URGENT HELP PLEASE: Challenging council re removal of 'bulge' class

[RestingFebruaryFace]

Sorry for lengthy message, I don't want to drip feed.

Our local secondary catchment area has shrunk this year by over 40% from over 800m to just over 500m. This has left a huge amount of families without any of their choices, and they have instead been allocated either a single sex school or a faith school which is an hour's walk away.

There are a number of reasons behind this - this is the last high birth year and there were a huge number of sibling places allocated this year, meaning very few places left based on catchment. In addition, the school sold off land and two huge housing developments have been built adjacent to the school meaning lots of families have moved in to the area, squeezing others out.

This has left a number of families who have missed out completely devastated not to be getting their local school, which is a real 'community' school. Congestion in our town is already horrific so kids travelling to the faith school will only exacerbate this (there are no public transport options that work).

Apart from the general disappointment, families are angry because for the last 2 years the school added a 'bulge' class to go up from 7 form entry to 8 form entry. The expectation was they would do the same again this year, given the high birth rate and the effect of the new housing developments, but it has become clear only on allocation day that this did not happen. The school have issued a statement saying they wanted to add an 8th form again and for this to become permanent, and they even offered to contribute to the cost but the Council turned them down. This seems to be on the basis that there are places available elsewhere in the town (the faith school and the single sex school), and maybe this is a cheaper option for the Council than adding the bulge class, though I don't pretend to know much about the funding.

Parents are trying urgently to challenge the Council on this, and given the wealth of experience on here I was hoping someone may have some insight.

eg, are there any possible grounds for challenging the decision - should the council have consulted parents about not having a bulge class, or at least made this clear at the application stage so parents could plan accordingly? I'm not hopeful but we need to send something as soon as possible and I'm not sure we'll have time to research the legal detail for the initial complaint.

Thank you if you are able to assist at all.

There could easily be 30 appeals if everyone decided to appeal en masse, maybe double that. Over 400 people listed it as their first choice schools so 200+ are disappointed! But I agree with your second point, if the school were to allow 30 appeals unopposed it would jeopardise their relationship with other schools and they don’t want that.

There has been lots of lobbying and our MP Daisy Cooper had written a pretty strong letter to the Education Secretary about it. I’m not sure it will get us anywhere though, or at lest not for the pupils who applied this year.

The statutory walking distance is three miles so depending how fast OP was suggesting people walk (4 miles per hours is ‘striding out’) it could well be that they are entitled to school transport. Having to provide transport for 30 children for the next five years might make the council rethink a bulge class.

A child (with no medical needs) is only entitled to transport if they are given a place at a school that is more than 2 miles and in receipt of free school meals, or more than 3 miles, and they are attending the nearest school that could accommodate them. If a parent makes a preference for a school that is over distance but could have accepted a place at a nearer school, they don't get transport. If they could have accepted a place that is over distance but choose a place that is even further away, then transport is funded to the distance they could have travelled, then they are responsible for the remaining distance.

But I agree with your second point, if the school were to allow 30 appeals unopposed it would jeopardise their relationship with other schools and they don’t want that.

Just to nip one (common) misapprehension in the bud here - even if the school organises its appeals process, this must be done according to the School Admission Appeals Code and it is not 'the school' which 'allows' appeals (or not). Both the school and appellants present their respective cases to a panel which must be independent of that school and it is the panel which decides whether an appeal should be upheld or not.

Schools can try to 'throw' stage 1 of the hearing but it doesn't always work.

Well this year the council allocated extra places to other schools rather than to Beaumont. Sounds to me as if there was a massive clash over it all between Beaumont and the council

@ed111. If the school has had 2 bulge years and a 3rd year releases a PAN adjustment to make this bulge permanent and the upcoming years are not as high birth years as the previous few have been.

Isn't it more that the council has been sensible not added in a class permanently they don't need and redirected the bulge class to another school for this 1 year. With Beumont not liking this as they wanted the 8 year intake.

As a parent who appealed and lost (elsewhere) I get the disappointment in not getting the school we feel is the best fit for our child. However as a tax payeer I also want the local council to be smart with allocation of funds. As disappointing as this may be for many parents. (And perhaps schools)

OP, when you say that parents would’ve liked some warning so they could plan accordingly, what does that mean? What could they do differently?

I hope no one made the mistake of putting only one school.

As a parent who appealed and lost (elsewhere) I get the disappointment in not getting the school we feel is the best fit for our child. However as a tax payeer I also want the local council to be smart with allocation of funds. As disappointing as this may be for many parents. (And perhaps schools)

Totally agree with this. It’s a situation where I completely agree 100% with the argument on both sides!

Beaumont and Sandringham have been the darlings of St Albans parents for years with families playing every trick to secure places there. 2 families from our primary timed house renovations to coincide with applications so they could apply from a temporary closer address. It worked, and their siblings followed after the family moved home. The council says it will investigate these cases - it clearly doesn't. It happens year after year. There really is an atmosphere of Beaumont/ Sandringham or bust - it's crazy - with ever growing numbers of families chasing homes in an ever-reducing, over-developed housing radius.

In the city centre where these two schools have always been out of reach, children are thriving at the schools that this year's cohort seem so desperate to avoid. They might argue it's about single-sex preferences or transport logistics but it's loaded with snobbery and entitlement. One of the letter templates that the campaign group have put together talks about the impact of this decision on the housing market - I think we're getting closer to nub of people's fears here.

It's just not possible for everyone to go to 'the best school in town'. Isn't it much more important we strive to make every school desirable - starting with our voting choices.

Surely the money - and places - should be allocated to a successful, highly regarded school surrounded by a strong community rather forcing pupils into other schools.

in this case, the parents are unhappy because they have missed out on their local school which I have presumed is nearest as OP talks of her ‘local catchment school. But I suppose they could have ignored closer schools than the faith school in their choices, it just didn’t read that way. But that is why I didn’t say they definitely would be entitled to transport.

Surely it would be better if all schools in a locality were successful and highly regarded, surrounded by a strong community? If children were spread more equally amongst the schools, then all schools would benefit, which is the argument against grammar schools, too. It's all self-fulfilling prophecy. All school should be 'good enough' for all children, and it's when the roll drops at a particular school that the funding follows, then quality drops because the resources aren't there. This leads to a spiral towards inadequate. Then the LA sweeps in, pumps it with resources and claims to have 'turned it around', when the very same school could have been 'turned around' if it had been given the resources it needed in the first place.

One of the letter templates that the campaign group have put together talks about the impact of this decision on the housing market - I think we're getting closer to nub of people's fears here.

Lord, that takes me back a few years to the horror that the proposed reallocation of a few streets from our catchment Infant and Junior schools to a neighbouring primary caused - the official heartstring tugger was that there was a main road between them (single carriageway, several pedestrian crossings / sets of traffic lights on the relevant section), which none of the apparently otherwise intelligent, more affluent folk on our side of it would be able to cope with. Only the campaign poster did mention house prices as well, just as a side issue, of course...

We had looked at the catchment schools when our eldest was coming up to school age, and were completely turned off by its attitude (fawning over DH as soon as the HT discovered that he was a hospital Consultant- had shown absolutely zero curiosity about what my occupation might be on any of my previous interactions with the place), with the result that we and all three of our DC subsequently coped admirably with crossing an A road on the way to and from the other school for a total of 12 years.

You would be right if we lived in Utopia

In most of the UK students attend a secondary school more than 4 miles away from their home address. How the student gets there is a different matter. 4 miles is not far to cycle if no public transport.

Are you sure? Amongst all my family and friends and the school l worked out they are nearly all within walking distance. The only ones travelling 4 miles are from out of catchment.

Dn’s go to a Catholic school. They have a school bus, but it’s not 4 miles away.

in 26 years teaching, I’ve never known anyone travel more than 4 miles unless they are from out of catchment.

Yes. I assume you live in a city. The majority of people in the UK do not. Just because it is the experience of your family and friends does not make it so

Yes, plenty of villages around here would be more than 4 miles from a secondary school and our district isn't even that rural.

I don't think average distance is very helpful. The average distance for secondary school pupils is 3.2 miles, but that will be averaged from students in inner cities, who may only travel 150 metres, to rural areas where 8 or 12 miles is common.

DD1 has always travelled 10-13 miles (special education)
DD2&3 travelled 2.2 miles (1.1 miles as the crow flies).

We're rural. Only one school available for mainstream children in our area. All other schools within travelling distance are oversubscribed and we're out of catchment.

Yes an average for all ages is 2.6 miles but includes primaries too the majority of which are under 4 miles. My response was initially to the poster who couldn't believe people walked 4 miles to school and I was unsure whether she meant the walking element or the school being further away than 4 miles (for which for secondary age rhe majority are).

Do you not get free transport if over 3 miles then? Way back in the 90s we had a free bus pass if over 3 miles. All the local dc are all transported to school even if under 2/3 miles as no safe walking route. Rural windy roads, national speed limit, no pavements, no streetlights.

I wouldn’t let my dc cycle on it tbf.

All parents applying knew how many places were up for grabs. No one could say they didn’t have access to that info. Tho the number of siblings is a shocker.

I don’t think St Albans needs two so called faith schools in this day and age. The people I know who do have a strong faith send their kids to non faith schools anyway (as they are closer and perceived to be better…).

I don’t see what the school could have done differently

It's funny how no-one has objections to faith schools when we're talking about St George's in Harpenden or Loreto, but when it's Townsend they're abhorrent. See also St Albans School vs. Verulam.

I guess the number of siblings this year is a direct result of the last two years' bulge - combine that with high birth rate years and it's a nightmare. 2 years' bulge is a rubbish idea, this year and presumably next were always going to get screwed over by it