Admissions policies

[ZoeTedders]

Do you agree that Free Schools should be able to set admission policies that exclude students from the local area and give priority to students who live in areas further away?

This is the current row in our area- www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/west-london-news/row-over-plans-whitton-school-9106689

I tried to read the link but brain is too slow, how is it different from grammars, religious schools & special talent preference & such? It's a very established principle to not cater for just local community.

It's not really a case of whether I agree or not.

It's the law. Free schools are a type of academy. When Labour set up academies, they got the same freedom to set their admissions criteria as VA schools have always had.

All state schools must follow the Admissions Code, and there are limits on which groups can be given priority when a school is oversubscribed.

Catchments like these are a PITA, but do make some sense when the school doesn't have a permanent site yet, and will move if it can close to the point from which distances are being measured.

This sort of non-adjacent catchment can happen with any type of school, so moving to LA control will not in itself prevent this situation.

I agree ragged, it is a type of selection like the school types you have described.

Meditrina, do you think non-adjacent catchment will become exceedingly more common?

This school in the village of Stoke Poges has most students coming in from Slough.

www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/the-buckinghamshire-village-that-could-scupper-michael-goves-free-school-revolution-8664099.html

In the case of the non-adjacent areas which have been identified as having demand, the schools do not have to adhere to the Admissions Code.

It seems reasonable to have a non-adjacent catchment - there must be lots of places in the country where there is a high density of children in need of a school but no sensible site for one. This is a much better solution than building a school but then giving priority to closest children so that the un-catered-for children get the 2nd-choice leftovers.

Must be lots of areas like that, particularly in cities, so I imagine it will become increasingly more common to have students commuting further to get to school.

In terms of demand, that can always change with the building of new schools closer to the area of demand and differences in demographics, so Admissions Codes could change too.

Changing the Admissions Code is a pretty major thing.

Changing catchments, introducing or abolishing them can be done at any time, subject to the consultation requirements in the Code (which at the moment has a timetable so changes could be made any/every year if the school/LA wanted to).

I have no idea if non-adjacent catchments will become more frequent. It's a local decision, and inevitably very unpopular with those who love right by the site but find those living some distance from it get priority. It can happen when a successful school opens a satellite site, but still measures from the original one. Or simply if a catchment is an odd shape, or if feeder schools are used are a criterion.

What if there were undersubscribed state schools closer to the area of demand than the proposed new school building site?

Would you still agree with such an admissions policy?

Sites are in short supply in London. You have to put them in places where a site can be had (ie both found and afforded).

The proposed building site might not be ideal in terms of where current demand lies, but that's often the case.

With London boroughs warning of a shortage of tens of thousands of secondary school places on the horizon, it would be deeply imprudent to slow down the creation of school places now. Even where there is that rarity of more than one undersubscribed school nearby.

I meant policies, not the code. Sorry.

But in the case of having an undersubscribed school closer to the area of demand do you agree with such an admissions policy?

Would it be fair to describe such a policy as inclusive?

"But in the case of having an undersubscribed school closer to the area of demand do you agree with such an admissions policy?"

I neither agree nor disagree, having only one press article to go on. But the I noticed the point that the temporary site in is T, and of the two possible permanent sites one is in T and one in W. So I can see a logic in having a T-based catchment, at least for now.

"Would it be fair to describe such a policy as inclusive?"

It's just like any catchment based system. Catchments are, rarely, deliberately jerrymandered for selection by the back door. But that's not the same as simply being being non-adjacent.

A local school to me, LEA controlled, has had two catchment areas, one of which is not adjacent to the school, for many years. This is not a new policy connected to being a free school. In our case the school is not very popular and children in the farther catchment area have to travel through the catchment area of a more popular school in order to get to theirs!

As others have said this is nothing to do with being a free school. There is nothing in the Admissions Code that says a school's catchment must be adjacent to the school or that distances must be measured from the school. However, catchments must not be used as a back door way of selection. An odd-shaped catchment designed to exclude the local sink estate but include desirable areas further from the school can be challenged.

In this particular case there is uncertainty as to the long term location of the school. I therefore think the policy is reasonable. Once the long term location is settled they would need a good reason for measuring distances from somewhere other than the school. A possible justification could be if there is a shortage of places in T so, even though the school is in W, it is primarily to serve T.