Crouch End Haringey primary school shortage and admissions review by council

[JKemp]

Apologies for the dull, geeky subject but it's pretty critical to us as a local family.

Particularly interested in the views of those living in Crouch End with personal experience of the primary school admission system. I'm local with a young child and am amazed that a problem this serious has persisted for so long.

The 2015 admissions data has just been released and for several schools the majority of places have gone to siblings (a number of whom don't live in the area), with last child offered distances shrinking again, particularly for Weston Park and Coleridge.

I would appreciate constructive ideas about how to fix the system. Particularly to feed into the council consultation, which closes in a few weeks: www.haringey.gov.uk/children-and-families/schools-and-education/school-admissions/admission-arrangements/consultation-school-admission-arrangements-201617.

The proposal by the council wouldn't appear to make any impact until about 2020, which is way too long and totally ignores the plight of the local community in the interim, who pay local council tax and require school places this and next year.

Transitional arrangements need to be developed as a priority.

Gaming the system has been long reported (some links below) - by official data most of the children should live within c5mins walking distance of most schools, which begs the question why do so many travel in by bus and car?

Local short term lettings of 'buy the right address temporarily before moving out again' is a buoyant business, which has been tackled in several areas but not sufficiently in Crouch End/ Haringey Council area. Perhaps more rigorous enforcement could be an answer? I think that in Hackney, a short term let address doesn't count if you still own your main home.

In any case, the official council line is that they would like to support vibrant local communities, which is great. Hopefully the solution to be adopted early next year will also deal with the immediate challenge as opposed to a partial fix over the medium term.

Links:
www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/revealed-the-legal-loophole-letting-pushy-parents-rent-the-best-state-school-places-8878941.html

www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/education/haringey_crack_down_on_families_who_move_home_after_secure_school_place_1_4262636

www.theguardian.com/education/2014/apr/11/primary-school-places-offer-day

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/primary/2365792-Primary-school-place-shortage-in-Crouch-End-September-2015?trending=1

[thenineties]

punkrockparklife I think your expectations are too high for this consultation. It's aim is not to solve the primary school shortage issue in one swoop. You would need an insane amount of funding and the complete breakdown of the social class structure that unfortunately has defined this country much more than others for centuries. Instead it is trying to solve a common problem in London that siblings attend from a much further distance at the expense of more local children who, when the situation becomes extreme, find themselves in a black hole.

Now some of these siblings may be travelling from longer distances due to the genuine and unfortunate circumstances you sight but probably (especially in the highly oversubscribed schools) it is more likely that their parents played the admissions system by dipping their toe in the catchment area to secure school places for all their kids and then moving out. This rule simply puts a stop to what is a great cause of frustration and stress to first time applicants throughout the city.

It doesn't address the shortage of places in general but it isn't trying to. It's just trying to keep school places for those children that live near the school. And you're right it will swing the advantage back to those residents who live closer to a school - but why is that a problem? Surely that's how it should be.

One of the things that characterises London is that you have people of all income streams living on top of each other. Yes some areas are a lot poorer/wealthier than others but within 0.5 mile of almost all schools you will find a great spread of income and living standards. However, moving house costs money and it is the wealthier who have the flexibility to choose where and when they wish to move closer to schools. If 10 families do this in a particular year with the sole purpose of moving out once family admission is secured you could well find this eliminates places for a whole council estate that has always previously had access to that school.

In as much as anything I think this rule is a leveller. I agree it doesn't solve all admissions problems but it will improve the situation in the favour of more genuine local residents which is why I really think it should go through.

[punkrockparklife]

I do see what you mean in some aspects thenineties and I guess it will not solve all problems. However do you agree that with my point that actually it might not be so effective due to the instances I listed in which people might/can still move to get into a school. So maybe the sibling rule should be scrapped completely. At least that way it is always those that live closest to the school that get in and it is a blanket/universal rule that can be applied to all schools in the borough. With the current proposal you can still move to the catchment of a school of say .3miles and then move again but within .5 miles if you can afford to. Is that fair for those that were living between .3 to .5 miles? Not saying it will have no impact but it still leaves so much open to the same type of issues that I am not sure it is effective enough. I think the proposal has been formulated with a few particular schools in mind because the parents close to those schools are very vocal. But if changes are to be made then they really should be thorough and relevant widely and in a variety of situations that exist. Take Highgate Primary for example if that became more desirable, due to the relatively sparse population density around it the catchment might be larger than .5miles but people might still move to get into it and deprive those living closer of a place. The .5mile rule would be obsolete. What would happen then? Decide on a new distance? Might it then not make sense to have a relative distance rather than a specific one? Say .5miles from last distance offered or something so it would dependent on the catchment of the school. i.e not the same for two schools such as Coleridge and Weston park with such different numbers and catchment distances?

[thenineties]

I agree there will still be ways round the ruling as you listed above. However these will be a lot more time consuming and costly and will hopefully be enough to put the majority of people off. Renting away from a family home for 3 years or moving several times within that are pretty undesirable options. And yes I completely agree that in an ideal world admissions rules would differ from school to school but councils just won't have the resources to even run two different policies alongside each other. They have to come up with a best fit approach to solve grievances when the majority ask for action which I think is what they've done here. (Or at least what they are trying to establish with the consultation).

I think rather than have lots of ever changing micro rules it is probably best to get an overall simple rule like this in place and then spend time/resources on fraudulent applications and also on appeals to assist those affected by the rule change for genuine and unfortunate reasons.

10 out of 64 Coleridge siblings were admitted from more than a mile away this year. It's an extreme example but you do need a rule in place to seriously discourage that from occurring.

[thenineties]

Look at the table on page 9 of the following report published by Haringey.

88 reception places in total in Haringey would have been made available this year with 29 of those in Crouch End - essentially a whole extra class. Almost 15% of sibling applications would have failed this ruling in the most oversubscribed parts of the borough which probably pushes towards 30% at the most oversubscribed schools, such as Coleridge.

www.minutes.haringey.gov.uk/documents/s81416/Proposed%20Admissions%20Arrangements%202017_18%20Final%20Report.pdf

[nlondondad]

@the nineties

Really helpful for you to post that link to the report which I found very clear - and which explains where the 0.5 mile comes from.

I think the thing underlying all this is the trend. People have become more aware of the

"renting close to the school for the first child" trick, and as this is causing the radius to shrink, the incentive to do it increases and the radius gets worse. Remember the Eleanor Palmer case?

This year, had there been an extra 29 places offered on distance in Crouch End the situation would have looked quite different on offer day.

[XingXingFox]

I'm quite interested in what you said about Hackney penalising renters if they own a home. Where did you get that info? I'm surprised the council is that organised!

[punkrockparklife]

that is a very useful link inthenineties! We should have had that before!!!
Is this info widely available to those that are taking part in the consultation? it addresses my concerns about those disadvantaged by the change if they are forced to move due to circumstances beyond their control in section 2.4 and 4.5.

[thenineties]

It's on the council's website, so in that sense is widely available but you have to know where to look for it or hope someone shows you it. It's not exactly flagged with bells and whistles next to the consultation survey where it should be. A shame as it does provide a lot of detail which people do seem to want.

[cgehansen]

The council do check addresses but as you only need to prove you are living at the address you are applying from (and if you have another address show evidence that you don't live there at the time of the application) it's quite easy to get away with renting or buying a second home close to your preferred school. Plenty of people do it and get away with it around Coleridge as the stats show. Weston Park is very hard to get into at them moment not because of temporary renters but because it has siblings applying from 2 recent bulge classes and is a one form entry school.

[christinarossetti]

Staff at Haringey Council have been cut to the bone and beyond.

They barely have enough staff to do the mandatory basics re admissions, let alone police grey areas.

[punkrockparklife]

Wont this be creating more work for them though? Whereas before they just had to check those who apply for sibling place have a sibling at the school, they now have to check home to school distances for all those applicants. With that being around half of the intake in many schools it adds up!

[LifeIsNeverFair]

Long-term it might be worth accepting the extra resources it costs as eventually, the "playing the system" will decrease (I think it will continue, though). Also, I think it may increase anonymous reporting about cheating to the council, who'd then have something to act upon.

Tbh, I'm surprised to hear that only 10 out of 64 siblings at Coleridge lived over a mile away. I would have thought it was at least 15.

[christinarossetti]

They have computer programmes to check distances, although thorough checks of addresses takes more resources, as will managing an increased number of appeals which will inevitably happen if people don't get their child into the same school as their older sibling(s) .

[LifeIsNeverFair]

How does it work? Would they even let every appeal go alĺ the way? I understand that the option for the basis for an appeal to be 1. the lawfulness of the admission arrangements, 2. if a mistake was made in not offering your child a place and/or

1. if it was unreasonable to refuse your application.
   

Convenience in transport for siblings due to having moved further away can hardly been seen as a reason under "unreasonable" under normal circumstances. Rather, it'd have the wanted impact on applications.

[christinarossetti]

I disagree that applications will reduce. People will still name the schools they prefer 'just in case', and many families will delay a planned move until their youngest has secured a place.

Unsuccessful families will find lots of ways of arguing that the school that they want is the most suitable for their child.

As far as I know, appeals do have to be heard if people have followed the correct appeal procedure.

[LifeIsNeverFair]

In all honesty, as the only reason for not getting a place at the desired school would be the 'unreasonable' criteria, the cases I know of in one of the mentioned school would have no grounds at all. I mean, families who pass 5-20 other primary schools on the way to school (depending on how far away they've moved) without having tried to get a place in any of the nearby school can hardly claim 'unreasonableness' in travel arrangements. They could just have tried to move all children in questions to a, for them, more local school.

What is unreasonable is that children who easily could have got into a local school on walking distance are forced to get to school by some kind of transport due to other families playing the system. And yes, that affects children of all socio-economic background.

[christinarossetti]

I agree that those types of arguments have no chance at being used successfully to appeal, but people will come up with all sorts of other creative reasons as to why their preferred school is best for their child.

LAs have a statutory duty to hear all correctly filed appeals, which is resource heavy.any won't be upheld, but the decision isn't the resource heavy bit of the process.

I'm not disagreeing about the unreasonableness of some peoples' expectations or the unfairness of the current school admissions policy.

I simply saying that changing the rules will lead to different types of 'gaming the system' ( although I'm not sure that I agree that every family who moves once their children all have a place at their desired school is 'gaming'. More strategically choosing their timing, as people do when they choose to buy and sell houses).

[LifeIsNeverFair]

Whilst I agree that not everyone is only 'playing the game' (but waiting to move until your first born gets in is a way to play the game IMHO), the most logical approach would be to send your child/ren to the most local school. So if you move, it'd make sense to apply to a local school.

How many appeals are there now due to the current system? In due course, the number of appeals will be the same as today once people understand the new criteria.

To make up reasons why you should have your preferred school is nothing new, but at least the suggested changes actually promote a local community and not least, changes the need for all these cars doing the school run in the morning which does not seem to be very 2015.

[christinarossetti]

I don't think Haringey have the resources for expensive, time consuming, door knocking to check residency checking tbh. They barely have any staff left in their admissions dept.

Not saying that I agree with this BTW, but this is one of theany effects of the cuts.

The crazy school situation in CE and MH also arise from soany families with young children moving into such a all residential area. The no of reception places in CE has more than doubled over the last 5 years (which creates extra siblings in subsequent years), but dand continues to put strip supply.

You can see previous appeals lodged/upheld in the Haringey missions booklet if you're interested.

I agree that it's logical to send your child to the closest school, but that's not what the law regarding admissions requires ( or people want it would seem, although it's easy to hold that moral high ground if your closest school is one that you want of course).

I suspect that these changes will just lead to people delaying a planned house move for a couple of years, rather than staying put. My friends who moved the other side of CE once their eldest got a place at Coleridge had lived at their address for 10 years. I don't feel qualified to say 'you should have moved before your children went to school' tbh, as plans change, families split up and it's a ridiculously hypothetical position to take.

I speak as someone who chose not to aend my children to our closest school BTW.

The system that Tower Hamlets has adopted, where every address has priority for at least one local school, seems more tenable than the changes proposed by Haringey.

[LifeIsNeverFair]

As I'm not from the UK, I might be viewing this from a different angle.

To me it is madness the emphasis that seems to be put on getting your child into the 'best school' (by rating) and not taking the individual child into account at all. I believe that an 'average' child will do well in any decent school. The social aspect - to live near your friends and be part of the local community - is also something that seems to be neglected whilst I put a lot of emphasis into that based on my values.

I do hope that Haringey put the money aside to deal with an increase in appeals as I believe this to only be short term. Not only would it make the schools local but have a positive impact on the traffic around drop-off and pick-up, something that can only be good for the environment and the general chaos in traffic at those times.

When you move, you change a lot of other daily 'behaviour' to make life more convenient regardless of how long you've lived in an area. School is just one of them.

I hope that we do see a change in the criteria and resources are put aside to deal with the 'policing'. Then also maybe a focus could be to try to make positive changes to the local school rather than spending that energy on moving around for the 'right' school.

[christinarossetti]

I think this particular hysteria about schools is a particularly English phenomena. They don't have it in Scotland (have 'catchments'), not sure about Ireland or Wales. People from France, Australia, the States etc that I've tried to explain it to are incredulous.

The (now obsolete) Campaign for State Education's main argument was exactly yours - if everyone just stayed put and worked to improve their local school, this would benefit everyone.

Unfortunately, this isn't the way that many people choose to play their school preferences. I can understand this is the local school isn't very good or socially unappealing (if the vast majority of children are from one ethnic minority and that's the common language used in the playground, when you're children aren't, for example), but there aren't any poor schools in Crouch End and the most of the other schools in Haringey are also good.

There won't be any further resources put into this, I'm afraid. The LA has to make another sweeping round of cuts this financial year (and for the foreseeable), so expect admin to get worse not better.