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.

I agree but I can't see how this new rule changes the local school thing. Isn't the priority area just another name for a catchment area? and surely this would be local to the school?

IME most of the statement children are in the 'catchment area' anyway unless they have a special unit (eg language unit) and then they are often not inculded in the PAN for the school anyway.

But surely mft if your 3rd child is in catchment and has sibs at the school then they will be top of the list? (apart from looked after/SN children who in my experience are at too low a number to have a major impact.

Btw I agree with your point about keen parents supporting the local school and raising its standards - but can't really see why you are concerned about yr admissiuons?

cece my authority guaranteed a place to children within catchment area. they are no longer guaranteeing a place to catchment children. beacuae of the social make up of the next catchment area ( high number of drug user and children with extra requirements) it could feasibly happent that dd does not get offer a place. My school is a first choice for a lot of children in that area. It is one of the most deprived area in the borough and even more densely populated.

that was to clary too. I just think that it creates more uncertainty and more tension, and weakens further what is already a poor educational infrastructure.

Ah but first second choice is being done away with for 2008 too. It is an equal preference system. IME I have never known a child get in on social or medical grounds and only know of one family who has been in care and so got a place in school. This too is in a deprived area with lots of druggies etc.

I can see the lack of guaranteed place is upsetting though due to the anxiety it can casue. In fact I am in the same situation for 2008 as we don't live very close to any schools....

In fact they are considering changing it to how the crow flies rather than shortest distance by road/footpath. If they do then my nearest school wil be the one I definintely don't want him going too!

thats the problem cece ' the one you dont want him to go to' in this day and age its a crime that there are still so many schools like that. Its worse now than when I was a child back in the 70's for getting into a decent school it seems to me.

and as the crow flies is crap althought that is better for me tbh.

The situation has already occurred where children who might previously have fallen within catchment have not got in to their "local" school and it is causing a hoohah. However the parents are trying to argue theri case based upon older siblings having previously attended the school (we have an infants/junior transfer in many cases) so they are no longer attending. Also I suspect some have chosen to pay over the odds to move near the school they are now being denied. However it does mean that they are facing a nightmare of children potentially being at schools at least 20 minutes drive apart, assuming they drive, or putting their 4 years olds on a school bus sevice.

i think this is entirely normal?

there has to be a limit at some point - what if 50 kids suddenly lived in the geographical catchment area - that doesn't make sense - a distance rule has to apply at some point. I guess the local authority had never had to apply it before?

the real problem is the disparity between schools - if only they were all desirable.

Surely this rule protects the kids who dont have wealthy parents who can move into certain areas?

in our area local kids (old catchment) come before out of area but with siblings. So its;
SN, etc
in area with silbings
in area (no siblings)
out of area with siblings
other

I do think it is the fairest way but having seen the following rule I think it should be included......

If you move house more than 2 miles away (I think it should be more like 1) then the sibling rule no longer applies

I am so fed up with people renting etc just to get their eldest in and then moving away and THEN they have to drive to school grrrrrr

Actually our nearest one as the crow flies is a long way away because of a river and the location of bridges so that is why I don't want him to go there. I have no idea what it is like as have nothing to do with it because it so far away. Even though it is just across the river iyswim!

thats so true about people moving away. At our school it happens all the time. I dont think people rent - I think they buy then move away as their family grows. So lots of people end up driving to school. The homes near my dd school are quite small on the whole with no parking, so I guess thats why it happens a lot.

Some later move their kids, but it is not always possible.

Given that surely any child should have an equal chance of a place why is it fair to the child that siblings get any sort of priority. Why should child A (a first born or 'only' child) who lives eg 500 metres from the school not get a place because child B who lives 3000 metres from school but has an older sibling does get a place? How is that fair to child A - he/she can't suddenly create an older sibling?! And it is doubly unfair because child A will have to put up with the pollution caused by the likelihood of child B being driven to school.

A good point but what about the poor stressed parent of the siblings who have to simultaneously drop them off and collect at two different schools?

exactly cece - although perhaps with secondary schools siblings rule shouldn't count because at that age they should be getting themselved there anyway IMO. Although I do really think if people move house further away from the school they should then lose the right to sibling entry rule because I do think in principle it's those living nearest by walking distance that should have places.

Although I partly think going back to admissions area and no parental option would be a lot easier in many ways!!!!!!!!!

Yes!

Although I must say I am not really in walking distance of any schools - at least not a reasonable distance. It takes we an hour and half to walk there and back! (that includes hanging around for class to come out and a quick chat

So what should I do??? As I say I don't really have an obvious choice of local school...

But part of the point I am making is that admisions should be about the CHILD not about convenience for the parents. If you have more than one child you are going to face having children at different schools when the first one goes to secondary. When I was a child (one of three) my mother had to get us to 3 different schools and I don't remember it being a problem.
But I agree that in an ideal world everyone should be allocated their nearest school with no choice for the sake of the environment.

Sorry, meant to add that it shouldn't be beyond the wit of schools in an area where parents are likely to have kids at different schools for the heads to agree to have 'staggered' hours.

secondary schools are different as in many respects they could get there on there own. But at primary level I htink the sibling rule should stand.