Random allocation of places (not by distance) : thoughts and experiences?

[ParentOfOne]

I understand that some schools in England allocate places by random allocation rather than by distance. Michaela in Wembley (NW London), Kingsdale in Dulwich (SE London), some schools in Brighton.

I also understand that a similar system is more common in some other countries.

Who has experience of this system? What do you think are the pros and cons? Would you welcome this system being implemented nationwide?

I think admission by distance can make sense for primary schools, because children are too young to go alone, and being allocated a school that's far can make parents' logistics a nightmare.

For secondary schools I'm not sure what to think.

On one hand I'd welcome getting rid of the tyranny of having to live next to good schools, and the admission by income/wealth which it indirectly causes.

On the other hand, I wonder if we can end up in situations where no person gets their preference. Eg what if I wanted school A, you wanted school B, but this random allocation allocates me to B and you to A? Is this a real risk? Is there a way around it?

Thoughts?

Ok, thanks for clarifying. Perspectives will be different depending on area. What works for one LA will not work for others. However, if you compile a list of pros that would work well for your area, and want to campaign on that platform, it is the local authority you'll need to lobby, not the national Government.

@ParentOfOne ok the PTA was just a suggestion.
Perhaps start (join) a campaign to get rid of the academy system.

There's no need to abolish academies (and it isn't going to happen, so would be a waste of time). The current government has said it will legislate to give LA's more say over academy admissions. If/when that happens, the OP will then 'just' need to convince her LA to go down the random allocation route. Job done.

If you set a 3-kilometre catchment, then no.
For context, 3 kms can mean a 10-minute bicycle ride or 15 minutes - 6 stops on the bus.

@ParentOfOne 15 mins to do 3km in peak time (8-9) on a bus in London seems optimistic!

Again, as mentioned previously, most secondary school students already use public transport.

Sure - but I assume your 'random within a 3-5 km radius' allocation would have the effect of more children being further from their allocated school - that's just the logical of reducing "proximity bias". Hence - more children on more/longer bus journeys.

15 minutes for 3 kms is perfectly reasonable if there is a bus lane. It can be optimistic if there isn't.

If anything, it could be an argument for multiple catchment areas. You could first give priority to those living 2kms away, then to those living up to 4-5 kms away, and use random allocation within each group.

Again, I see the argument for prioritising those who live 1 km away over those who live 6km away.
I do not see any valid argument, nor has any been presented here, to prioritise those who live 100 metres away over those who live 1-2 kms away.

2 kms are walkable in 20 minutes. Cyclable in less than 10. Secondary school kids can go to school alone. You are not going to remove the 'community feel' if you give someone living 1.5-2km away the same chance as those living 100 metres away.

Unsurprisingly, "community feel" reminds me of the pretentious arguments beloved by NIMBYs to block everything and anything!

I am from the Netherlands, in my home town (population 70k plus the rural communities around it) your child can choose any school they want and generally get a place. In my year one of the schools was oversubscribed, some children got allocated to a different school in the same academy trust. Distance is not a factor, Dutch children are expected to cycle or take public transport to school, some going as far as 10 miles by bike. Sorting by distance would severely disadvantage rural children.

I know that in Amsterdam they operate a lottery system, distance and siblings don't influence that either. 2% of places at each school are reserved for children with special circumstances. So you could live on the worst estate and still have a shot at going to one of the best schools, seems fair to me.

"Unsurprisingly, "community feel" reminds me of the pretentious arguments beloved by NIMBYs to block everything and anything"

@ParentOfOne You're going to have to refine that argument before you approach your LA via your local councillors. They tend to like community feel - and so do their voters.

@CuteOrangeElephant how do they decide if the schools are oversubscribed?

I think it's even more important to be near your secondary school. Kids much more likely to be coming home by themselves unless you live in the next village up or something.

In the 1970s grammar places were a random allocation here and kids bused in from miles away to what was not necessarily the nearest grammar school. But in those days the buses were frequent

I know in Amsterdam you have to give 4-9 preferences depending on what kind of school you want to go to and you are guaranteed one of your choices.

It is batshit crazy.
Results in increased traffic.
Weird friendship groups.
No, just no.

@KIlliePieMyOhMy
Please explain how giving the same chances to someone living 100 metres away and to someone living 2 kms away would be batshit crazy and would increase traffic. Like I said, it would be perfectly possible to have two priority areas, one of, say, 2kms, and one up to 4-5kms.

What is batshit crazy is to come up with outlandish, unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable claims just to defend the status quo. Typical NIMBY attitude.

@nubofit You're going to have to refine that argument before you approach your LA via your local councillors. They tend to like community feel - and so do their voters.

I don't think you need a PhD in urban sociology to argue that giving the same chance to those living 100 metres and 2 kms away (ie a 20-minute walk or an 8-minute bike ride away) does not destroy the community feel. Especially when the current system lets those who can afford to rent near a school then move farther away than 2 kms.

But I am also realistic - I appreciate that nothing will change, that certain traditions are too entrenched and that most Brits are too allergic to change, as this thread shows.

What is batshit crazy is to come up with outlandish, unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable claims just to defend the status quo. Typical NIMBY attitude.

Could you clarify how it doesn't result in increased traffic? You have said otherwhere on the thread that many London pupils get public transport anyway - if, on average, pupils are further from their school then there will be more 'pupil-miles' used on public transport. In what way is that outlandish?

@ParentOfOne if a school has a clear and constant catchment area then the 100m away child will have exactly the same chance as the 1 or 2 km away child.
Why do you think that's unfair and it should be random instead?
I can't make sense of your argument.

@ParentOfOne it would probably help to follow your argument if you picked a distance and stuck to it - you started the thread talking about 3-5km, and then about how long a bus takes to do 3km in morning traffic, and now you are talking about a priority area of 2km and a second priority area of 4-5km... meanwhile, you are accusing Mumsnetters/Brits in general of being NIMBY traditionalists who are allergic to change.

It all makes it quite hard to engage with you TBH.

@ParentOfOne what "tradition" are you referring too?
Parental choice rather than catchment didn't exist until the 90s (I think.... maybe 00s?).
It's a fairly new concept.
Edit : is was 1988.
Before that the vast majority of children went to their local/catchment school.
Parental choice is hardly a "tradition".

Once the distances start getting smaller to (say) 2km... does your randomising still work?

Child 1 lives 100m from school A, child 2 lives 1.5km from school A and 1 km from school B... assuming that they are all in a straight line, Child A will not be in the 2km radius for School B but child 2 will be in the radius for A and B, but closer to B.

@SheilaFentiman Could you clarify how it doesn't result in increased traffic?

Gladly: it all comes down to how we define the catchment areas.

If, for example, we set two priority areas, the first of a 2-km (1.24 mile) radius, the second up to 4 km, then it means that most children will live within 2 kms, and that those living opposite the school will have the same chance of those living 2kms away.

Remember we are talking about urban areas with good public transport, not rural areas with no buses and no pavements.

A 2-km distance can be walked in 18 to 25 minutes, depending on your pace (I regularly walk 2 kms to a certain location and it takes me less than 20 minutes, including waiting for traffic lights). It can be cycled in 7-9 minutes. Or it can be 3 to 6 bus stops, depending on the route.

If you say that giving someone who lives 10 kms away the same chance as someone who lives next door risks increasing traffic, making the kids' social life more difficult, etc, I absolutely agree, which is why I don't advocate that.
But claiming the same if we set a catchment area of 2km is laughable.

Also: many of you will have heard of Micaela school in Wembley, NW London.
It uses a random allocation within a 5-mile ( 8 kms) radius. michaela.education/home/secondary-school-wembley/y7-to-y11-admissions/
There are many reasons to dislike that school. I am personally not a fan of schools like Micaela Mossbourne Ashcroft etc and their draconian ethos.
But I haven't heard many complaints that the 5-mile policy destroys the community feel and increases traffic.

Child 1 lives 100m from school A, child 2 lives 1.5km from school A and 1 km from school B... assuming that they are all in a straight line, Child A will not be in the 2km radius for School B but child 2 will be in the radius for A and B, but closer to B.

If I understood your example correctly, it would mean that child 2 would be in the 2-km catchment for two schools, while child 1 would be in the 2-km catchment of 1 school only. I am not sure this would be much more unfair than using distance alone, to be honest.

it would probably help to follow your argument if you picked a distance and stuck to it

I hear you, but it's not like I have done a PhD dissertation on this and reached a conclusion on what the best system is. I don't know. That was the whole point of the post.
For example, this system I am talking about is different from the Brighton system of dividing the city into areas.

I truly don't see how it doesn't increase traffic - if many London kids are using public transport now - which you argued in an early post - then more will do so under a randomised system where the average distance from school to home increases. That's just logical.

The smaller your circle for randomisation, the fewer will do so, true - but then, the less the point of the randomisation.

ETA: people often take the bus for distances they are capable of walking - not wanting to be out on polluted streets, feeling safer in winter as the nights draw in, school books and sports kit and instruments to carry etc.

Anyway, good luck with your campaign.

I live in an urban area and the public transport is crap though.

Just had money given by government for upgrades.

Where is this belief that urban areas have good public transport coming from? I live in a big city, all our bus services were reduced by a third last year.

It depends if there's a bus going to where you need to go, there's a school 3 miles from me that takes a minimum of 1 hr to reach on the 🚌. No problem for me, I would drive, but a bit shit for kids whose parents both have to work/don't have a car....

@ArseInTheCoOpWindow Where is this belief that urban areas have good public transport coming from? I live in a big city, all our bus services were reduced by a third last year.

Belief? What belief?

Please don't put words in my mouth
I said that this can only work in urban areas with good public transport.

I NEVER said nor implied that every urban area has good public transport!!
How someone could infer that is beyond me.
But that's the internet, I guess.

@SheilaFentiman Anyway, good luck with your campaign.
Campaign? I am not campaigning. I am puzzled where you got this idea.
I am simply interested in the matter. I suspect that any campaign is destined to fail as too many parents don't want to change the status quo.

Which, again, leads us back to the point that this might only work in areas with good public transport, as I have said countless times.

So what areas are those? London and maybe Brighton.

Seems a lot of effort for 2 areas.