Education

Parents are frustrated at the lack of changes in Wokingham Borough Council's school admissions policy
advertisement

Parents frustrated at lack of changes to school admissions

By Laura Herbert
September 24, 2012

Parents campaigning for changes in the siblings school places rule are frustrated reforms have not been made despite a draft admissions policy being published.

The group of mums and dads have been working with Wokingham Borough Council officers to alter the criteria on siblings, regardless of whether they are out of catchment.

Many of the parents have a younger child due to start in 2013 or later, but fear they will not be given a place at the same school as older siblings.

Dad Nic Lander who has two children at Walter Infant School and a third child due to start next September, is ‘furious’ the policy has been published without any changes.

He said: “I chose Walter because we can walk in 10 minutes but my catchment school is 25 minutes walk, tell me the sense in that.

“I also understand we need more schools and plans are progressing well but that still doesn’t address my issue.

“Children should not be split up, it’s morally wrong. This issue won’t go away, every year I will appeal like many other parents in the sibling team to get my children together.”

The draft policy, published by Wokingham Borough Council last Wednesday, must be published no later than September 12 under the Schools Information (England) Regulations 2008.

The parents are working with the council to see if there is enough evidence to make changes to the policy before the final draft is published in November.

Karen Knight said: “It is disappointing there isn’t a change but we are still working very closely with the council and are appreciative of the help and support afforded by one of its senior members, Brian Grady.”

Mrs Knight chose a school in Woosehill – her closest but out-of-ctachment school – for her eldest child but now faces the possibility of having to juggle two school runs.

She added: “We have been instrumental to stop this happening for other parents in the future but we need a change to help those siblings already affected.

“We need the council to make that change. Time is running out and this is our last ditch attempt.”

The council plans to adopt the Primary Education Strategy in November, which sets out how extra primary places will be created.

Councillor Charlotte Haitham Taylor, executive member for children’s services, said: “I am happy with the approach my officers have been taking and I understand parents want something done quickly. We have to be clear about the decisions and what impacts they will have. We will be taking the Primary Schools Strategy before the executive for decision in October.

She added:”I think we are doing a really good job and looking at the issue of school places in a much better way than many other local authorities facing similar challenges.”

She said more than 500 parents had so far been consulted and many positive responses received. She added: “At the end I hope we will be able to satisfy as many people as possible.”

| Submit Comments | View Comments (9)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

Most recent user comments 9 of 9

This is clearly a difficult and challenging issue with 2 sides to the debate. But if you do oppose this change, it's important your views are heard. The council need to make a decision having considered the views from as many people as possible. Email Brian.grady@wokingham.gov.uk

molly3
03/10/2012 at 20:30

Yes - new for 13/14 admissions I think.

Earley Man
27/09/2012 at 16:07

@Early Man - so s that a "new" guideline do you know? Certainly the example I stated didn't benefit from it this year, in fact the elder child ended up moving so that the two siblings could be together. However there may have been a degree of parental choice in this, so I don't want to assume it was not possible the other way around.

NickC, Twyford
27/09/2012 at 16:02

@NickC - I think people in that situation are now treated as if they lived in the designated area, see this excerpt from the new WBC admissions guide:

"Occasionally a parent with more than one child can express a preference for their designated area school for the older child, but the local authority is unable to meet this preference. The local authority will then allocate a place at a lower ranked preferred school or the closest available school with places. In this case, the parent may then prefer to send younger sibling(s) to the same school as the older child attends. In such instances, the allocated school may be regarded as if it were the designated area school for subsequent siblings and would be treated as meeting criterion C (sibling resident within designated area). Parents must notify the school admissions team at the time of application that they consider this exception applies. Where there is an application for the actual designated area school(s), designated area status would still be applied."

Earley Man
27/09/2012 at 15:31

@NickC - good point - RBC have changed their admissions criteria so families shunted to a non-catchment school for their first child will be able to get their subsequent children to the same school

spangles
24/09/2012 at 14:19

There is one area where I do think things need amending though - a real world example of this is a family that lives close to me. Even though they are a 5 minute walk from their catchment school, the first child could not get a place - mainly due to the school being extremely popular, and too small for the area it served. So - the child was placed by WBC at an out of catchment school, considerably further away. Next year, his younger brother then applies for a place at the same school so as to keep the two boys together, but in the year that has elapsed, the catchment school gets expanded to the correct size, he's unable to get a place at the out of catchment school (it's now way oversubscribed from its own catchment) and so ends up at the school that his older brother should have gone to in the first place!

In this (confusingly written example!) I don't believe parents should be penalised twice. Either give the second child some priority at the out of catchment school, or try and arrange for the first child to be moved back in-catchment. This is a different situation to parents picking an out of catchment school knowing what the implications could be, or the example that Fed up uses below.

NickC, Twyford
24/09/2012 at 14:06

I can see why the rule was changed and for very good reason. I have heard of reports of people renting a house in catchment to get the first child in and then moving out of catchment and relying on the sibling rule for the others. This cannot be right.

Maybe the solution to this is to have the selection order as follows until the school is full:

1. All children in catchment. 2. Siblings out of catchment based on distance from school. 3. All others.

Fed up, Lower Earley
24/09/2012 at 13:35

Like Smiffy, I don't think this is as clear cut as it's made out. In my opinion, catchment children (siblings or not) should have priority. As a parent if you send your child out of catchment by choice, then this can happen. That should be realised and understood before making that original decision. That's not to say that I don't have sympathy with people in this position - especially when the catchment boundaries seem to be "wrong". However that's an issue with the catchment boundaries, not the siblings rule.

NickC, Twyford
24/09/2012 at 11:16

This issue has two sides, so isn't clear cut. Whilst I agree in principle that siblings should go to the same school if that is the preferred choice of the parents, is it fair that kids without siblings could lose a place at a school as a result of this? The examples in the article seem to be related to siblings at non catchment schools, which would be even harsher, as kids living within metres of a catchment school could be penalised to suit the needs of a sibling situation for people living out of the catchment area. I don't think there is a clear cut solution as a ruling either way would be seen as unfair to the other side of the argument.