hacked off with my areas 2008 primary admission process

[magicfarawaytree]

The admission criteria for community and voluntary controlled schools will allocate places to comply with national requirements as follows:

For pupils who have a statement of special needs naming the school
For children in public care

Following this:

Sibling applicants
Exceptional medical/social reasons
Children resident within the priority area of the school

Other applicants

so basically no longer guaranteeing children within catchment area a place. Its stinks with a capital S. Our school is not a top performing school by any stretch of the imagination. ranks almost 40 out of 90+ schools. and of the 4 closest schools is the lowest ranked. I Choose to send my children there to support the local school and contribute to improving what is a good but could be much improved school. also not having to do a nightmare run to school, it have a broader range of children most of than the other local schools.

This is standard practise I think, has been in our area for many years.

To be honest I think it generally works well here. The numbers admitted owing to special needs, being in care or exceptional social or medical reasons are usually very low. And I really do think they should be given priority.

Sibling numbers vary from year to year, but usually aren't so high to disadvantage local children.

At our secondary school for example, the criteria are much as in your list, but I have never known a local child not get in. In practise, the only ones who struggle are those from out of catchment who don't come under any of the other criteria.

I really support priority for local siblings, but have very very mixed feelings about priority for siblings of non-catchment children. It just doesn't seem right that someone living miles away could get preference over a local child.

Luckily, as I said, this doesn't seem to be the case where I live, so things might not be as bleak as you think.

That's what it's always been here.

I honestly think that the other reasons listed above proximity are more important.

Ours have always had those as guidelines.

I was under the impression that "catchment areas" didn't really exist any more. It's based on distance to school and that can change year on year.

NKF, I agree, for September 2007 there will be al large number of siblings, and they have had to be tighter on the distance rule to compensate. It caused an uproar from some parents of nursery pupils!

Yup, this is standard practice in our area (Surrey). As portonovo says, the number of children covered by the first 5 criteria is usually pretty small.

The sibling thing has always been. That is just how it is and likewise the distance thing just depends how many childrne in that area were born in that year. I can't think of a fairer way can you?

Our area has a similar priority order, but for next year there are several children at the junior school I work at whose younger brothers or sisters have not got a place in the linked infant school because technically they are separate schools - whereas if the older child were at one of the primary schools (ie infants and junior) they would have got in.) There is one mum who faces having to get a reception child to one school, a year 2 to another one a mile away and a year 4 to our school, about 100 yards from the second school, unless she can get in on appeal.

iwould be furious if i already had a child at the school and someone a few doors down with no siblings 'got in' and my other child didn't.

It has just changed round here to a system similar to yours except that the public care section is encompassed in social reasons.

Why does it stink?

There were only 13 non-sibling places left this year at ds's very popular primary school. Out of a 45-strong intake! Thank heavens ds got in (all three boys in our road did, none qualified via sibling route).

Can see the argument for sibling places but do think siblings out of catchment is difficult. Because it just allows people to rent for six months then bugger off to somewhere further out, denying a place to local children who happen not to have older brothers or sisters.

I would say that out of our usual intake of about 55-60, three would have a statement naming the school, but mainly because we have a resource for children with ASD,there might or might not be one or two in care or with medical/social reasons and about 12-15 would be siblings - but most of those would be in-catchment anyway - only one or two would have come from outside the area. So that still leaves two thirds of the places for other catchment children.

Well at our school there is a catchment area - basically our village, although less straightforward because it does run directly into another village with a CofE school (so atheists, muslims etc might not want to use it). So it goes with the special needs thing first, then siblings within the catchment area, then catchment area children on a nearest first as the crow flies basis, then siblings outside the catchment area, then other children outside the catchment area.

The thing with the sibling thing is what happens if you need a bigger house and so you need to move out of the area to get one or you can't keep up your repayments you might have lost your job for instance? The child has had enough to cope with the house move let alone moving school.

That is pretty standard I think. Certainly has applied in our area for a number of years . Unsure why this is a problem for you since it sounds as if you have already made your choice .

cat64 - that used to happen with old style catchment areas. The current policies of distance to school had to be introduced when primary school clsses were capped at 30 places.

This is how it works where we are in The South East. I think it is quite a 'fair' system of allocating places.

My daughter should get into my sons primary school in Sept 2008 under the sibling rule and we live a 5 min walk from the school too.

Apparently it will be a high sibling intake for 2008 according to our primary school. Lots of births!

What did it used to be then magic? Was it a lot different?

The admissions criteria you describe is like most areas I know. You sound like you are in the priority area anyway so I can't see that you will have a problem unless it is a year that will have a very high sibling count.

Cazzybabs, if you move house out of the area covered by the school, then yes, I think you should move schools. You'd have to move doctors' surgery, you'd have to change everything else that relates to place of residence, why do people feel entitled to move away but keep their school place?

In some parts of London, just moving a few streets would stop you being eligible for a place.

it has always been done on a you are guaranteed a place at your catchment school and will still so for 2007 entry. I could face a situation whereby my youngest could be denied entry into the school where here older brother and sister go is part of the issue. but the real killer for me is that this system is not fairer, it just allow the government to continue to address the fact that they are not doing enought to address the failing schools. they just shift the problem onto parents. There is a big hoo har about being 'green' and walking to school etc. Half the problems that we have is as a society is their is no sense of community respect and values. People are being fored into cars to try to give their children a better education, because most parents dont want to get it wrong. I chose 'local' so I could contribute to help the school improve rather than choosing a school out of catchment that had higher exam results where I would only have to put my hand in my pocket to contribute. I also wanted my children to have sense of community and social responsibility. In this day it just seem shocking to me that it is idealistic to think that all local state school should offer a good standard of education. There should be should be, with a few exceptions, no need to go chasing good schools out of catchment ( specific needs, socai reason, skills excepted). All the system does now is throw more people into the lottery of getting a good decent or bad school rather that improving the overall standard of all schools. sorry bit long winded and not sure if I have conveyed it better.

I have lived in 3 areas and this is standrad admission criteria for al those areas for the past few years.

If their siblings go to the school though your youngest should get in on the sibling rule.

it doesnt always follow - a number of children at one of the next cathcment schools in the area did not get in to the sibilings rule this year. my issue is that it doesnt address the poor standards. just passes the buck ti the parents.

in an ideal world what would be fair is for all children, with a few exceptions, to go the the as good as any other local school. then most of the school children would be able to walk to school. but then we can all drean!