surely there has to be a better way

[notimetoshop]

I understand the thinking behind not giving children at a nursery class priority to reception. Parents who can't manage it wouldn't have a chance at their nearest school etc.... but it seems so cruel to take children there for 3 - 5 months, make friends, have playdates, watch the big children playing in the school playground and then say to them 'sorry kid, we don't want you. Push off now.' (not to mine btw, but friends)
Surely someone has found a more humane way to sort it out?

Having to deal with this problem frequently at admission appeals, I have two questions.

The first is why did the parent not put their child into the nursery of the local catchment school instead of the nursery of the preferred school, which if they had looked at the admission criteria and past history they would have known that the chances of getting a place were slim to non-existent. Answer - not sure, other than an assumption that they will get anything they ask for.

Secondly why do some schools have a nursery which is too big for the number of pupils the school can admit? Answer - money

It could be that there are only a few nurseries. My authority has a handful despite being fairly average size.
The vast majority of schools do not have a nursery.

The second point could be true, although not in my case, where the number is the same. Yes it does seem to be one way out would be to have no nurseries attached to schools - but there where would they be based? there isn't unlimited space.

and of course, it is not possible that they put their child in the nursery of their catchment school and then did not get a place because they were bumped out? Do catchment areas guarantee a place?

Don't actually see there is a problem! My dc's primary didn't have a nursery attached and children came from lots of different nurseries. My dcs went to a private nursery with no school attached. They survived quite happily and made new friends, although DD is still close to one of her nursery friends.

It doesn't necessarily mean that the nursery is too big for the numbers the school can admit. Not all catchment parents may choose to send their child to the school nursery, especially if it doesn't provide full day places. It doesn't mean they won't be taking up reception places.
As for money - in our LA the funding for nursery places is so tight that school nurseries barely cover their costs.
As for the parents side of it, in our town hardly any schools have nursery classes, so demand is inevitably high from outside catchment for those which do.

bruffin - exactly, that is the point. it seems sad, but having no nursery would actually be a better outcome. It isn't really about the children starting, but more about the ones who don't.
If your child went to a birthday party (for example) and there was a big cake and they were looking forward to that. then, sorry, there are these other children - who have priority - so your child having seen the cake and seen their friend getting the cake is now being told to go away. ok they may have another cake somewhere else, but it's the showing and then rejecting that seems not so nice - and not just for the child, but for the parents too.

the first lady - i'm afraid I don't understand your point.

notimetoshop, in our LA, yes AFAIK being in catchment guarantees you a place.

I haven't heard of anyone who has applied to their catchment school and not got a place.

As far as your main point goes, well I guess the answer is as you say, many schools do not have a nursery (ours doesn't) and so where there is one, it may take children from many catchments in the area. Inevitably they cannot all go to school there - some will need to go to the schools with no nursery.

It wouldn't be reasonable, as you say in fact, to make the parents who couldn't utilise the nursery go to other schools rather than that one, their catchment school.

Notimetoshop. I was replying to admission's post, I crossposted with you. My points were in answer to her two questions.

notimetoshop- I very much doubt it's the children who care, I suspect it's a parent problem

firstlady - oh yes, I see now. Admission's point about parents expecting to get anything they ask for.... but isn't that the problem? What is so bad about expecting to get a place in the school your child is at nursery at... or at any school for that matter. Why is this process so fraught - and apparently it's far worse for y7. Surely there must be a way of organising it, so that you can apply to a couple of nearby schools, knowing your kid will go there.
Last year was awful scores of parents with no place for their children and it's going to get a lot worse
"headcount of pupils in primary aged less than 5 ...rose to 883,000 in 2009; and is projected to rise to 941,000 in 2011. .. and reach around 1,004,000 by 2018 ? an expected increase of almost 14 per cent from 2009."

www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/STR/d000921/SR082010_PupilProjections_ALL.pdf

bruffin - you are of course right in the longer term. i'm sure after the long holiday and a few months at the new school they forget. I moved at 6yo myself and apart from a memory of that first shaky playtime, can't remember being traumatised.
and I think that is some tiny comfort for people involved. But still, it does leave parents in tears, which seems to me to be harsh.

well actually notime, in our LA you can apply to your nearby school and know you will get a place.

wahey! DS1 is in yr 6 and got a place at a well-rated secondary nearby. We live in its catchment and thus were basically certain of a place.

The problem arises when people who live near schools they don't want to send their children to expect to get a place at schools much further away then get annoyed when they get offered their catchment school. Not a lot you can do about that sadly.

I think that if reception class has 30 places nursery should offer 30 places and thats that,of course this will never happen not while funding for the 4 year olds is still utilised,at our local primary school there is almost 60 nursery slots half mornings and half noons and only 30 places in reception....how can that be fair?.

When did all this begin? when did people stop sending their dc to the school nearest to them/ when I was a little girl if you moved (as we often did) you just went to the school near you ....that was before the league tables were published.

When will the government realise this system isnt working and the only losers are the children?

clary - that's what I wondered. Surely it must work in some places.
I can see your last point. although i was thinking of schools nearby. in our la you can apply to schools nearby and still not get in.
but secondaries are different aren't they? I understand it's far more tense for the parents, but it is possible for 11yo to get to and from school by themselves. I am not so keen on 4yo trying it.

nickschick - yes. although I would say some flexibility is needed. the school nearest to you may be in the opposite direction to where you need to go for work, or may be a faith school, or a private school!

most of the infant schools round here don't have nurseries attached to them.

senior schools well there are 3 in the town - not enough spaces for all the children - so many have to travel out of town to villages/next town

I think if you go to the nursery school a place in reception should be a foregone conclusion....if you want to go to school in a different area bcos of work then for that year you need a childminder in that area ...its v wrong to mess about with a childs formative years imo.

well like I say, in our LA (And I have looked into this) if you are in the catchment of a certain primary, you basically will get in.

There are one or two primaries with small intakes (one class of 30) and therefore small catchments, both the ones I am thinking of are in big estates.

So a lot of people apply to them and don't get in. But hey! they don't live in the catchment. They live in catchment for another school and get miffed when they are offered that one.

I know someone who has applied to five different schools for her child starting school in Sept (two LAs) and not been offered any. She has been offered her catchment school. She doesn't want child to go there (I don't know why but can make a guess). I bet she is a bit miffed.

ahh see some of the schools round here (one in particular) has a catchment area that invariably has more children than there are spaces as it's a huge estate(s) with one school basically supposed to serve the entire NW area of town.

And then where I am now I'm actually in the catchment for 3 schools (same small town)

I think people get a bit precious about the whole "but she's my 3/4 year old's BEST friend, they must be kept together" thing tbh. The majority of kids don't stay in the same place for nursery and school and cope just fine. It's the parents who get stressed about it.

I would think it's a lot more unfair to deny a child a place at their local school becacuse it's filled with kids who went to the nursery. Nursery class hours make them pretty useless to anyone who needs childcare; why should they be penalised further by then not getting a reception place.

children's friendships are fairly fluid and even if they stay with their friends, they don't necessarily stay best friends.
DD's best friend from nursery is still with her at secondary. They still do things together occasionally but they have a seperate circle of friends and have done so most of the way through primary.

Our primary has two nursery classes of up to 20 (am and pm) and one Reception class of 30, so inevitably, not all children join the main school. My older DD didn't go to the school nursery because the time wasn't convenient; she went to a private nursery for 3 full days a week. I'd have been very put out if she'd been refused a place at our catchment primary because of my working hours.

Our primary is extremely popular, and there has sometimes been some bad feeling about children not being able to progress automatically to Reception, particularly amongst parents who volunteer in class. Parents need to be very clear when applying for schools of the admissions procedure - what may seem 'fair' to them may be entirely irrelevant to the LA.

I pretty much agree with Admission.

I too have sat on appeals where parents have assumed that a place in reception is a foregone conclusion because their child has been at the nursery. But nursery isn't school and in an LEA like ours where most admissions are done on the basis of distance to school, it would seem grossly unfair to me if a child who lived next door to the school but hadn't gone to the nursery (because, say, they had gone to a workplace nursery instead) wasn't admitted because the places in reception had been pre-allocated to children who lived miles away but who happened to have gone to the nursery.

And, frankly, I think all this talk of "cruelty" is overblown. For most children, moving to a new school and making new friends is not a huge deal - as has been mentioned, it is the parents who tend to get worked up about it and then communicate that to the children. Of course, it may be different for children who have recognised social or emotional difficulties - but there is usually a separate admissions priority under which they can apply.

It seems to me that schools ought to take some responsibility for this; if they encouraging children in the nursery and their parents to take it for granted that they will be staying on for reception - when they know that separate admission arrangements apply - then they are being reckless and irresponsible.