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

The trouble though is that in parts of London the population densities are such that it is possible to list your 6 nearest schools and not get a first round offer from any of them.

And that includes boroughs which are already fiercely policing whether application addresses are genuine.

Haringey are making the best of a bad situation it seems. Not enough money is being invested in education either to improve schools or provide enough places in the system to ensure kids can get into local schools. And with more cuts on the way it's only going to get worse. The system could be really simple if, as in other European countries, there were a surplus of places in schools to ensure all children in a local area could get into the local school. In London the system runs near to capacity to provide 'value for money'. Which in practical terms in Hornsey Vale means you need to find religion or take a trip to Wood Green. If the Haringey proposal will free up places for local kids then I think it's a step in the right direction but priority catchment areas that join up would be even better.

I agree that priority catchment areas (as they've brought in in Tower Hamlets) is the most sensible way forward.

Although I guess that people on the edge of a catchment may still fall foul of the infant class size laws?

christinarossetti With Crouch End that's exactly my point - there are no bad schools around! And seriously, an outstanding school is not going to turn a 'normal' child into a genius more than a good school woukd

... more than a good school would, regardless of what the parents believe.

With changed criteria I think that there would be people 'helping' Haringey informing them on when people are just too obvious in their 'tactics'. There is no need to live a 15-20 minutes drive away for most people in the area. Really.

I agree with christina that having fixed catchments of priority for one school makes much more sense than current proposals where some people will have choice of multiple schools in their local area and none at all. Current proposal does not stop people playing the system just slightly harder so numbers affected might decrease but not by much.

The consultation asks if people think the proposal should be put in place with immediate effect. What do people think? Would that be fair to people who might have one or two children already at the school and moved to say .6 miles from the school under the understanding their third kid with get sibling priority?

The only way to be 'fair' to people who have a child or children in the school and have moved would be to delay anything changing for 6 years, until current reception children are Y6 so wouldn't count as a sibling for the next year's entry.

That's quite a long time to wait!

The problem is now, it would seem, so action should be taken promptly (though not sure that this is the most effective action to take).

IMHO, I don't think that it would be unfair to change the criteria sooner as, as far as I know, there is nothing to say that the criteria will stay the same.

The fact is that this would only affect those 'playing the game' and they are aware that they are doing just that. Many other boroughs are much stricter in following up on applications so something was always going to happen. As I understand it to be today, the problem is that if you live what could be considered as 'central Crouch End' you are out of all schools' catchment areas. At the same time, there are children living in Bounds Green who starts reception in some of the sought-after schools (due to the sibling policy). Surely that's madness and cannot be justified whatever angle you look from?

I agree. The problem is now so needs fixing now - not in 3 years. Families caught out by the new rule between siblings would still have almost a year to genuinely (I.e not temporarily where they would hopefully be caught by the council... hopefully) move back within 0.5 mile should they choose to. Or they could just go to the more local schools as given that where this problem mainly exists (CE and MH) there isn't anything other than a good school for at least a 1 mile radius.

Interestingly have just lifted this from Haringey's website. Their number 1 priority defined in their core values:

"Enable every child and young person to have the best start in life, with high quality education"

I admit this is much more pertinent to the more underprivileged eastern parts of
the borough BUT they do have a self declared responsibility to ensure a fair admissions playing field for all where primary school places are for the children who genuinely live and will continue to live by the school and in its immediate community. In short, enforce the rule without exemption and delay.

As a reminder the consultation closes tomorrow so any Haringey resident that hasn't yet contributed should really do it today.

I agree. This has been a problem for years now and if the council are saying their proposal will free up places I can't see why it shouldn't apply now to all applicants including those with siblings already at school. If current siblings still get priority local kids will still be left in black holes to benefit siblings who in some cases live a long way from the school they are attending because their parents have deliberately played the admissions system. This will also be a problem at secondary level with the predicted pressure on placesin forthcoming years. It's a shame the council aren't acting on secondary admissions as well.

People are forgetting the fact that people move around frequently due to social housing shortages, it not just 'gaming' the system. I have a cousin in Crouch end who has moved 8 times in 3 years. The only stability her children have is that they all go to the same school and haven't had their education interrupted.

I agree that the needs of people in temporary accommodation/social housing often get overlooked. Also, yes, people do move for other reasons than to 'game the system'.

This is the reason that I don't think that these new proposals should be extended to other parts of Haringey. I also think that people in temporary accommodation who have no control over their address/how often it changes should be exempt from losing sibling priority, for exactly the reasons of stability that you mention Xeed.

I agree that there might be cases where people have no control over their living arrangements and where the children may be at risk of being badly affected by a move. I am sure that this could be handled separately. But of course, it wouldn't be sufficient with a parent stating how bad it'd be. Moving school per se is not normally traumatic. It may not be easy at first, but part of changes that you may face in life.

The fact is that the majority of the cases I know are people owning their property and where the families are intact.

Christinarosetti missed your comment - you worded it better. Families being forced and/or in unstable environments should not be affected by these new criteria. Of course not. But in certain schools, this is not what causes the problem Haringey is trying to address.

I live in Scotland now, having moved from England, and it's much better done up here. There is no rule about siblings getting a guaranteed place. Every address has two catchment primaries (one non denominational, one Catholic), and similarly two catchment secondary schools. There is only a guarantee that catchment children will be offered a place in P1 (first year of Primary) and S1 (first year of secondary). Families moving into the area after this will go on a waiting list if the school is full, and will in the meantime be offered a place at the nearest school with places.

If a two child family move away after an elder child has started, then the younger child will be offered a place at the catchment school for the new address. The elder child has the option of continuing to attend their old school, or going very close to the top of the waiting list for their year at their new catchment school (as being in catchment puts them ahead of any non catchment requests). Mostly a place at the new school would come up quite quickly for the elder sibling, as the better schools are in more affluent areas which also have much more movement in the populations with catchment children moving away and freeing up spaces for incomers. The less good schools always have places available. It is up to the family to deal with any difficulties arising from having two children attend different schools. In Scotland lots of older Primary school children get themselves to school. If this wasn't an option, then the parents would have to find a way around whether this be by both parents doing drop offs, a neighbour helping with the new catchment drop off or using a breakfast club or whatever.

The system works pretty well, and very few parents are forced into having their children attend different primary schools, and it's usually not for long when it does happen. People do lie about addresses still, and rent a one bedroom flat, or pretend they live at their business address. It's not adequately checked, but not yet a huge issue as first year pupils that are catchment are guaranteed a place so no one gets too upset anyway. Good schools are therefore bursting at the seams, with 'temporary' huts in playgrounds and the children are cramped. Edinburgh is pretty good at building new schools where they can see they definitely need one eventually. The plus side is that schools really do belong to their community, with the majority of pupils genuinely living close by.

Why was this deleted? She's a local journalist writing about this very topic and asking for interviewees. If anyone wants her contacts, PM me and I'll send them to you.

Because MNHQ don't allow journalists to do their 'research' by posting their phone number on here and asking people to call them.

I reported the post and I've just reported yours as well.

The snag with comparison to the Scottish system is population density.

In rural Scotland, it's 65 people per sq km rising to 3298 in inner city Glasgow (the most densely populated area). The two London boroughs described here have densities per sq km of 14,735 for Islington and 14,201 for Tower Hamlets.

There is simply no way you can guarantee a place in a catchment school unless schools can expand to meet the demand. And schools in London are are pretty much full to busting already.

What is needed is more schools, on any site that can be afforded, pretty much wherever one can be found. Yes, we can all think of places which are better an others. But anywhere is better than none, especially given that even an awkward school run in London more achievable (by multiple public transport providers) than that to a catchment school in rural Scotland.

Do Scottish schools have infant size class regulations, does anyone know?

The School Adjudicator has published her annual report.

This is paragraph 166 from it:-

" Fraudulent applications for admissions. I asked again if local authorities had any concern about fraudulent applications. Just over half of the authorities reported concerns, and a similar proportion had withdrawn offers. As with last year, the main concern was that fraudulent applications are made at all, rather than the scale of the problem, which remains very small in terms of reported numbers of cases. However, the data – while low in the context of the total number of places allocated – show a substantial increase in the number of offers withdrawn, up by 53 per cent from the previous year. In total, 284 offers were withdrawn, most of them (211) for primary schools; in 2014, the comparable figures were 186 places withdrawn, of which 136 were for primary schools and so the proportion has remained much the same despite the overall increase in numbers. More than a third of the withdrawn primary offers this year were in Outer London or other local authorities in the south east. In 2014, 66 local authorities withdrew some offers of places; this year, the number was 79."

Crouch End school places now a national issue. Call for decisive action from 'The Times':

Schools turn down pupils who live 100m away
The smallest catchment area is just 92m, according to data from the online service FindASchool

Ben Birchall/PA

Ben Birchall/PA
The smallest catchment area is just 92m, according to data from the online service FindASchool Ben Birchall/PA

Nicola Woolcock Education Correspondent

Last updated at 12:01AM, January 14 2016

Ninety primary schools are refusing to accept pupils who live more than 300m away as Britain’s booming population pushes classrooms to crisis point.

The smallest catchment area is only 92m, according to data from the online service FindASchool. Middle-class parents moving near the most desirable schools to secure places for their children have forced local authorities to shrink their catchment areas.

The figures come on the eve of the deadline for parents to apply for ­primary school places for their four-year-olds this autumn.

About one in eight families is expected to miss out on their first-choice place for September. Separate statistics released by the New Schools Network today show that some schools had three times as many first-choice applications as places available.

www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/01044/inline_dc5cf3e8-ba_1044121a.jpg

The growing population has created intense competition for the most ­desirable schools. The number of births in ­England rose by almost 6,000 between 2011 and 2012 and net migration reached a record high of 330,000 in the year to March last year. First-generation immigrant families have a higher than average birth rate.

The average cut-off distance for all oversubscribed schools in England is 2.3km for primary schools and 4.8km for secondary schools.

However, 90 schools offered no places for children living further than 300m away, ­including three in Birmingham, three in Manchester, four in Bradford, four in Kent, two in ­Plymouth, two in Gloucestershire and 39 in London. Others have had to reduce catchment areas to about 100m.

Weston Park primary in Haringey offered places to pupils no further away than 120m this year; in the previous year Beech Hyde primary in Wheathampstead, Hertfordshire, had a cut-off of 103m; and Cromwell Junior and ­Infant School in Birmingham was restricted at 108m. Grasmere primary in Hackney had a cut-off point of 87m in 2014, but this grew to 240m this year.

The worst situation this year was at Fox primary school in Notting Hill, west London, which took no pupils ­living further than 92m away , the data showed . A studio flat next to the school costs £460 a week to rent and a three-bedroom house across the road is £1,150 a week. A one-bedroom flat ­nearby costs £800,000 to buy while a four-bedroom terrace house costs ­almost £4 million. The local authority is considering a lottery for places.

The Local Government Association said last year that it would cost £12 billion to provide the estimated extra 900,000 places needed in ­England’s schools in the next decade.

David Simmonds, the chairman of the association’s children and young people board, said: “We fear a tipping point could soon emerge when councils and schools can no longer afford the ­massive costs for the creation of places, nor find the space necessary for new classes.”

Previous research by the association suggested that councils were plugging a black hole of at least £1 billion, abandoning building projects, cutting back on school maintenance and borrowing money in order to pay for a school place for every child.

Academies, which control their own admissions, and local authorities, which run admissions on behalf of schools, are adopting a range of tactics to try to prevent sharp-elbowed parents with the deepest pockets from monopolising the best schools by buying the closest properties, often at over-inflated prices. These include lottery systems, abolishing sibling priority for those who move away and setting up priority zones.

The catchment area data was provided by FindASchool, a new service from 192.com for parents to research and understand their chances of getting a place at their chosen schools.

Ed Rushton, an economist, established the service after struggling to find relevant information on schools while moving house. He believes that tiny catchment areas are exacerbated by schools occasionally creating “bulge” classes to accommodate more pupils in a particular year. This leads to extra siblings competing for places a few years later.

“Forty-six per cent of schools in England and two thirds of schools in greater London are oversubscribed — all of the schools are filling up whether good or bad,” he said. “It’s slightly farcical to talk about having a choice.”

Mr Rushton advises parents not to pin their hopes on one school and to have a back-up plan.

A Department for Education spokesman said: “Despite rising pupil numbers, 95 per cent of parents received an offer at one of their top three preferred schools last year. We doubled basic need funding for new school places to £5 billion between 2011 and 2015, which helped to create half a million new school places.”

Weston Park mentioned on the BBC Local London news last night as an example of a small catchment.