Do other schools or LEAs have these admissions criteria? It seems unfair.

[pozzled]

In my local area, schools A,B,C and D have a sort of reciprocal arrangement in their admissions criteria. Once they have admitted everyone in their own catchment area, and siblings of children attending, they then give priority to children in the other catchment areas.

We live about 300 metres from School D, but unfortunately we fall into the catchment area of School E. So although we're so close, anyone in the catchment areas for A, B and C get a higher priority than us.

(I hope I've explained that clearly, it's a bit complicated).

I was just wondering if anyone has come across this arrangement before? We would love our DD to go to our closest school but it's looking quite unlikely, especially as School C has apparently just failed it's Ofsted.

I've just checked and there are only six primary schools in total in my town. School F is a catholic one. So a non-Catholic living in the catchment area for E will always be last in line for any other school in the town. How can this possibly be fair?

That does sound strange and possibly illegal. Have you had this confirmed by the lea? Ive never heard of a couple of schools grouping together at the exclusion of other kids that live closer. I would get on the phone to admissions tomorrow and ask them if this is really the case and if so, how it can be justified, especially for the poor children living in catchment E.

Never heard of that arrangement. Sounds ridiculously unfair.

Our closest school isn't our catchment either, but I can't imagine the schools would be allowed to do what you are suggesting. We go to the catchment school a mile away and sing lots of songs on the 30 min walk every morning (5 and 3yr olds go there)

pozzled - Are schools A, B, C and D faith schools? If they are I can imagine a way in which a situation like this might arise, although it isn't good if it is as you describe. If you PM me and tell me which schools are involved I will take a proper look and advise.

No, they're not faith schools, just ordinary state schools. The criteria are published very clearly on the LEA website, so they are definitely being used and the LEA are apparently aware and happy with it.

I knew about this before today, but I've only just realised that only our catchment school and the Catholic school are excluded.

prh47bridge I will try to PM you the details, although I don't know if there is a map of the catchment areas online.

The question really becomes whether school E@s potential pupils are being disadvantaged from being able to go to schools A to D by having this mutually beneficial admission criteria.

From what you have said I would suggest that this seems to be the case and as such is not allowed under the admission code. Does school E have some specific issue, like being on a perceived run down estate ?

PRH may well shed more light on it from your PM but if you wish to take it further then you need to complain to the School Adjudicator, who can make a decision on what their understanding of the situation is and if necessary insist that a change is made to the admission arrangements of the school.

No, school E doesn't have any particular issue, it actually seems to be a good school. It's just that it's less convenient for us for several reasons, so wouldn't be my first choice.

As to whether children are being disadvantaged, I guess it's hard to prove. Last year, school D had to take an extra reception class so pretty much everyone who wanted to get in, did. There's no indication that this will happen again.

Now though, School C has apparently had an unsatisfactory Ofsted (and I've only heard this from parents, the report's not on the website yet). I am guessing that more people from C's catchment will put D as their first choice, making it less likely that children from E will get in.

(Obviously we may be lucky, we may still get the school we want, it all depends on the numbers- but either way, it still seems unfair.)

I'm afraid I can't shed much more light on it. I've looked at the details and it seems very strange.

Schools A, B and C are community schools which makes it even more puzzling - most LAs use the same admission criteria for all their community schools. School D is a foundation school.

The admission criteria for schools A, B and C are stated incorrectly in the LA's booklet in my view, in that "exceptional medical circumstances" is given as a footnote instead of being a separate criterion. The footnote says "exceptional medical circumstances" can override the admission criteria except for looked after children. Taking that into account, the admission criteria for these schools are:

• Looked after children
• Exceptional medical circumstances
• Siblings in the priority area
• Other children in the priority area
• Siblings not in the priority area
• Children in the priority area for the other schools in the group
• Everyone else

Just to complicate matters, school A has a separate Junior school with slightly different set of criteria. However, this seems to be a recent split and the Infant and Junior schools appear to be on the same site. The admission numbers for the two schools suggest that in practise the Junior school's intake will be almost entirely taken up with children from the Infant school - the Junior school's PAN is just 5 more than that for the Infant school. Furthermore, the admission criteria for the Junior school say that all looked after children and pupils attending the Infant school are guaranteed a place provided they apply on time. I am somewhat dubious about this guarantee and wonder what the Schools Adjudicator would make of it.

School D's criteria are:

• Looked after children
• Siblings
• Other children in the priority area
• Children in the priority area for other schools in the group
• Everyone else

School D does not give any priority for "exceptional medical circumstances".

School E's admission criteria are the same as schools A, B and C but without the "children in the priority area for the other schools in the group" category.

It seems to me that pupils in the priority area for school E are being unfairly disadvantaged. They have less chance of getting in to schools A-D than other children in the area.

I agree with Admission that your next step is to refer this mess to the Schools Adjudicator. The Adjudicator has the power to order changes in the admission criteria for these schools if they find that they are not complying with the law and/or the Admissions Code.

From my limited experience of them, 'priority areas' cause more unintended but not very desirable consequences even than fixed catchment areas. I agree this is something on which the School Adjudicator should be asked to give a view.

Our school has a catchment area and secondary catchment area. The secondary catchment area is necessary because it is basically there aren't enough places in the catchment area schools and it's more practical to send them to our school than have bulge classes at the over subscribed schools.

People who live in the catchment of our school have no real choice but it's Ofsted outstanding and undersubscribed so not a big problem.

Many thanks to everyone for responding, especially prh47bridge.

When I posted I was half expecting a response of 'Oh that's really common' or 'That's perfectly fair because of x'. I'm still wondering if there is a genuine reason that I'm missing.

I've just spoken to the LEA and they said the school set the admissions criteria and I should contact them. But according to the LEA website, they themselves set the criteria for the community schools- 3 out of the 4 schools concerned.

I'll put it in writing to the LEA and see if anyone can give an explanation and if not I'll take it further as suggested.

You are very welcome.

The foundation school sets its own admission criteria. The LA is responsible for setting the criteria for the three community schools, which is part of why I find this whole situation so odd. Most LAs have a common set of admission criteria for all their primary schools, so why does this one have different critieria for three schools? I would love to know the answer!

It is not common for community schools to have different admission criteria, so this is definitely not the norm. I wonder whether this is a historic anomaly. Many years ago there were grant maintained schools who could have their own admission criteria but subsequently became community schools and I wonder whether this is a hang-up from then.

The LA will probably not do anything about it, so your only course of action if you want to take it further is the Schools Adjudicator.

Well I have heard back from the LEA. I had a reasonably detailed email, so at least felt that they were trying to explain it rather than brush it aside. They made the following points (I have reworded a bit to make it briefer):

"The four schools, A-D, form a 'planning group' as historically there has been cross-over in their admissions, so a fair number of children attend one of the other schools rather than their own catchment school. School E forms a planning group with two schools from the next town, as historically there has been more crossover there. [School E catchment does border on the next town, but it's a long thin catchment area- we are right on one tip and a long way from the next town].

The strange admissions criteria was put in place several years ago when there was 'pressure on places' in schools A-D. It's aim was to ensure that children would always get a place in their own town. It wasn't felt necessary to include school E as there was no 'pressure on places' there.

The policy was reviewed recently and they are going to consult on whether to remove this criterion- the earliest it can be done is for Sep 2013 admissions.

In the last five years, they haven't had to refuse any applicants for my preferred school who lived in my town, including applicants from School E catchment. Numbers this year are 'broadly similar' to previous years."

The last point was obviously meant to reassure me, but doesn't really because a) The school took an extra reception class last year, so were able to take from a much wider area than normal. And b) the fact that one of the schools is now in special measures could have a big impact on the admissions.

I'm not really sure what to do now. On the one hand, I still think it's unfair and I would still really like DD to go to my closest school. On the other hand, if they're going to consult and possibly change the criterion next year, then I'd only be fighting it for selfish reasons- and DD would potentially be competing for a place against children whose only other option is a school in special measures. (BTW I know very well that Ofsted is only one way to judge a school and not necessarily the most important- but I have visited the school concerned and I was distinctly unimpressed).

You still have the option of referring this to the Schools Adjudicator who can force an immediate change. If there is a problem this year I would be surprised if you were the only person affected.

I agree with PRH.
I would reply nicely to the LA saying thanks very much for the info but as you consider this an important issue now not for 2013, you are going to refer it to the schools adjudicator for a opinion. Whilst technically the LA are correct that any consultation could only be instigated for September 2013 following the normal process it would be possible for the LA to request an immediate change agreed with the school adjudicator. The point the LA are missing is that PRH and I would question the legality of this admission criteria, whereas they obviously think it is ok and any consultation would only be around normal minor changes, which obviously most parents will not agree with (and probably the schools) as it reduces their chance of getting a place at schools a to D.
I would definitely go to the schools adjudicator to get a second legal opinion

Thanks again. I have just been looking at the Schools Adjudicator website here and it looks as though I am technically too late to object for this year: "This form needs to be submitted between the school admission arrangements being decided, and by the 31 July in that year." The arrangements must have been decided by 15th April this year, although I don't know when they were available on the website. I don't think they were up until this term.

I will do as you both suggest and refer the matter on to the adjudicator anyway and then see what happens.