Some mornings it simply isn't worth chewing through the straps

qetu1357

qetu1357 wrote: »

A minutes walk could make a catchment area of (I estimate) of a radius 200 yards.

Do you realise a circle of 200 yards radius could contain hundreds of homes?

This school may have only 30 places.

Some years some schools end up with a catchment area of less than 50 yards (due to special needs, siblings etc having priority)

Indeed the area is 25 acres.

Massive.

qetu1357

bosseyed wrote: »

Gosh, thanks for clearing that up. Let me just see if I've grasped the basics with my leaking sponge brain.

I did indeed read the article. I did indeed mention that it seems strange to have the catchment line directly along the boundary of the school thus excluding a certain number of people who must live within !!!!ing distance of said educational establishment.

I also pointed out that wherever you draw this line, you will naturally exclude some people who could fall out of bed and be at the school gates, thus forcing them to go elsewhere. I think my point was (I forget now, I've been eating pens, lemon that I am) that you have to draw the line somewhere and that a certain level of illogicallity would be the result. As I said, if the line was moved to include the Coopers, what about the people just beyond the line, who can also see the school but are still excluded? Shall we move the line for them too? And then what about the people behind them?

And so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Whilst I concur that spending ten tons of money telling parents they're outside the catchment area and rejecting various appeals is a little daft when perhaps common sense might dictate that the council says "Shhhh, just this once, as you're within !!!!ing distance of the gates, we'll bend the rules just for you" you have to accept that this would perhaps set an unfair precedent.

In fact about 40% of appeals are accepted.

For their appeal to be turned down twice shows they had no case.

And as my maths show the cacthment area of 1 minutes walk is 25 acres.

That could be hundreds of homes.

There could be 30 places, of which most are taking up by siblings.

I see the mayor seems to have offered them a place next year.

What happens to the people who are nearer but have also been turned down?

daveyjp

Nothing new with this story which is just more council bashing journalism.

Before you could "choose" schools they were always allocated on catchment areas.

I went to one primary school, families living on our street, but 30 yards away from us went to another, children across the road went to another. Mine was the furthest away and I had to pass one of the other schools to get to mine - I don't remember my parents calling the local press complaining about the complete injustice of it all!

Zedicus

bosseyed wrote: »

Gosh, thanks for clearing that up. Let me just see if I've grasped the basics with my leaking sponge brain.

You're welcome - go on, give it a go.

I also pointed out that wherever you draw this line, you will naturally exclude some people who could fall out of bed and be at the school gates, thus forcing them to go elsewhere.

This is where you seem to be making your mistake. Unless it's a village school in the middle of a giant housing estate that will only happen if you wilfully place the school right at the edge of the catchment area.

The situation where people who live next door to each other and one has to go to a school two miles away whilst the other only has to travel a mile are unfortunate but understandable.

Going to the extreme where a five year old can live a minute's walk from a school and yet be expected to travel three miles instead is, to any reasonable person, absurd and unacceptable. Only lunatic jobsworths like qetu1357 could defend the pernicious officialdom who maintain such a scheme.

qetu1357

Zedicus wrote: »

You're welcome - go on, give it a go.



This is where you seem to be making your mistake. Unless it's a village school in the middle of a giant housing estate that will only happen if you wilfully place the school right at the edge of the catchment area.

The situation where people who live next door to each other and one has to go to a school two miles away whilst the other only has to travel a mile are unfortunate but understandable.

Going to the extreme where a five year old can live a minute's walk from a school and yet be expected to travel three miles instead is, to any reasonable person, absurd and unacceptable. Only lunatic jobsworths like qetu1357 could defend the pernicious officialdom who maintain such a scheme.

Good grief you just don't get it.

An area of 1 minutes walk could be 25 acres.

In a built up area they could be hundreds of homes.

The school may have only 30 places of which most are taken up first by care of the LA, special needs, religous criteria and siblings.

So when the area is drawn it ends up being 200 yards radius or so because there are only a few places left

What should the council do? Accept anyone outside the catchment area who wants to go to the school?

Some schools are oversubscribed by 10x or more.

Should the school take 300 kids?

Where would you draw the line? The line has to be drawn somewhere.

bosseyed

Zedicus wrote: »

Going to the extreme where a five year old can live a minute's walk from a school and yet be expected to travel three miles instead is, to any reasonable person, absurd and unacceptable. Only lunatic jobsworths like qetu1357 could defend the pernicious officialdom who maintain such a scheme.

I agree that on the face of it, its a ludicrous situation and I promise, I do get the point you're making. However, my point is that you have to set your line in the sand somewhere - you have to say this is the catchment boundary, tough luck to all beyond it. Surely you can't start making special exceptions for certain people?

I keep going back to my fictional (and admittedly facaetious) example, but if you let the Coopers in for being 30 seconds walk from the school, what about family X, who living in the road behind the Coopers can be at the school in 1 minute? And family Y behind them, they can be at the school in 1 minute and 30 seconds? Beyond them is an orpahanage, collective Z, all 50 of them can be at the school in 2 minutes walk. Should they all be allowed in too? Common sense would clearly dictate that a 2 minute walk is more acceptable than a 3 mile bus ride, but they can't all go to this holy grail of a school - its just not big enough. So where do you draw the line and say no? How do you let one family in and not set a dangerous precedent?

Edit: To personalise it a bit more, you and me Zedicus, we live next door. Both outside the catchment area for our preferred school, awesome academy. I live 30 seconds walk from the school, you live a minutes walk from the school (you have a long driveway perhaps). I whinge and moan about catchment areas and my son is allowed in on appeal. You son isn't and has to travel 10 miles, with no shoes on to the next school, moronsville comprehensive. Is that fair? Essentially, you're arguing that it is.

JimmyTheWig

Again (following on from my post #14) it would have been better if the article mentioned this. The implication in the article is that children living further away than this boy were in the catchement area.

qetu1357

bosseyed wrote: »

I agree that on the face of it, its a ludicrous situation and I promise, I do get the point you're making. However, my point is that you have to set your line in the sand somewhere - you have to say this is the catchment boundary, tough luck to all beyond it. Surely you can't start making special exceptions for certain people?

I keep going back to my fictional (and admittedly facaetious) example, but if you let the Coopers in for being 30 seconds walk from the school, what about family X, who living in the road behind the Coopers can be at the school in 1 minute? And family Y behind them, they can be at the school in 1 minute and 30 seconds? Beyond them is an orpahanage, collective Z, all 50 of them can be at the school in 2 minutes walk. Should they all be allowed in too? Common sense would clearly dictate that a 2 minute walk is more acceptable than a 3 mile bus ride, but they can't all go to this holy grail of a school - its just not big enough. So where do you draw the line and say no? How do you let one family in and not set a dangerous precedent?

Also this family would have been put on a waiting list and as they haven't got in since, I suspect there are other kids who were nearer and who are still nearer.

qetu1357

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Again (following on from my post #14) it would have been better if the article mentioned this. The implication in the article is that children living further away than this boy were in the catchement area.

Good point.

I suspect they were either always outside the catchment area or didn't clock that they might be.

Every year the council I live in do a new admissions policy so you can see the criteria and also see the historical catchment distance.

Some years, like I said, the catchement area for the most popular school was 50 yards due to most places being taken up by religious criteria/siblings etc.

Some parents spend a fortune to ensure they are within a catchment area. Or indeed rent or lie.

So unless they are given a special favour or anyone who wants to go to that school can, I don't know what the council can do.

molerat

Azari wrote: »

Please read the article again. This time, pay attention to what you are reading and try and apply a little critical reasoning.

If you still think what you wrote above about snobbery makes sense come back and I'm sure someone will explain why you are so very, very, wrong.

I suggest you read and pay attention.

"We found another school we liked the sound of and decided to go ahead with applying for Charlie's sake. He started there last Thursday."

I suspect it is therefore thought of as a good school which is naturally oversubscribed. They did not wish to send their darling little Charlie to the school for the catchment area and chose elsewhere. He could have been rejected there also but would they have complained as much ?