Have you been affected by the primary school place shortage?

[choicemyarse]

Have you applied for a primary school place recently and what was your experience?
Our 3 year old won't go to school until next year but in our area (in London) there seems to be a serious crisis in primary school places and I am concerned she won't get in anywhere. There were 274 families in our area that got NONE of their six choices and were asked to go to schools miles away from their homes (in rush hour traffic in London this is a very long commute).
The Local government authority recently posted a news release about this, which explains the school place crisis as a result of restrictions on local authorities to build their own schools (because they must prioritise free schools and academies).

www.local.gov.uk/web/guest/media-releases/-/journal_content/56/10180/7171350/NEWS
Personally, I am not interested in sending my child to a free school or an academy (for a variety of reasons) but more importantly, I just want a decent local school my child can walk to and this isn't being provided.

I'm involved in a local campaign around this issue (which is why I've namechanged) but I've been on mumsnet for years and had lots of good advice about schools, babies, etc.

Please post your experiences here and hopefully we can do something about this.

I haven't been affected directly. More people are now turning up at our local home education groups because they've only been offered schools which are impractical for them to reach, and they want to buy time while they sit on waiting lists for a more local school.

It's an area with a very mobile population so for those who don't mind their children starting school later than usual, that strategy sometimes works. There's quite a shortage of school places here, but not as bad as some parts of London. Those who are willing and able to wait do tend to secure a school within a mile at some point in Reception or Y1.

LAs are not "prevented" from opening schools. It's there in black and white, in the law.

Now, I agree that it's the more drawn out option of last resort (and deliberately so). But that is not the same as prevention.

'they put these schools where they had land and not where the need was'

They pretty much have to. If there is no available/affordable site exactly where you need it, you either have to go for the less-good site that you can use, or not have the school at all.

Can I just at where are these extra dc coming from to create a rising birth rate?

I actually think if anyone moves further away the should lose the right to a sibling place. Someone up thread said in their school it was 2 miles but in densely populated areas that is just far to far.

If I were applying now I would exercise the legal right to delay my summer borns for a year now that they get to join in reception.

There is no 'legal right' to out-of-cohort education for your DC.

It has always been legal to place a pupil in a different year group to that indicated by their age.

The new rules specify only that there can be no blanket ban. Each application must be considered individually, but that does not mean it must be looked at favourably. It remains very rare, unless there are additional needs that can only or best be helped by such a placement (and even then, it can be hard to secure).

DS didn't get a place at our village school (academy primary). There were 5 children in the village who didn't get a place this year. It's never happened before. They've always been able to accommodate all the children living in the village in previous years. We are all appealing. We are trying to put pressure on the school/governors to make resources available so that they can take them. It's a huge shock to the whole village and the entire community is waiting to hear how the school deals with it.

There have been 2 housing estates built in our village in the last 7 years. Those houses increased the number of houses in the village by 15%. The school had nearly 270k from planning agreements but haven't increased the number of places available. They've built a lovely staff room though...

The 5 children who didn't get in have been given places at different schools in surrounding villages. It is thoroughly rubbish.

Last year was tricky in my town - shortly before allocation there were 92 children with no school and they hurriedly arranged some bulge classes. Unfortunately those bulge classes were in the undersubscribed schools at the other side of town to the real crunch points, resulting in many unhappy parents with none of their 3 closest schools having to treck across town to schools that are awful on paper.

Meanwhile there was a free school opening up but it was massively undersubscribed - an organisation that no one knows anything about, a building no one can walk to that is not proper classrooms yet, no playground or outside space, the website wasn't even being updated through the summer, so no idea if it would actually open. Some went there out of desperation and are happy with it but I'm not convinced it will survive long term.

This year they have planned ahead and there is permanent expansion to some schools. Unfortunately not in the side of town most badly affected, and also in schools that really aren't very good (all schools round here seem to be requires improvement but ignoring Ofsted these really aren't great).

"I actually think if anyone moves further away the should lose the right to a sibling place. Someone up thread said in their school it was 2 miles but in densely populated areas that is just far to far."

So if someone has two children in a 2 bed flat but then perhaps they get a promotion or inherit a bit of money for a deposit, they can't go and buy a 2/3 bed house with a bit of a garden in the same town, just the other side of town?

I really think this kind of moving happens far more than the 'ha, let's stay in the area in a 2 bed flat just long enough to get the first child in then use our real wealth to buy a huge mansion 5 miles away! Suckers!'

Yonic I think it depends where you live. The temporary renting goes on in bucket loads around me, using relative addresses etc.

Besides it would only be until the next child(/ren were in the school so unless you have 2 dc with massive age gaps hardly an issue.

Nothing worse than not getting a places at your nearest school that is 0.2 miles away when the majority of the reception class is made up of siblings that live over 2 miles away and drive to school everyday because they got their eldest one in several years ago and then moved to cheaper properties further away!!!

Now, I agree that it's the more drawn out option of last resort (and deliberately so). But that is not the same as prevention.

No, but the three-stage process effectively prevents LAs from being effective in responding to local demographic change.

Apologies - meant to add 'in a timely way'.

It's common in our area too. To let and Sale boards spring up all around school at the end April. Our catchment is always less than 0.3 distance for all local schools but yet siblings living over 2 miles away are not uncommon. They drive to school.
Everyone within 0.3 tends to walk as it's the quickest way. Allocation of a school more than a mile away here is seen as miles away as makes walking harder - due to the time pressure for working parents eg an extra 2 hours a day.

"The temporary renting goes on in bucket loads around me, using relative addresses etc."

That's different and places can be withdrawn for it.

I mean where a family moves from one permanent base to another but still in reasonable distance of the school such that the LA wouldn't feel obliged to find an alternate school for the older sibling.

Sibling preference can apply for seven years. A family may have 3-4 children. What if they have a third child after their first gets a place at the school and they need to buy a bigger house once the baby is out of the cot. There are no houses that they can afford within a mile or so. Should they really lose sibling preference?

Some schools already do sibling priority only within a (wideish) nominal catchment.

An awful lot of people where there is high pressure on places live in an overpriced flat near a school for 2 years before admissions, then magically and surprisingly move shortly after their first child gets a place. House price premiums near any schools here are massive - a flat goes for the same price as a house several streets away.

Places can't be withdrawn for this.

It's a question of what's a 'reasonable distance'. In most of London more than a mile would be questionable; in other places it would be different.

But then, I'm biased. 3 schools within 500 meters and thanks to a combination of faith and sibling places, we're unlikely to get any of them.

Our village has around 750 houses. The sibling criteria is ranked after the distance criteria. This year the last child to get in lives 0.282 miles from school. We live 0.330 miles. The next nearest school is 3 miles away, only reached by rural roads (60 mph limit, no pavements, no lighting).

There are lots of children in other years who don't live in the village who go to the school and whose younger siblings didn't get in this year. But then, why should children living outside the village get a place and children who have lived in the village all their lives not get in?

I would think any distance less than that at which the LA must provide free transport would be difficult (is that 2 miles?). A second option might be the travel time at which they are unreasonable not to invoke fair access (is that 45 mins?)

Actually I don't think a rising year 6 child sibling should get sibling preference if they've moved further away and have to pass other schools in order to get to that one - not when it means a child living very close the school doesn't get into the one on their doorstep and spends 7 years traipsing much further away!!! Sibling priority can only last 6 years as a maximum one in reception next oldest in Year 6.

Remember "further away" is a radius around the school so does give a reasonable selection of properties unless say they were only living there to gain a reception space in the first place...

Not necessarily - totally depends on distribution of property types. And what if family was on the last distance admitted for their year?

If there are more than two children it can last longer than 6 years.

If the family moves 2 miles then the older sibling will still have a place at the school but not necessarily the nearest school to their new house, if that is full in their year. The reason sibling preference was introduced is to reduce two school runs. Unless the LA can also move the older sibling, what is the overall gain for the area in removing sibling preference?

Sibling preference would be between the rising reception child and the next oldest one - doesn't really matter how many more children there are above that does it?

I think Yonic if you were living in an area where the practice of buying/renting next to your desired to school to get the eldest in and then moving elsewhere (which is allowable) was common you would perhaps understand more. How is it gainful to an area to have parents driving their children here there and everywhere for years on end to a school whilst the people living walking distance to the school can't get in?

In some ways I think going back to having catchments would be easier tbh. you live in the catchment of the school (that doesn't change each year) you get a place at that school.

Those moving further away would then have a choice.

Only move within a certain area.

Move and move older child(ren) to a nearer school.

Find out where reception child gets a place and move older child(ren) to that school if possible.

Suck up and pay for childcare to help with school run.

Why is it okay to get your child into school A then move away, not be part of that community and be entitled to have all following dc go there meanwhile other children who are part of that community have to be taken to school elsewhere?

meditrina, given that most Local authorities don't have sufficient resources to run their existing services, let alone open new schools, they are being prevented from opening new schools.

The law fully permits me to buy a house in Mayfair. I can't do this because I can't afford it. Thus, I am prevented by my economic circumstances rather than my legal status.

Same thing. There's no substance in enabling LAs to open new schools (having extensively tendered for free schools, academies etc) if they don't have the financial means to do so.

Sibling priority can last more than 6 years by daisy-chaining. As long as you have no more than 6 years between siblings, you can keep it going as indefinitely as your fertility allows.

Pico2 yes I know and understand that completely which actually strengthens the argument for having conditional sibling priority.

People take account of school availability when they choose housing when they have preschool children. Not sure why it isn't ok to expect other parents to do the same? Yes, it restricts your choice for a few more years - but might help to do away with some of the people who choose who take the financial hit and overextend themselves for two years to rent a place they can't afford/is too small for them/both that is in a 'sure' catchment, and then move once their kids are halfway through Reception.

Hell, around here people buy for the two years. Prices for the 'sure' houses and flats rise so much more quickly than the surrounding housing that it negates the stamp duty cost.

The two school runs thing is an issue - but everyone makes choices and trade offs when they move house, such as 'will I have to drive to the station? What does parking cost?' If one added 'if DC2 doesn't get into DC1's school, what will that cost in wraparound care for school runs?' it's not an unreasonable consideration.

Exactly Jassy

Doesn't how they do what, it's always the wealthier you can circumnavigate the system to get the best of what's available.

I know quite a few people who do the calculation on what's cheaper - housing near a 'good' state school (read: middle class, lots of the kids go to private secondaries) or cheaper housing and private school.

My other sibling bugbear: faith schools that limit faith places to a certain quota (say 30 out of 60), but then the other places are all taken by siblings of children admitted under the faith quota. Those siblings should form part of the faith quota for the year (preferably on the basis that their parents still meet the criteria).

Local catholic schools don't have a faith quota.

Basically each and every child needs to catholic, baptised as a very minimum.

Demand still outstrips supply hence the diocese started to distinguish between catholic and non catholic siblings. Lots of middle class people VERY upset that their younger ones no longer got in as shock horror they're not catholic...