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.

I'm not convinced what Nick thinks is relevant to Haringey as the council controls it's own admissions policy. In any case they have misquoted him. He was talking in favour of sibling priority but only within catchment areas.

Actually cgehansen unlike you I don't think the intention was to go ahead at all. The consultation enables the council to say they have responded to parents dissatisfaction. They have then used some of the reasons given by those that did not want the change. But they have taken this decision even though more people wanted the change. I think the reason there were so many negative responses was the possibility of it having immediate effect. Obviously those who would be affected would have been super motivated to respond negatively to the consultation. I also think the extra work involved for the council would have been a consideration for them. For the high number of siblings applying they would now need to check current address and/or address when they applied first time which could be years ago. Not to mention the appeals and complaints from those parents who have already moved and would be affected by the change. Had the proposal only been to let current siblings attend the schools, the response would have been much less from the nay side and the council might not have been able to ignore large majority.

I agree. Due to imposed cuts and historic and current internal incompetence, Haringey council is functioning at a very basic level at the moment.

As they're fulfilling their statutory duty to offer every child in the borough a school place, I can't see that they've got the resources or inclination to really engage with the local difficulties that people in CE are experiencing.

Just to reply about capacity at Whitehall Park - they have a max capacity of 116 (60 places in Reception and 56 in Year 1). There are 113 children at the moment. Not the 74 Nlondondad mentioned. So 97.5% capacity. Not bad from a standing start in Sept 2014 (and a local campaign of misinformation!). And thriving thank you very much

How many of those are local i.e. within half a mile of the school and are voluntarily attending i.e. not allocated by the local authority?

I don't know - I'm just a parent! Flippancy aside, my experience is that the children are from local families who have chosen the school. From my knowledge of the children in my daughter's class they pretty much all live within half a mile.

Hope that helps cgehansen but feel free to PM me about the school if it's useful to have a parent's perspective

I have met a lot of people whose children are in Whitehall Park. The only reason is they did not get their choice/choices of school. Saying that they all say their children are happy. I guess the children have nothing to compare with and don't have all the issues parents have and generally thrive anywhere they have friends and are treated nicely. I do understand that there was a lot of anger at a school being moved and a free one opening on the plot. But the local people lost a school and now have one which can only be a good thing. I cannot understand why anyone would continue to show it in a negative light and constantly talk negatively about it. The energy should go to making changes at the level that made these decisions. It was not the parents!

@Jakecat

Strange.

The official return that Whitehall Park School have made, (and they are required by the DfE to make) shows (I have seen a copy) shows:-

1. a capacity of 120 places

1. And a total of 74 children at the school, (I dont have the figure broken down by year.)

The reasons we didn't go for Whitehall Park were the expensive and totally over the top uniform plus to a lesser extent the portacabins. I have no issue with a free school offering something different in principle but it doesn't seem fair when many people don't get a choice of where to send their children to school.

Nlondondad

Strange indeed. I had to label something for each child last week for the PTA and there were 113.

We disagree about WPS and I don't think it's helpful to rehash old arguments, but as I had the numbers to hand I thought it might help if I shared them.

@jakecat

Well obviously there is a discrepancy. As the return was made in December 2015 or thereabouts is it possible a lot , that is over thirty children are newly arrived? I confess that seems most unlikely to me, but if that happened it would explain it.

Otherwise it will just join yet another of the mysteries surrounding Whitehall Park.

Howver I would point out that even your higher figure shows that the claim by the school in the Autumn to be "oversubscribed with a waiting list" is made in the context that the actual position is, that this late in the year there are still vacancies.

How can the school be "oversubscribed with a waiting list for both years" and still have vacencies?

Which on the face of it is another discrepancy..

An update 2 years down the line on this thread is that the cut-off areas of all Crouch End schools has more than doubled in size such that there can't possibly be any streets in a black hole anymore. In fact I imagine most parents would have had the choice between at least two good/outstanding walkable schools to choose from this year.

If anyone knows the reason for this or has a good idea I'd be very interested to know. Not a journalist, just a parent in the area who followed this very closely. My initial thoughts are as follows:

• Haringey have significantly got their act together in both deterring and catching families that rent temporary addresses close to schools. This can be seen by the overhaul in language and warnings wrt change of addresses in the admissions booklet. They have also implemented a proper procedure of investigation for such cases.

• Sibling count was way down on 2 years ago. Generalising a bit but... people had their first child in the recession baby boom of 2008/9 which shrunk catchment areas. They then had a sibling in 2011 which shrunk them even further (and caused this email chain above). The lack of people having a third child (most don't) has opened up places across the board this year. Does it then shrink beyond all proportions in 2 years time?

• At the same time they probably bought a "cheap" family home in the 2009 dip and have stayed there ever since which has limited the supply around schools. In fact I think Crouch End property has risen more compared with say Muswell Hill and Highgate over the recent years such that people who buy into the area now are more likely to send their kids private anyway.

I don't accept the idea that the schools are not as popular anymore as the number of applications, although dropping slightly in the last 2 years, in no way reflects such a large jump in catchment areas. Going by Haringey's website they are pretty much the largest in the last 10 years.

Any thoughts, theories (jokes - maybe you just can't get the right sort of quinoa round here anymore...) or hopefully stone cold facts very welcome.

Young families are can't afford to live in the area and the catchment has leapt up. That is from teachers/heads in area.

Last year was low birth year so all catchments leapt up.

Catchments set to be larger as less young families but the big bulge classes are set to hit secondary in 2 years time - thats where Harringey will have to make extra classes etc.