Why would a school do away with sibling priority under these circumstances?

[Getdownfromtherethisinstant]

Just out of interest really as luckily this won't affect us; the primary our children go to currently prioritise as follows: siblings in catchment, other catchment, siblings out of catchment, others out of catchment. It went from PAN 30 to 60 three or four years ago and has been allocating places in the high fifties for the last few years. This year it was 59 on allocation day. The catchment children were roughly split 50/50 sibling/non sibling and then there were 4 out of catchment siblings and 14 other out of catchment. Everyone who applied got a place. I'm told that as of next year they're doing away with the sibling link. I'm just wondering if this is something a lot of schools are doing? It seems odd under these circumstances - arguably it would have had no effect as everyone got a place this year, but then why do away with it? Has this had any effect on schools in your area?

Well my initial thought is: Who told you?
Is this a rumour going round or an official notice. Because if it's just people talking then I suspect it's no more than a rumour. When they changed priorities to a couple of schools in our area we had, I assume to all local schools as ours are not connected or even effected as they're far enough away and we had it, a letter telling us about the changes and inviting comments by a certain time. We got this letter 18 months before the September when the policies changed (that's the September before it effected those applying, not the September of them going to school, so ages beforehand)

However with what you've said I would wonder if they're anticipating being full, and finding that there's people that they suspect have, or have threatened, to do a temporary move and then move further out later. Maybe they know that at least one of the out of catchment siblings parents told them they did this.

I would assume they're under pressure from the LA to make sure that they offer places to all their catchment kids. So don't want to give priority to out of catchment ones with siblings, as they'd be more likely to get in elsewhere (ie their catchment school).

I was told by another parent who's currently waiting on the second round to see if her son has a place - she said the LA lost her application, although I don't know the truth of that. It could well be no more than a rumour. Just interested really as it seems an odd thing to change when it's had no effect in recent years. But it could be that they're anticipating more sibling applications as the school grows.

Well, it might be a general shift across the area?

If you already have a division between in catchment siblings and out of catchment siblings then it's not going to make a lot of difference to most people unless they are expecting not to be able to take all the catchment kids in the future and want to prioritise those who live closest in catchment.

The whole 'temporary move then move further' wouldn't do people much good under the current rules as they'd only be ahead of out of catchment others, which isn't much of a leg up.

Thing is children living out of catchment are (unless statemented or been in care) a lower priority than catchment children even if they gave a sibling at the school so it's not about families getting first DC in then moving away and stopping local families from getting places.

No idea but our school did away with its sibling criteria in exactly the same way. For two years there was no sibling priority and then last year they changed it back again. It's currently statement/looked after, catchment, siblings out of catchment, out of catchment but registered at the preschool, catchment other. They've gone from an average of 17 applications when dd started 4 years ago to 50 applications for 30 places last year. Not sure on this year yet.

It's interesting isn't it? I used to live in Brighton and there were no catchments at all. It was looked after children, medical/social reasons, siblings and then everyone else. As such the furthest distance offered under 'everyone else' was often very short. I could understand a rejig under those circumstances but it honestly doesn't look like it'll make much difference with our school. It could be the whole area changing though.