School admissions policy changed to deprioritise siblings

[benjoshalex]

Hi
To cut a long story short we recently won a Primary School appeal and got our middle son admitting.The reason was that the admissions arrangements/criteria were so poorly written that we, the school (and academy) and the Council (who administered) all interpreted their treatment of siblings in a different way. Ultimately the appeal panel sided with us and admitted our son under an interpretation which would give siblings priority regardless of their distance from school (as it happens we’re only 2.8miles or so away, and we haven’t moved since first son admitted). An exacerbating factor is that the school behaved pretty poorly through the process in terms of dragging us through appeal even though all these issues were highlighted to them early on in the process.
The problem we’ve now got is the treatment of our third son in 2026 as the school will get an opportunity to rewrite the criteria by then. Our interpretation as agreed by panel and based on what the policy actually says effectively gives all siblings top priority. The school said that this was a mistake and what they intended was the alternating pattern of priority to local siblings (under 2 miles) then local other, then non-local siblings then non-local other. And the council did something completely bizarre, ignored the words completely, and only prioritised siblings up to 2 miles after which it is a free-for-all.
The problem is that the school will probably now want to deprioritise siblings to system they originally intended but didnt manage to write down! Fair enough if starting with a blank sheet (siblings vs. non siblings is always a tricky dilemma), but we would obviously now argue that it would be unfair to amend the arrangements to substantially change the treatment of siblings (from that which the panel confirm apply now) in a way which affects families like us who have already placed older children in the school based on that interpretation of a longstanding policy. We’ll also argue for alignment with what the Council do for the schools they run – they looked at sibling vs non sibling priority a while back and extended the definition of local from 2 to 3 miles due to number of sibling issues emerging.
A few questions please:

• Has anyone had a similar case of siblings being deprioritised once you already had the eldest in? Did you successfully argue any of the above and did it work?
• Has anyone ever seen (and can you point me to) any arrangements where there was a time limited transition in the arrangements to mitigate this. For example, siblings are given unlimited priority where the eldest was admitted to the school before year X?

Thanks in advance – really appreciated

It wasn't the school specifically it was London Borough of Hillingdon.

Thanks, super helpful advice and I completely agree.

Some areas define the "catchment" as being the nearest scho rather than a certain distance to avoid black holes. Pariah boundaries are popular too (even for non church schools, so the catchments fit together)

It can be when in a rural area such as OP and although the school is nearly 3 miles away to get to the next nearest school they would have to go past the school which is nearly three miles away and then drive a further five miles. Sometimes geography means that school admissions can be tricky which is why the LEA have ammended their admission criteria.

From my reading of the situation in the OP case though those who lived within two miles all had priority, whether or not they had a sibling, which she is not questioning. Her argument is that a child without a sibling in that school who lived 2.5 miles away had priority over her dc who lived slightly further but had a sibling. This is where the school failed to apply the admission criteria. In a rural area this could mean that she has to take the older two to the original school and then travel in completely the opposite direction to get the youngest into school. It is also worth considering that rural schools often don't have as much access to wrap around care and she cannot be in two places at the same time miles apart.

@Unexpecteddrivinginstructor the screen capture of the policy in your reply was super helpful. Can I ask which school or council this comes from so I can find it online? Many thanks

Have sent you a pm. Good luck.

OP, the other aspect to consider is the potential cost to the public purse of home to school transport. If parents apply for their nearest or catchment school (for those areas which use catchments - most don’t) and local children are displaced by siblings living further afield, then if the nearest school is over 2/3 miles away (age dependent) or on an unsafe walking route etc. then the LA will have to help with transport.

The council where we used to live did this to stop people getting one child in then moving slightly further as the houses are cheaper, but they added in a clause (which I think is what you want) not to penalise families who are still in the same house as when the older sibling was admitted -

“Children with brothers and sisters on the roll of the school on the date of admission living up to a distance of 800 metres from the school. Children with a brother or sister at the school on the date of admission living over 800 metres from the school will also receive priority under this criterion where the family have not moved further away since last sibling was offered a place or the last sibling was admitted prior to September 2016”

Wandsworth has this kind of policy for LA admission schools, but it does not apply if family has not moved.

So the rules are

1. looked after children etc
2. siblings who live <800m away or whose family has not moved since older sibling got in
3. everyone else (siblings who have moved >800m away and non siblings) by straight line distance

The category 3 distance has been as low as 300m in the past so siblings still get some preference even if they’ve moved. Also as I said, it doesn’t apply to families like yours who haven’t moved, they’ve just been pushed out of catchment since their older kids got in

I think you could make a good argument that siblings should still be prioritised if the family has not moved

Also - timing wise- LAs are supposed to consult on any changes at least 18 months before the term when the new rules would apply. So if they haven’t done the consultation yet, the earliest these changes could apply is for entry Sep 2026, I believe. Also - birth rates have been falling, so it is getting easier to get spaces in reception in many schools (although this is complicated by some schools reducing classes or shutting).

It really depends on catchment pupil count at the time of eldest being admitted as to how far away they'll admit. Our catchment school is odd - we are nearer as the crow flies to 2 other schools, one of which we have to drive within 500yds of if we want to drive to get to our catchment school. If we walk, then we can walk across fields on footpaths and the drive past school is exactly the same distance as catchment and as the 3rd school on foot. I don't have any infant aged kids, but it's interesting that there are several kids beyond us going past our house to the non catchment schools - all schools were apparently oversubscribed.

Not personally but I know a family caught out by this. First child got in, policy changed, 2nd child didn't get in and was allocated a different school. The school allocated for DC2 didn't have capacity to take the older DC into the relevant year group so they were stuck with a school drop off to 2 different schools at the same time.

In the end both DC were moved to a different school which had space for them both.

The change tends to come about with quality issues around secondary schools. Parents live in X location to get the oldest DC into primary them move house into catchment for a decent secondary, safe in the knowledge that any siblings will follow into the primary. They can then be safely out of catchment and first born DC who live in catchment end up being transported out to other primaries because they can't get in.

If you want your 3rd DC to attend this school, bluntly, you need to live close enough for them to get in under distance / catchment / religion (if relevant) rules.

My youngest son was offered a junior school 4 miles from where we live by the local authority as our catchment school was over subscribed with siblings, a lot of them lived out of catchment which made us very cross. The school itself was surprised he didn’t get in as all of his older siblings had been there and it was the nearest school to us (just over a mile from where we live). He did get in eventually as the headteacher wrote to the local authority on our behalf as she thought it was wrong that a child in the catchment had been pushed out by kids who lived further away. Sorry that you’re not happy that your other child may not get in but it’s because of kids that live out of catchment taking school spaces that local kids often lose out and that’s very unfair.

I understand your frustration Flubby. It's an issue when people get one child in and then move and commute back for years across multiple siblings. However the OP is clear here that they haven't moved and still live relatively close.

I see this both ways, on the one hand practically parents can't do 2 school runs. However also Kid A choses red school which is excellent, but not their nearest school, gets in because numbers are quite low in their year group. Two years later Kid B (A's brother) and Kid C who's nearest school is red school, both apply, and Kid B gets in on sibling priority, but Kid C doesn't. Why should kid C have to travel further to a school that is possibly not so good, right up to year 6, maybe with parents who don't drive, or struggle to take them around work? Meanwhile kid B who's parents WANT him to travel for school and already make it work for kid A and know how it will work for kid B, get their choice simply because kid B isn't their eldest/only child?

Pariah boundaries, 😃, I know these things can get snippy, but ……