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?

It can be fixed, by having a distance cut off after which sibling priority won't apply, but the status quo tends to suit people with louder voices, so it probably won't be.

But that makes life much harder for those on the bottom rung, in temporary accommodation or insecure rentals.

I think Waltham Forest council are right in saying that 'siblings in catchment/in catchment' as a higher priority than 'siblings' is indirectly racial discrimination btw, for the reasons that I've listed up thread.

Interesting point. I'd not thought if it that way as round here it's definitely the more affluent that seem to game the system on the sibling rules and temporarily renting when they own elsewhere etc. And all catchment rules are likely indirectly discriminatory to an extent. In Hackney they have more of a lottery system.

It also tends to be the more affluent who can navigate a complicated school commute, and favour that against moving schools.