Primary school place shortage in Crouch End September 2015

[cgehansen]

Hi, Has anyone been affected by the shortage of primary school places in Crouch End? We put the 6 closest schools to us by distance on our form which are Weston Park Primary, Rokesly Infant, Coleridge Primary, St Aidan's, Ashmount Primary and Campsbourne Infant. We've been turned down from all of them and instead have been offered a school in Wood Green which is a 48 minute walk away. I know of at least 5 others in the same situation.

I'm trying to get a group of us together to take this up with the Council so if you are in the same boat or know somebody else in this situation in Crouch End it would be great to hear from you. Only in large numbers can we make the Council take notice.

It seems that changes are going to be consulted on, for primary schools at least, but only for families who children start school from 2017.

Christina are you purposely misunderstanding me or playing devils advocate? ;-) In answer to your comments/questions:

1. 'people who have lived in a place their whole life should have preference for schools places over people who moved in later' is a very dubious suggestion'.

• Well if you think about it it is not that dubious. It is actually the case already. If you move into an area after the January deadline you then do not have priority for a place however close you live to the school and will have to go on the waiting list for that school until places are allocated. So my suggestion is just to make this deadline earlier and after that put people on a waiting list in order of when they applied for the school rather than how close they live to it. I don't see why one is worse than the other except that the latter will benefit people living there rather than those moving in last minute which seems to be what a lot of people are unhappy about. If there are enough places then everyone gets a place so all good.

2)'So immigrants shouldn't be allowed to access local schools? Or would that matter less because people who have moved from another part of London with a one year old wouldn't be able to either'?
-not sure what immigrants have to do with it. They would not be more or less better off than anyone else unless you feel they should be given preference for the local schools based on them being immigrants? And actually my point is that those who have been living there since there kids are one would have a higher chance than someone who moves in with a four year old just before the deadline.

3)'Abolishing sibling preference is a blunt tool, and would lead to a difficult school run for many……….I feel very strongly that people in such vulnerable housing situations should have some certainty about siblings attending the same school'.
-Totally agree with you. My attempt at suggesting other possible solution is because I do not think abolishing the sibling rule will have that much of an impact intended. I might be proved wrong. It might stop the small number of people that move away from an area but disadvantage a whole other set of people. After all from what I understand of the figures from nlondondad it was only ten children that had moved out of catchment. So it might be a knee jerk reaction to people complaining about it. Hopefully at least the vulnerable people you mention will somehow be protected with new rules. It would also be interesting to see how the abolishment of sibling rules have impacted admission in other LAs. Has it been effective?

maidenhead, I don't think I'm misunderstanding you, although I do think that you're not making much sense.

You're 'living somewhere the whole of your life' preference criteria is clearly bonkers. That is absolutely not the case already, as you're perfectly well aware.

And immigrants have everything to do with your theory, as you well know, because they're not going to fulfil your 'whole of your life' criteria.

It may be that you have some very well thought out plan about how to manage reception admissions, but you're not communicating it very clearly here.

No idea if abolishing sibling preference has been successful in other areas - I imagine that it sorts out some problems and creates others.

Hmmm I see Christina. You are deliberately trying to misunderstand/punch holes. That is OK. I guess we are just different kinds of problem solvers. My process is to through up a heap of things which are not necessarily obvious or complete or 'in the box'. Must be a handicap from working in the creative field. But I guess that ends up pushing the conversation off tangents. We can of course stick to the script and what Haringey is doing………...

And just in case you really did think I was targeting immigrants who had not lived somewhere their whole lives you can see my earlier posts where I suggest 18months/2years and when I indicate that for a reception kid this will only ever be max four years. Also I am actually an immigrant who has not lived here my whole life which maybe is a reason we are not 'communicating'.

throw not through. ha ha case in point. Good night.

Perhaps we should try going back to first principles as it were.

In this neck of the woods state schools have an admission system based on two ideas:

Parents are allowed to express a preference as between schools (often mis referred to and misunderstood as "parental choice" In reality few parents have a choice.)

So far as possible parents should be able to send their children to a school local to them.

So the main determinant of whether you get a place in a school is how far away you are from it. Sibling preference is there to avoid a situation where a family get one child in, in one year, the radius of admission shrinks and they find themselves sending primary age children to two different schools.

BUT

Some people have been applying to schools using a "cover address", usually rented, and naturally very close to the desired school. Once they get their first child in, they can move back to their real address, and further enjoy sibling preference.

Parents who do this, produce a distorted situation as demand in a local area will look higher than it ought to due to "imports" from outside, and the radius of admission will be smaller than it ought to be.

There is a strong suspicion, and some evidence, that this is going on to a significant degree at Coleridge.

So what is to be done?

NorthLondonDad, do you think this happens at Coleridge? I have DCs there and am pretty sure that 95% of both classes still live in catchment and have done for some time.

Yes, I don't understand nlondondad's focus on Coleridge.

Just over half of reception admissions to Coleridge were siblings this year. There are several schools in Haringey where the proportions are equal or higher, including Bounds Green, Rhodes Avenue, Coldfall, Chestnuts, and Western Park where 22 out of 30 reception admissions were siblings. I don't see how that equates to Coleridge having a 'suspiciously high' number of siblings at all.

I was summarising the thread as it seemed to me.

The focus on Coleridge arose because its Coleridge people have been complaining about, and posting about, and it was Coleridge that, this year, had ten siblings living over a mile away.

However collecting comparable information about all the schools in the area makes good sense. Anyone prepared to do an FOI and share it here?

@candycrush

Two observations.

1.This years figures, as reported in the Ham and High, as linked below show that over half of the children offered places through sibling preference where outs isde the catchemnt radius for offers on distance. So thats over one quarter of the children for this years reception are out of the catchment radius.

1. There have been rumours for some years of cover addresses being used for Coleridge, but getting hard facts very difficult. It must be said that there have been very few cases of fraud being discovered, which could mean the rumours are just that - rumours. There can also be admission decisions which to the outsider look odd, but for which there are perfectly good reasons.

For example the category "looked after" children now often includes adopted children, and they get priority, so you can see how it might be that people could wonder why a child got in to a school, because they might not know of the priority category they were in.

Talking about 'catchment radius' and siblings admitted is a circular argument.

Haringey schools don't have fixed a 'catchment radius'. Of course places offered on distance will be fewer if there are lots of siblings, so the final distance offered will be less.

It doesn't make those children 'out of catchment'. It makes them siblings who, at the moment, have priority over children admitted under distant criteria.

Its about whether or not abolishing sibling preference would make a difference.

if all the persons offered on sibling preference (this year) in fact lived within this year's catchment radius then abolishing sibling preference would in fact make no practical difference. The same people would have got in and the radius would noy have altered.

The fact that over half the persons offered on sibling preference lived out side the catchment radius, indicates that there WOULD have been a difference. The catchment radius would have been larger, but how much is impossible to say without more information. Some people who were not siblings would have got in on distance, when they did not before. Some of the siblings would also still have got in on distance, but likely not all.

Of course abolishing sibling preference would make a difference to catchment radius.

That's what a meant by a circular argument.

The proposal is for primary admissions only and will limit sibling priority from Sept 2017 to children where the home address is 0.5 mile from the school (unless the home address hasn't changed from the date the first sibling was admitted). It won't apply retrospectively to siblings of children who already have a school place. Haringey estimate this will free up 88 reception places across the borough including 29 places in Crouch End/Hornsey/Stroud Green. They are looking at how the impact can be mitigated for families in temporary accommodation. It would apply to secondary applications which is a shame I think. Only the other day I heard 3 mums on the W3 bus discussing whether they were going to rent next door to APS, Fortismere or Highgate Wood! Haringey say the reason for the propsed change is to specifically stop people moving close to an oversubscribed school for a short period of time to secure a place and then moving away again.

Thanks cgehansen. Do you mean it "would not" apply to secondary applications? Yes, that is a shame. Not least as sibling priority isn't as necessary anyway for secondary schools - as parents aren't taking them to school.

No there are no proposals to change the sibling priority for secondary as they say there is no evidence of a problem. But if there is a temporary address problem at primary level it will only be a matter of time before it starts to affect secondary applications.

It would be ironic if the change were implemented for 2017 and therebt produced a spike in the use of short term addresses for 2016 as that would be the last year of unlimited sibling preference!

That said 29 places in this area is quite a lot, its essentially an extra form of entry.

Especially as the figures for applications this year, show for the fourth year in a row, a small fall in the number of actual applicants in the area. (As of application day, last January)

The Islington outcome figures for this year are not released in final form yet, but they vindicate Islington's decision not to expand Yerbury as there is still a surplus in the North of the borough, with Whitehall Park included in the numbers.

Islington have also noticied a fall in the birthrate in 2013, they dont have 2014 figures yet, so it is possible that we are near the peak of this current cycle and Islington applications may start to fall again in 2018 or thereabouts.

Which is a bit late for parents concerned about reception places in 2016, or 2017, I know...

Can I ask how it went with the pressure group and your situations please? Were you offered a more local school place based from the waiting lists? Did Haringey concede any bulge classes?

We are likely to be in the same situation for September 2016 start in the Harringay/CE 'black hole'
I have put down 6 choices (not Weston Park our 2nd closest as I know they won't have a bulge and we wont get in on distance) I am mainly hoping for a bulge class or a surprise exodus of siblings.

I understand that there are not enough places in CE and a surplus in Tottenham. Also there is no room in the 'black hole' area for a new school so bulge classes are the only hope. Also the likely new sibling rule amendment, which is quite necessary, will come in a year too late for my boy.

Doesn't look like there's Will be any change to the sibling priority even though most people responding to the consultation were in favour www.minutes.haringey.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CId=118&Year=0

@CGE the link you provide is not specific enough -for me at any rate. It takes me to a Haringey web page where there are a number of sets of minutes listed. Could you specify the committee and that date?

But anyway.

If Haringey do NOT go ahead with the change, I think they are foolish as they will have essentially flagged up in public a loophole which parents will strat to make use of in self defence. In particular any parents planning to move in to Crouch End will need to consider starting off by renting really close to their desired school, knowing that they can then buy somewhere without worrying about schools,,,,

When you add to this people who find themselves wanting Crouch End and its schools, bur find themselves priced out.. but know that renting fo a few months opposite the gates, of say, Coleridge...

Put it this way the schools run traffic to Coleridge, will just get worse.

And the radius of admission will shrink further. How long before a black hole appears created by excess demand from people outside the area?

Of course they could always go to Whitehall Park School if they wanted.

(The school's latest official returns to the DfE which, unlike their press releases which always refer to the school as "oversubscribed", actually have to be accurate, show the current school capacity to be 120 - that is two years of 60 each housed in the portocabins - but actually they only have 74 pupils in total. Well over a third empty)

It's the report at item 11 on the cabinet agenda at www.minutes.haringey.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=118&MId=7304&Ver=4

It's yet to be agreed by the cabinet but I'm guessing that will be a formality.
61% of people who responded in N8 wanted the sibling priority limited. But the council say there are vacancies in the area so it's not necessary. I assume they mean Whitehall Park.

One reason they give for not limiting sibling priority is the affect on people in the rented sector. However they could mitigate that by exempting people on their housing register who have moved through no choice of their own.

They also quote some hot air from a Tory MP about the merits of sibling priority as evidence for not taking action which really sounds like they are clutching at straws.

Reading between the lines it looks as though the intention was to go ahead, hence the consultation, but someone in the council has changed their mind. The new temp in charge of 'Schools and Learning' may be a factor.

There are a few words about being tougher on fraud but nothing concrete about how they will achieve that.

THanks CGE that link and info works for me. Its quite a detailed report so I am working my way through it.

By the way the Tory MP they quote is Nick Gibb. As he is the Minister of State in the Education Department, I can see why they may feel a need to have regard to his opinions...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Gibb