children in care admitted outside the normal admissions round

• children admitted as a result of a successful appeal

• children who are registered at special schools but receive part of their education at a normal school

• children who normally attend a special needs unit attached to the school but receive part of their education in the mainstream classes

If Hampshire are extending a PAN of 30 to admit siblings in the same cohort they are breaking the law.

Exactly, Prh.

That's why I can't see how TAMBA (or anyone else) can devise a policy which always keeps twins/multiple births together and yet still respects the law as it stands and doesn't displace other children who are higher up the priority order to create spaces for the other twin/siblings.

I have now taken a look at Hampshire's website. Their policy on multiple births for Reception is clear. If the last child admitted is a multiple birth or same cohort sibling they will admit the other siblings even though it takes the school past PAN. Whilst this may be sensible it is illegal if it results in infant class size regulations being breached.

I think it may have been sensible to have same cohort siblings as an exception to the infant class size rules but unfortunately the government at the time this was made law didn't agree.

so, everyone with multiples is moving to hants then although i'm certain i've seen similar elsewhere (as i said, we move every year/ two years to new lea) might have a look later, if i have time.

but stick with the sn appeal, op. tis a winner for sure.

The answer could be, but I sincerely hope it was not, that when Hampshire had a knee jerk reaction to want to admit siblings to the same school they forgot about the ICS Regs applying. They have applied what the admission code says in 2.25 that admission authorities for primary schools should ensure in their oversubscription criteria that siblings can attend the same primary school. The problem is that they forgot about as long as they comply with the Education (Infant Class Sizes) England Regulations 1998

it's been like it for at least four years, maybe five? so you'd think if there was anything desperately illegal, someone might have pointed it out at some point?

Well, none of us here (as far as I know) are judges in a court of law, who could give a definitive ruling, but Hampshire's policy certainly seems to put it at odds with the infant class size regulations. Prh47bridge has listed the only 7 situations in which infant class sizes can lawfully go above 30 and keeping twins/multiples together isn't one of them. Who knows whether anyone has pointed this out to Hampshire? One might speculate that they either (as Admission suggests) forgot about the regs or took the view that no parent was likely to complain or challenge the policy and/or that it would be alright on the night, as some places might be declined between allocation day and the start of term, taking the admitted number down to PAN. That last one seems to me like a sensible and pragmatic approach (although it could backfire in very sought-after schools where nobody declines a place) but, as has been said repeatedly now, it isn't actually in accordance with the law.

I know this may seem like a pedantic point, but parents of twins and multiples need to be aware that not every LEA offers a cast-iron guarantee to keep twins and multiples together, because such a guarantee isn't possible within the letter of the law.

i might ask sil next time i see her
she volunteered some advice before re sn, and coincidentally, does work in hampshire lol. not sure she'll have had a similar case - it hadn't occurred to me to ask tbh... but might be interesting!

How about the following suggestion for a policy within the letter of the law.

In this situation, the LA could contact the parents of the twins / multiples and ask if they would prefer:

1. the allocation to proceed as done (eg twin 1 to school A, twin 2 to school B); or
2. The twins to swap allocation (twin 2 to school A and twin 1 to school B)' if that seemed a better match for the individual children; or
3. Both twins to school B (or if the first twin admitted were the 30th priority, both twins to school C).

The key is consulting with the parents of multiples. With respect to those above with their sibling issues, it is not the same as dealing with multiples.

OP good luck for the appeal. We actually chose separate primaries for our twins, as we didn't want them in the same classroom and we live in an area full of schools with single form entry. It works for us, but if it isn't what you want or it won't work for you with your ds' needs then keep talking to the LA until someone sorts it out.

Best wishes

You couldn't offer the child priority on the waiting list for having a sibling as the sibling would have to be in attendance at the school already and as that child wouldn't start until September then the child could only be ranked upon the waiting list under the distance criteria.

Not sure K2! In yr 1 a girl started on first term day of Sept, she had gone to top of the waiting list based on the fact that her younger sister got a reception place. I suspect each school/LEA has it's own rules.

Thought the 30 in a class thing was only for reception. I thought schools had to keep a few places for travelling/forces children, thus possibly taking amount to over 30?

30 limit is for reception, year 1 and year 2.

Although when we moved house last year, DS joined a year 1 class as the 33rd I think. School had already planned to split class from September and so he ws able to join. Not sure how they got to 32 in the first place though.

The traveller and Forces children circumstances are exceptional.

I didn't mean they refuse other children; but that they do go over if necessary.