Sibling priority screwing over local kids

[SJ1987]

We missed out on getting in to our (extremely popular) local primary school. It’s an extremely good school, multiple ‘outstanding’ oftsteds, amazing pastoral/SEN provision. We live 0.38 miles and the max distance this year is 0.32 miles. The area we live in isn’t desirable for the amazing school. It would be considered rough by a lot of people.

Following a FOI request only 8/30 places went to children on distance criteria. 19 places went to siblings. Siblings are prioritised over distance.

We’ve submitted a further FOI request to clarify average and furthest sibling distance. But I know for a fact that kids attend the school from many miles away - often maybe having lived near the school before moving to ‘better’ places.

Are we able to challenge this? It seems grossly unfair that local kids are missing out to siblings who live in different towns. Is there a distance at which people are supposed to move schools if they move house? Or is this just the game when it comes to the best schools?

Our local schools give priority to siblings in catchment but those who move out of catchment don’t get priority which I think is fairer. You shouldn’t be able to get one child in then move and guarantee siblings entry.

A lot of the schools near us had the problem you describe - family lives nearby for a year or two to get their eldest in, then moves much further away for bigger/cheaper housing.

They have introduced a rule that a sibling only gets priority if the family lives within 800m (this was in a context where non siblings had to live within 3-400m to get in) or has not moved since the first child got a place.

Appeal the decision. Then keep checking with the LA for spaces. There is more movement than people think in primary

Our nearest schools are over 2 miles away and there's no guarantee we'll get those, it's annoying but it is what it is.

If you prioritise children in catchment over children with siblings out of catchment and the catchment area grows smaller each year then your future children could also be penalised and end up at a separate school to their siblings. I think it's fair to priortise siblings.

Some people do play a game but people are allowed to move house and moving house isn't always a luxury. It could be divorce, redundancy, financial difficulties, end of tenancy, problem neighbors, closer to work. Once a child's in a school with connections they shouldn't have to move and their siblings shouldn't have to go elsewhere.

It is frustrating - the school on our street filled 21 out of 30 places with siblings the year my son started reception, and many of those families would never have got a place on distance. Luckily we have many equally good schools within a small area, so it isn't a massive problem here.

This has always been the way unfortunately. My eldest is 16 now but I remember 42 out of 60 places went to siblings the year she started reception.

We had 26 out of 30 siblings in one class. The catchment shrank to a few houses away. It's very hard to see how there could be a different solution to this though.

In my area it's the opposite rule. Unfortunately my youngest didn't get a place at her older siblings school as we are out of catchment even though it's less than a mile away. So resulted in 2 different primary school runs which was very difficult to start with and my youngest will likely go to a different high school now too. I thought about moving my eldest at the time but they were in yr3 and was happy, didn't want to etc and it wouldn't have been fair to them.

That's just the distance of the kids actually admitted though as opposed to a criterion. The siblings could all be in the catchment but after they're all admitted the priority goes on distance and only 8 means it's quite close.

Our school prioritises siblings and then by age within the catchment rather than distance.

Round here siblings only get priority if you haven’t moved or if you do move it’s within the catchment area of when your first child started.

Similar change and criteria where I am. Although with the lower primary admissions now the problem is likely far less acute than 8-10 years ago where it became rather dog eat dog with a shortage of places.

It won’t help you this year but you could push to get the criteria changed for future years if you think fairer.

Yes I think I will. To answer someone higher up we didn’t appeal as there is no point. They applied their criteria and we were unlucky. But their criteria isn’t fit for purpose when siblings from miles and miles away get in over kids from 350 metres away. As someone else said they should max out the sibling criteria at 1 or 1.5 miles or something like that.

This is how our local ofsted outstanding school works too. Once they’ve bumped off siblings, there were 7-8 place offered. The list of criteria was applied in order of: 1) looked after children, 2) SEN, 3) sibling, 4) children of teachers/other school workers 5) distance. We discovered you can’t lodge an appeal with the school, because once they have 30/31 kids assigned and can prove they have applied the criteria to you fairly, they cannot legally increase the size of a reception class. Meaning appeals mainly pertain to instances where they could admit your child, but haven’t. If you could prove they did not apply the criteria fairly you may stand a chance.

Where I live if you move more than 1 mile from the school you lose sibling priority, it seems fair as too many people locally were renting near the best schools to play the system. Not much you can do though OP if that’s not the rule in the local area aside from petition the council to change it for future years

Age within the catchment? I don't think I've heard of that before. How does it work?

It's not fit for purpose in your opinion.

In my opinion, it's correct that siblings can attend the same school even if the parents move house for any reason including:

• divorce
• bereavement
• job loss
• moving to be near elderly parents
• birth of more children
• blending families
• landlord selling up

Etc etc etc etc etc.

@Livelaughlurgy so they take all the September babies? That's an awful way to do it!

Sure. We will have to agree to disagree. I think, if you move house beyond a couple of miles you shouldn’t be prioritised for a school space, no matter the reason.

@ThatBeverleyMacca so once you're in the catchment you're in it. And if they are oversubscribed they rank the kids by how old they are with oldest first. So if you miss it this year you're basically guaranteed next year. So you'd have parents whose kids are either going to be the youngest or eldest in the class depending on how many kids apply. We're in Ireland so must be more common here but I think it's fair enough system. Our equivalent is you might get a sibling who's younger admitted before a child in the catchment who's birthday happens earlier. But that child is almost guaranteed a spot next year as they'd be one of the oldest applying IYSWIM. So at least everyone gets a chance of getting in. Theres also an age limit where they have to have turned 5 by a certain time or they can't apply.

The ofsted rating of the school also reflects the school population. So if you move it to distance it likely that the population will change (you said it's a poor area), it's much harder to have an outstanding school when the parents are less engaged with home work and the kids aren't as disciplined.

Parents will always game the system it's easier to stop trying to move the goal posts so more parents can play than just let the smartest win! Most people only have 2 kids maximum with 2-3years between them so all it would take is for those to stay in the area 3 years longer until the youngest is in reception then move.

@SJ1987 So if one parent dies and the other has to sell up and move house because they can no longer afford the house in the catchment area their life should be further disrupted by having to send one child to another school...

I mean, in an ideal world LA’s would have the capacity and money to listen to every case and decide on a case by case basis. In this situation, then most definitely these siblings should be admitted. Siblings who moved to the next town because parents got better jobs and can afford better houses maybe not.

But in a situation where criteria are applied without any emotion, then it’s impossible to say which cases should or shouldn’t be. One of our neighbours didn’t get in and she doesn’t drive due to a medical condition that means she isn’t allowed to drive. She’s a single parent. The school they have been given is 1.5 miles away. Should they be admitted to our local primary school for fairness as well?

This happened to us when my dd started in reception over ten years ago. It was a shame but I still think siblings should have priority.

Sure, some people wait until they get a school place then move, knowing that their younger children will get in as siblings (unless policy changes). But equally there are families that have to move eg in temporary accommodation, short term rentals, because parents split up and so on and I don't think that expecting those parents to get children to different primary schools or expecting the older child to move to the school that the younger one gets into is fair either.

Secondary, when children can get themselves there and back is a bit different, I think.

I think schools do best when they are a community and that that tends to happen when parents have multiple children go through the school so they're invested. Parents juggling multiple schools won't be as involved.

Equally, all the parents in catchment who can't get to their nearest school may also be facing all of the above situations + doubly inconvenienced by having to get their kids to a far away school. As @SJ1987 example shows. Why should her single parent unable to drive neighbour be inconvenienced over someone else , for example decides to blend families or get a new job or whatever.

And, as much as you want to play 'moving sob story top trumps' we all know certain schools full of parents deliberately playing the system as PP said. Moving close to get one child into the supposed 'outstanding' school, then moving further away for better secondaries/bigger house whatever.

When there's an unusually high number of sibling places, not only is it likely to be the above. But the people who already live nearby and can't afford to play the game, are the ones who lose out.