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.

If the school takes another 30 this year then it’s more siblings in two years. It just continues.

100% agree, reducing the PAN was always going to mean siblings have a disproportionate impact

good point

One issue is how the places were allocated ‘as the bird flies’ as the new estate on sandpit is actually quite a long walk round. That does seem an error when people in longacres didn’t get a place

No, no-one put down only 1 school as far as I'm aware. Lots of people put down a full selection of schools and got none of them.

As to what they'd like to have done differently - my friend has a Y5 child and would have moved house before now if he'd had an idea back in, say, September that the position would have looked like this. He'd have moved either into catchment of Beaumont or (more likely) our next nearest school Samuel Ryder. But he now doesn't have the time before he has to apply for his child this coming October.

Other people would never have moved to the area and paid for hugely overpriced houses if they realised they would be left with no local secondary school and no choice of secondary school.

All that said while I understand their disappointment I don't believe it's realistic to expect some sort of in depth analysis from the council/from Beaumont of the expected number of applicants, the effect of siblings, of the slightly falling birth rate or whatever when they were making applications. I'm not sure that's what anyone is suggesting.

However, there has been a lot of confusion and a lack of clarity about whether Beaumont would have the extra class this year and this is something that could have been better communicated.

And generally there is a huge amount of upset and frustration and people trying to work out how this has come to pass.

The head teacher did say the number of places was on their website. The issue seems to be the very high number of siblings many of whom prob live on the new estates as those were built and occupied 2-3 years ago. With over 60 properties in Austen way alone this was just waiting to happen.

I agree there is a certain amount of school snobbery, but honestly: less than you might think. For example:

• on the (inevitable) WhatsApp group, lots of people asking 'Might Verulam go co-ed?' 'Can we lobby it to go co-ed- how do we go about it?' - they just don't want an all boys school but would be happy enough with Verulam if it were mixed
• STAGS is a well-respected girls' school but a lot of people again don't want single sex and/or don't want the long trek there.
• Ditto Loretto - it seems to be well thought of (or at least what I've heard of it has all been positive) and it's relatively near but lots of parents aren't happy with all girls and the fact it is (very) Catholic. Some people really value single sex schools and some people really value faith schools but neither is something you want forced on your family if you don't think it's right for your child @Setyoufree
• With Townsend it's a triple-whammy: historically not the best reputation but also a faith school and flipping miles away. If it were possible to pick Townsend up and drop it in the middle of Fleetville I honestly think most people would get behind it.
• Lots of people would have very been happy with Samuel Ryder and listed it as a preference, but no-one got it because preference is given to people for whom it is their nearest school.

I'm not saying there is no snobbery, and yes, people have become overly-focused on (slash obsessed with) Beaumont and Sandringham, but they are open to alternatives and I don't think it's wholly unreasonable to want a vaguely local non-faith co-ed.

As for the house prices comment, this is not at the heart of anything but it does absolutely add insult to injury. A few people have said they will now have to sell up and move elsewhere (not idle threats, 2 families have put their properties on the market this week). They paid over the odds to buy here - both because it's an expensive area generally and because the good schools were factored in -and will have to take a hit on the sale price for now being out of catchment.

A number of people who already lived in the area sold up and bought closer to the school specifically to be able to send their kids to the school and now they can't. (First world problems, I know, but whether you feel sympathy or not it is a huge blow for these families, and they're not all mega rich by any means).

And this is largely because the local council has allowed the building of huge new developments right next to the school (400+ houses in total?) without any additional facilities - none! The s106 money was spent adding one extra class to Beaumont a few years ago - that's it.

Yes, the was on the website and it was mentioned on the open evening, but the head told some people that they would go to 240 again if asked to by the council.

And in previous years it said 210 on the website only for the school then to go up to 240. No-one could believe that this is the year they cut the bulge class, in a still-high birth year with a huge number of siblings and the full effects of the new development being felt.

Yes it’s a mess. Usually it’s about 50/50 siblings so I can’t imagine any parents thought it would be that high.

it would be great if verulam went coed - would people want to send their daughters the first year? How does that work. It must have happened elsewhere. At the moment they bring in boys from far and wide as the car parking is a nightmare

I'm sympathetic to the shock parents are feeling, but I'm struggling to understand the feeling of unfairness. People buy houses next to schools deliberately to get a place there. 2 new housing estates have been built, and people are upset that parents with secondary school age children have bought them. Isn't that exactly what parents have been doing for years, but just in a more concentrated fashion?

The school published a PAN of 210 and they must have known that they weren't allowed to go up to 240. They could have warned parents.

Unfortunately, last admitted distances do change year on year.

The thing is, if the council have to contribute any funding to a 'bulge' class, that is in addition to them funding schools that are under PAN and struggling with budgets.
School funding can cause big financial issues for councils. Our council is funding several deficit budgets - two of which have existed for years due to historical reasons for excess places in those schools but which are now not retrievable situations and amounting to verging on 5 million pounds a year. Now more schools are coming into the equation due to government cuts and falling rolls and the figure will more than double over the next year. However, there are two schools very much over-subscribed and who get 100+ appeals each every year because parents are not prepared to accept other local schools. It's a small LA and everywhere is within easy reach - for example our DC will have 5 secondary schools within 3 miles. 1 is over-subscribed, 3 are usually just about full , one has a lot if spaces and is on the verge of financial collapse, but from next financial year 4 will have deficit budgets.

So basically Naice middleclass parents should be able to get their nice middle-class children into the good schools? As that is what will happen when we start to say if there is a strong community and a high regards that somehow means we should give them what they want.

I agree with @Lougle 's post "Surely it would be better if all schools in a locality were successful and highly regarded, surrounded by a strong community?" and I do not believe this is if we lived in Utopia. I've seen schools go from seen as bottom of the bottom to highly desirable schools. Its not simply about what is already there. Somethings it is about what others can become. Potential is important.

So we should allow the county council to stick up two fingers to parents striving to do their best for their children? Because what the council has said in effect is 'your view doesn't count. You'll take what you are given'

No, but there is no obligation to increase the PAN just because parents want it. The LA obviously didn't want the permanent increase.

Because parents who are not nice and middle class doesn't want or strive for the best for their children?

We should be striving to make all school equal.

In this case I feel the council has done the right thing. (And thats not something I say often)

You may see nice middle class parents rightly getting their comeuppance but I just see people concerned about their children who have ended up as pawns in the council's power play

This is what makes me so cross when there are discussions around faith schools where posters always say if you don’t want your kids to go to a faith school don’t send them there. There are so many places where this isn’t an option. No advice OP but I’d be furious if my child had to go to a faith school completely against my wishes - is that grounds for appeal? 🤷‍♀️

It is completely normal to walk an hour to school. It is sociable and healthy and set up good habits for life. It should be a lot more common. There is a trend for children to expect lifts to and from school, when it is really not necessary. We don't do our kids any favours be not letting them develop an enjoyment and expectation of walking

You misunderstand me, Loreto is an all girls Catholic school that people fight tooth and nail to get into. There's not a chance it's been imposed on anyone and especially not on any of these Beaumont parents.

Anyway.

If you move house for a school, it's a gamble. It's a normal gamble for St Albans sadly and normally people get lucky.

The S106 thing is a travesty. Take a look at the Napsbury Park estate in London Colney. My understanding is that S106 cash goes into a pot generally, not spent for the area affected. So London Colney got no extra schooling at all but had to accommodate that huge estate. They desperately need schooling and yet the government cancelled the building of Harperbury school. If you fancy a rabbit hole to fall into, have a dig on that.

I'm middleclass myself. I spend years attending church regularly to get my child into the community minded school I felt worked best for her. I appealed my.sons grammar school place as I felt the other grammar was the better fit for him. I was very upset when we didn't win. I still feel the other school would have been the better fit.

What I am not doing and how your comments come across is. I dont think because I was capable of doing this. I love or care less for my children than parents who live with a lot less income or have fewer resources do. I do not think because I am in a privileged position that I should come ahead of others. I believe each child should have a equal start.

It's already been admitted on this thread that there is a level of snobbery over the schools in question. So frankly it is time we check pur privileges when that occurs.

The council has x amount of money in their budget they have to spend it wisely. As disappointing as it is for the parents who didn't get the fit they wanted. The council did the right thing in NOT depriving the other 2 schools of income in the upcoming lower birth years. The council looked ahead and acknowledged this was not the time for adding additional Pan permanently.

I do not see it as come come uppance. I see the council forced to juggle ever dwindling budgets. Frankly I think Beumont has behaved poorly through placing that statement on their website. It was done to ensure they remain looking golden and the council gets the blame. Clearly it was successful. And so much for being "community minded" they clearly only see their parents as local community.

It is completely normal to walk an hour to school.

No it isn’t

I’m a big fan of walking, but it’s not a question if “just” walking for an hour - kids have often really heavy bags: a Chromebook, heavy text books, exercise books, PE kits and maybe a musical instrument. My friend hoped her son would be able to walk 35 mins to his school, but soon realised it was completely unrealistic with the weight of stuff he was expected to lug home. It’s not good for a 12 year old’s growing back!

Buy a proper ergonomic backpack, not a fashion one.

This is not a new phenomenon. People haven't been getting their first choice of school in St Albans for many years. (I did not get my 1st choice 2 years ago). But this year, I find the tone of the debate is really out of proportion what has happened and the parents are coming across as rude, incredibly entitled and pretty inflexible.

OK you didn't get what you wanted but you only get to express a preference. You don't get to call the shots. Making a lot of noise is really not going to help you and you'd be better off looking at the many positives of the alternatives on offer.

The level of complaint is pretty tone deaf: exactly why is the school good enough for my child, not good enough for yours?

The self-centredness of thinking that Verulam might change to mixed sex because that would suit you, without any regard or thought to the 1000 odd boys was exactly the kind of comment I mean. Do they somehow don't count and you just see them as pawns to be moved because you want your kids go to a mixed school or don't want them to get on a bus?

The standards of schooling has been rising steadily with now Beaumont, Sandringham, Marlborough, STAGs, Loretto and Nicholas Brakespeare all rate excellent by Ofsted. I am sure Samuel Ryder, Townsend and Verulam (all rated Good) will all follow shortly. Most cities would be celebrating this amazing array of educational establishments.

I attended a careers event at STAGs today and a Year 9 Options evening at Verulam a few weeks ago. Both events were exceptional. The children were happy, enthusiastic, articulate and well behaved. The teachers were exemplary and all clearly wanted to do the best for their charges.

Why anyone would think it was a hardship to send their children at either school makes no sense to me.

Try the alternatives, they may be better than you think and your children will probably thrive there. If you don't like it, you can stay on continuing interest lists until a place becomes available. But in most cases the children are happy and don't want to move.

But put an end to this drama-llama stuff. You are embarrassing yourselves.

I can sympathise with the writer of this post - it is horrible not to get a preferred school when historically neighbours etc would have. And the scale of reduction for Beaumont this year is unprecented. Fortunately this wasn't our first choice, nonetheless we're in the same boat of being offered Verulam over our first choice.

If its any consolation to the author, the incoming head at Verulam used to be the deputy at Sandringham, and they are part of the same academy trust, which the current head of Sandringham is the CEO for. As someone put it to me, there is a lot of Sandringham knowledge going to Verulam, and I imagine that can't be bad for the school.

I can understand why parents are challenging the council decision not add the extra class (I asked the Beaumont Head this very question during the open evening last year, and he was very clear - its a council decision and not in their hands). And i wish them all the luck and hope they succeed - what's happened this year does raise broader questions around process and the reliability of historical patterns (after all, there is a reason Herts council publishes previous years figures going back 10 years).

At the same time, I hope what I've shared above is some consolation to the parents whose boys do end up at Verulam.

Good luck.

Ps. I would also just add - for some parents who are challenging this exclusively on school performance, the beaumont results for 2023 were not exactly stellar - the fell from 166 to 194 in the national rankings. I've no idea who is to blame, but I hope (for the sake of the kids) that all of this gets resolved before September so that the Head (who was a lovely and kind man) can focus his energy on teaching and not engaging in this debate (which i imagine is time consuming and energy draining for him as well)