Secondary Admissions - what if I do this.....

[Floppythedog]

I was thinking of doing this on the preference form

1. Catchment school
2. No preference
3. No preference

The reason for this is that for years now (maybe around 10?) children in our village haven’t got into the catchment school. And yes, it definitely is our catchment school - I think every single person I know has checked with the LA over the past few years and the catchment area map clearly shows our village.
Instead the village children are split between a school in a town further south (19 miles away) and a school in a town further north (21 miles away) (its even further north than our catchment school (9 miles away) - you have to go past the catchment school to get to the north school!). Depending on whether children are lucky or not and numbers of the same age group further south, the lucky ones go south (on average - probably 1 or 2 a year and they all live further south than us). Based on past admissions data, we would be going north. Parents have to pay for their children to go to these schools (we’re talking thousands in transport costs every year and logistically dreadful to get to) because the LA argue that because the school was named on the form it is parental preference and they have no obligation to pay for transport. This winds everyone up especially when you have to go past children going south to the catchment school, who actually live closer to the north school than the catchment school, until you get to the north school - but that’s another story.

The school further north is inadequate.
I can not afford the transport costs.
I refuse to bankrupt myself for an inadequate school we don’t want.
We have no other acceptable options other than these three schools. The closest schools after these three are 31, 34 and 38 miles away.
We will get a place in inadequate north school because they have a PAN of 150 and have taken, over the last 3 years, 49, 52 and 49 children into Y7.
This is the school the LA will allocate when we don’t get the catchment school.

I was thinking of ordering the preferences as above. In other words, naming only the catchment school, because, in my head anyways, if the LA gives us the north school they are responsible for the transport costs because they sent us there. Is this correct?

@GingerAndTheBiscuits it’s definitely by road/walking. It’s been checked by many. And I’ve just double checked myself as well using the LA published admissions criteria.
Although it wouldn’t make much difference, the schools by road and as the cow flies, we they aren’t exactly the same distance as the road miles, but they are the same order of distance away.

What I mean is; by road, the distance closest to furthest is
Catchment
South
North

By as the crow flies its
Catchment
South
North

That solves that bit at least! But yeah, seems like LA has been playing fast and loose

[quote Floppythedog]@prh47bridge I’ve read the legislation you mentioned, as I understand it:

If I put (genuine order of preference)

1. Catchment school (9 miles away)
2. South school (19 miles away)
3. North school (21 miles away)

If we are offered either south or north the LA is responsible for transport costs. Is that correct?

I wouldn’t do this, because it’s not the genuine order of preference, but just to clarify my understanding, if I put

1. Catchment
2. North (21 miles)
3. South (19 miles)

And we were offered South the LA is responsible for transport costs because it’s not catchment but the closest school.

But what about if we got offered north? South is closer so does that mean the LA has no responsibility and the parents pay? Or does that mean, because that’s not the catchment school the LA pays? Or does that mean, because it’s not the catchment, but for sake of argument south School has places it could have offered, then parents are responsible for transport costs to north?

I really hope that made sense[/quote]
In case 1 you are correct.

In case 2 the LA would still be responsible for transport whichever school is offered following the principles established by the Court of Appeal in S and another v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council. The cost difference between the schools is not significant so the LA must pay. However, if North was, say, 100 miles away it would be different. In that situation the LA could refuse to pay if you got a place at North.

@prh47bridge does that case not only apply for SEND cases?

I can see how the principles would apply in non-SEND cases but not sure I’ve ever seen it in practice.

I’m quite shocked by this thread.
I went to my catchment school which was 7 miles away with no public transport. We had a free school bus to pick us up and drop us off everyday.
Is this not the case anymore?

If so, no wonder there are no families there any more....

[quote GingerAndTheBiscuits]@prh47bridge does that case not only apply for SEND cases?[/quote]
Whilst it was about a SEND case, it involved interpretation of Education Act 1996 Schedule 35B paragraph 6 (amongst other factors). Paragraph 6 applies to all children, not just SEND cases. Whilst it is possible the courts would decide that paragraph 6 should be interpreted differently in non-SEND cases, that seems unlikely. Given that it clearly applies to all children, it would be extremely difficult to argue that interpretation should vary depending on whether SEND factors were in play.