What is the fairest admission policy?

[AngelEyes46]

There seems to be so many dcs that don't get their first choice. In my la, one primary school admitted to 0.137 miles - it's madness! What is the fairest way? My children go to a VA state school and I know there's a lot of controversy and don't want go down the argument of faith/grammar/independent/state but what do people think? Should every school be based on distance or should it go back to the old days where children were interviewed? Since joining mnet and going through the admission process myself, I don't think anyone realizes how much stress is involved. My ds's are now at secondary and dd in year 6 (pri) but I still remember the worry for primary and in some ways secondary was even worse as the dcs have an input as to where they want to go.

In the 'old days' (not that bloody old, thank you!), you didn't necessarily get interviewed. When I was thinking about my 14yo DD needing to start school, all you had to do was go to your chosen (usually local) school and ask to have your DC's name put 'in the book' in the school office. The school then knew whether they were going to have enough places for everyone that wanted one, and if they didn't, then they looked at your address in the book, and if you were the furthest away, you would get a letter to tell you that you needed to find another school.

This wasn't in the dark ages, the first year group that centralised school applications were done in my county is for the DC that are currently in Y5, as DS1 is in that year.

I have a friend in South of England with DS the same age as mine. I'm in Scotland and although I envy her weather , I so don't envy the school admissions system. It sounds like an absolute nightmare. Up here, unless you choose private or a placing request, everyone just goes to the local school. No interview, ballots etc. I'd have been a quivering wreck!

The thing with doing it purely on distance is that there will ALWAYS be some houses that are too far away from any school.

And what about sibling priority? Not many people could get two children to two different schools ON TIME.

IMO, the criteria for schools should be :

1. Looked after children.
2. Statements of SEN naming the school.
3. Medical need due of the child OR the parent.
4. Siblings in catchment.
5. Children without siblings in catchment.
6. Siblings out of catchment.
7. Children without sibling out of catchment.

This would stop people from renting short term to get a place for their oldest, as their youngest would move down the priority list if they were out of catchment. It would enable MOST children to go to their local school. It would stop people from trying to get into other schools, and instead start fighting to improve their local one (which is what needs to happen IMO, ALL schools should be 'outstanding').

It's ALMOST what we have now, some areas already do, mine puts ALL siblings above local DC without siblings, that's why we get a lot of very good schools mixed with very bad schools in my county IMO.

The system we have now is as fair as it can be, for the majority of people.

I think the fairest admission policy is to have actual catchment areas, drawn out on a map so that you know without a doubt which school covers your address. The catchments need to be drawn properly in the first place so each school gets a mix of expensive houses, cheaper houses and social housing (ie not done so one gets the 'Executive estate' of 5 bed detached houses while the next gets the council estate).

Parental choice sounds like a good idea but doesn't always work in practice.

When my older children started school you just went to the schools you liked and put their name down. My DC1 was offered 2 school places. One was starting in September when she was 4 1/2 or the other one she'd have been already 5. Obviously under that scheme while some of us were being offered 2 or more places some others weren't getting a place at all.

It was easier to move schools though. We decided in July to move DC4 at the end of Y2. We rang all the schools we could reasonably get to, and all those with a place we visited. It was all done over the space of the last week of term and we had a place organised for September. Now you have to go through the LEA.

I have just looked at a number of primary schools in my la and the criteria is:

1. LAC
2. Sibling
3. Medical
4. Distance

I think Cardy makes good points - fairer than my LA. I'm not too sure if it would work with secondary though as dcs have different needs and it may not be the right decision for them to go to the same school.

I agree with tiggytape.

Fiddling with the admissions system is but an attempt to deal with the symptoms of the real problem: having enough school places, and their being in the right locations. Now that is only susceptible to improvement up to a point, as schools already exist and cannot easily be moved. But availability and location should be a factor in planning decisions, both for new schools and for new areas of dense housing.

Also, there needs to be a decision on whether parents should be allowed to express preferences. A defined catchment system just doesn't allow for preferences, and I think abolition of even the slightest fig-leaf of choice would be unpopular.

Which leads on to the big underlying question: why do parents tend to seek out some schools and swerve others? Why can't all schools be good? This is the area which merits the closest attention and which, if solved, would reduce or eliminate admissions angst.

But the issue with defined catchment areas that are set is that one school might end up needing to take 90 DC every year when they only have room to take 30.

And I agree that there is a HUGE issue with a town having surplus school places on one side of the town, but needing those places and more on the other side of the town. Or loads and loads of new housing being built but the school to cater for those DC not being built for 5-10yrs AFTER it's needed.

Like my town. DS3 is going to be in a year group where my end of town will have the only school with room taking a bulge class

, 60 DC being sent to the other side of town (on a Roman built transport system that is gridlocked in rush hour anyway), and ANOTHER 67 DC being sent to the next town over by taxi. The next town is 20 miles away. The parents are not allowed to travel in the taxi's. So you will be sending your 4yo DC on a 40 mile round trip each day without you. And that will be my DS3's yr.

Admissions are a nightmare, but an infix able one, there will always be some losers as schools can't always take more pupils just because more were born in the catchment. A couple of years of doing that, and most schools will run out of classrooms.

That's the nub of it really QueenE - what makes a good school good? If a school is in a more affluent area, does it attract the 'middle class' children with more parent input and less behaviour issues? Should catchment areas be defined and then dcs names are put into a hat and they are allocated say one of three schools that are within their catchment?

There's 6 schools I would be classed as 'in catchment' for. Doesn't mean there will be a space for DS3 though, when his year will be 127 places short. And that's WITH the only school with room to do so taking a bulge class.

He won't have a sibling link either, due to a rather daft 7.2yr age gap. I'm bricking it that he will be one of the 67 DC that are going to have a 20 mile each way school run by taxi without me to the next town over.

The LEA are planning a 7th school that would actually be my closest school. But it will not be open in time for DS3. And they will not take older DC even when they do open.

My LEA is just excellent at forward planning. What they haven't figured into the 127 DC without a local school place is that there is two massive housing developments that will be finished in this area long before Sept 2015 when this year group will start school. They are working on one child per house. With a lot of 3 and 4-bed Social Housing - which you only get if you have 4+ DC...

CardyMow is right, the issues with education provision at a local level are caused by a wide set of policies. Publishing league tables is a major one. And making parents think they have a choice when they really don't. Infant class size legisation (not disagreeing it is a reasonable notion) has compounded the problem. Housing policy is another. Long term planning is rubbish - think of how many schools were closed down 10 years ago ... now we have a shortage of spaces ... hhhhuuuuuuuhhhhh.

The problem is that the concept of "choice" when applied to state education is a total myth because that would require a massive surplus of places so that nobody had to go to the crap schools. This surplus does not, and never will, exist.

They should go back to catchment areas, drawn up to try to include a socio-economic mix of children and then put schools in those catchment areas to cater for that population.

why do parents tend to seek out some schools and swerve others? Why can't all schools be good?

I dont know, but what happened in my town is that there were 5 secondary schools- the catholic school (mixed), 2 single sex schools (C of E but not strict) and 2 comprehensives. What used to happen was that the catholics generally (but not all) went to the Catholic school, parents who wanted single sex education chose those (even if they werent religious as the schools were only notionally CofE). Everyone else went to one of the two comps, depending on catchment area- one was marginally better, but it really was marginal- no-one would travel a lot further to get to the better one, even if that was allowed. Majority of people are happy.

New system: parents look at league tables- realise that Comp A is marginally better. More parents start to apply to Comp A from the old "comp B catchment". Comp A starts to cherry pick. Over 10 years the impact gets noticeable. Comp A is now quite a lot better in the league tables than Comp B. Now parents really dont want Comp B. They start to look at the single sex schools, which previously were undersubscribed. Single sex schools have to start enforcing church attendance rules which they never did before. Parents who want single sex but who arent religious cant get their kids in. Whole thing becomes competitive scramble and no-one is happy.

"They should go back to catchment areas"

I've missed something - when were catchment areas ever in widespread use? There are next to none in London, and I thought never had been. There are none where I am now either, and there were none in the place I was when I was growing up many years ago.

It was more like RMPMBMT's first example.

I don't like the idea that you are allocated a school by address (though I do realise that is what rural parents pretty much end up with). It would also mean the end of all specialist schools and selective ones, and no parental choice. The aim might be to "equalise" (whatever that means) provision, but as we all know that it isn't equal now it is going to be really tough on any first generation who is thus ordered to a particular school, with no guarantee that such an arrangement would have any improvement on outcomes.

I support initiatives to improve education on a school by school basis. There have been some remarkable success stories, and children's education deserves more of them.

I grew up in a different country where we all went to our local schools we didn't have a choice. It was assigned by the authorities. And siblings had priorities so if the school was full one year and the school would change the catchment, you had to move school, that was it. I changed school three times during primary. No option. I don't think it's like that anymore, but it was brutal! and parents didn't have a choice. Also we had yellow buses if your house was further away, I think over 1.5 km.

The system now clearly has many faults, I think that this is mostly because of the quality of the school, the provision, the results and Ofsted inspections. And convenience. Locally we have 4 equally good primary school, some more equal that others - one got an outstanding from ofsted and overnight everyone wanted their child to go there. Two years ago, it was a good school and people from further out would be accepted, but now the catchment is very, very small for it as it is so oversubscribed. The other schools are still as good as they were!

Ours is something along the lines of children in care, children with statements then siblings under 2 miles away (or at original address), then distance. It works quite well usually, as it gives some choice and avoids arbitary drawing of lines and fluctuating birth rates within those lines. It also means that people can move, but not a crazy distance and still get a child in, it also means that if you were say allocated a school 4 miles away for your pfb because locally was full, the siblings would at least be able to go to school together as long as you don't move further away.

It isn't coping with iincreased birthrate and increased influx of families to the area, but I don't think that is the fault of the allocation system, rather lack of planning and provision of space, when there are nearly 100 more expected children in 2013 than there are spaces no system with fixed limits of 30 children in a class can cope (not that I'm arguing against infant class size limits). Even if school allocation were done on a completly random lottery, there would still be 100 children without a place at school.

Our LA has changed its admission policy for siblings, in light of children being allocated schools because of SEN or being allocated a school that was not on their preferences. These younger siblings now rank higher in priority than non sibling catchment. SEN children do not appear on the priority criteria now, as they are excepted and are automatically allocated the school mentioned in the statement. Overall, I think the admissions policy for our LA is fair, but they do still operate on catchment areas and also nearest distance is shortest safe walking route and not as crow flies, which is a bit archaic IMO.

This is the admissions policy - apologies for it's length, but it was easier to copy/paste than paraphrase!

CUMBRIA EDUCATION SERVICE
GENERAL ADMISSIONS POLICY 2012/2013
Community and Voluntary Controlled Schools

Where there are more applications than places available at a community or voluntary controlled school for entry to all year groups except Year 12, applications will be prioritised using the criteria below. They will be applied in conjunction with explanatory notes 1 - 6 which form part of the policy.

1. Children looked after, i.e. in public care, giving priority, if necessary, to the youngest child(ren) - see note 1 overleaf.

1. Children living in the catchment area who have a brother or sister in the school (or associated infant or junior school) on 30 April 2012 for entry to Reception and Year 3 or 1 March 2012 for entry to Year 7 and at the time of their admission - see notes 2 and 3 overleaf.

1. Children living outside the catchment area who, at the time of their admission, have a brother or sister in the school (or associated infant or junior school) who were directed to that school by the Local Authority either (a) in the absence of a place being available in the catchment area school due to oversubscription and the school was identified by the Local Authority as the next nearest with a place available or (b) in their Statement of Special Educational Need - see notes 2, 3 and 4 overleaf.

1. In relation to Church of England Voluntary Controlled Schools, children living in the catchment area with a parent / carer who regularly worships at a C of E church. - see note 5 overleaf.

1. Other children living in the catchment area giving priority to those living closest to the school, measured by the shortest walking route by road - see notes 6 overleaf.

1. Children living outside the catchment area who have a brother or sister in the school (or associated infant or junior school) on 30 April 2012 for entry to Reception and Year 3 or 1 March 2012 for entry to Year 7 and at the time of their admission - see notes 2 and 3 overleaf.

1. In relation to Church of England Voluntary Controlled schools, children living outside the catchment area with a parent / carer who regularly worships at a C of E church. - see note 5 overleaf.

1. Children living outside the catchment area, giving priority to those who live closest to the school, measured by the shortest walking route by road - see note 6 overleaf.

Applications will be prioritised on the above basis. An exception will be made under the Authority's policy for the education of children with special needs (i) where a child holds a Statement of Special Educational Needs, or (ii) is currently undergoing a statutory assessment, and in either case it is considered that attendance at a particular school is necessary to meet the identified needs of that child.

QueenEdith While I agree that raising standards on a school by school basis is important the admission system also needs to be overhauled. Even of all schools were of a very good standard, as soon as one is perceived to be 'the best' there's a scramble to get your child in there as we can't possibly have someone else's child getting a 'better' education than ours. As demonstrated by Blueberry Pancake's story.

And of course the idea of improving standards at all schools is admirable but only really workable if all the schools have reasonably similar intakes. The current system of parental 'choice' inevitably ends up with some very good schools and some failing schools due to social factors.

We are as crow flies, which I can see is easier to defend (and puts us closer to school), but is a bit mad when children are expected to cross rivers and railway lines to get to nearest school which by a safe route could be many miles away. It probably depends on the georgraphy of the area as to which makes more sense.

How do you find out if your DCs year will be oversubscribed?

I think catchment areas can be a good thing.

Imagine you live in a small village just outside a large town. Your small village school has space for 70 children, total. It serves five villages over a five mile radius. The five mile radius happens to include the town, but no-one from the town attends as there are dozens of schools there.

Then your village school gets an outstanding ofsted rating. The schools at the edge of the town nearest you are always full, and some don't get such good results. Parents from the town start applying to the village school, even though they face a 20-minute drive including a dodge-the-ducks-on-the-road section. Because the school is only 3 miles from the town, children in the villages can't get places because they're taken by children from the town. So the kids in the outer villages now have to travel to undersubscribed schools in town, or to another rural school 50 minutes away.

I can understand how children in the town have as much right to an outstanding education as the children in the villages. But it seems crazy that we're shipping 4-year olds in long drives in opposite directions. Why should the town children, by virtue of living in an area that gives them a huge choice of primaries, have the right to push the children in the outer villages (who have only one school within a reasonable distance) into daily commutes to schools outside their own community?

Actually, Jubileap, you have a point there. We are a rural county and there would be instances where what you describe could happen if we didn't have catchment areas. I hadn't thought of it like that.

3duracellbunnies I have concerns over walking route being used as a criteria because it isn't certain what roads/ paths are deemed safe in walking routes. Our LA uses safe walking route by ROAD; which means that many footpaths are ignored, despite being safe walking routes. I do agree that, being a rural county, using as the crow flies might mean some children would have further to travel to get to their 'closest' school.