Consultation on Admission arrangements for 2011-12
Responses by Question - All Responses (Email, Postal, Online Survey)
1.
Proposal to move to a straight line distance measurement for
admission allocation purposes for 2011-12
For
I fully agree with the proposal to move to a straight line distance measurement. Straight line
measurements are easier to understand and are much less likely to result in errors than the 'shortest
designated route' measurement.
This is important as any error in distance measurement for one child leading to the incorrect allocation
of a school place may have a 'knock on’ effect on allocations for other children and schools as
well as impacting class size, causing considerable stress to the families concerned and creating
additional work for the county council.
I welcome any proposal which simplifies the admission allocation process.
The current method is confusing and must be the cause of many appeals, both justified and not.
It is the only clear method that can be understood. For single sex schools the lottery system is very
unfair to the pupil and simply does give due consideration to the pupil circumstances.
The current arrangements ensured that my son was unable to get a place at his nearest middle school
in Berkhamsted - Bridgewater School but has to travel twice the distance to Thomas Coram school.
The current designated route takes a very long detour through the town which walkers would not take.
The proposed new arrangements would cut the distance between our home and Bridgewater school
significantly and would give our daughter a much better chance of attending her nearest middle school
in 2012.
This will make the rules much simpler to understand
100% for this. The fact that a well lite footpath through a park was not recognised blocked my
daughter from getting the school that was the closest to our home out of our 3 choices. It will also
greatly help people looking to move to a new area work out the catchment areas for proposed schools.
Have experience of friends who have crow flys type measurements when usable road/footpath
measure taken nearest school changed however if cost cutting excersize and money will go to more
vital care services then guess no option
Straight line measurement is easier to communicate, easier to understand and hence for most schools
and parents easier to believe is accurate. It should also be easier to administer. BUT please keep it
under review as Hertfordshire is a complicated county and often the way the crow flies (the straight
line) is totally unachievable by foot or car. I think we should switch method, but an impact assessment
be done for each of the next couple of years - not looking at numbers but at people
The proposal is over simplification of the admission criteria. Better presentation of the existing criteria
is called for, not an arbitrary as the crow flies new method.
Because the SDR reflects the actual distance travelled to reach a school
I believe that the current system, as the crow flies, is the fairest approach. Especially as so many
parents walk to school.
This is beneficial in terms of fairness. In places there is 1990s in-fill housing (e.g built on former school
playing fields) that has particularly limited access by designated routes (e.g one long road in) and so
parents are disadvantaged under the designated route measurement because that road entails a
lengthy extra distance compared to older housing that they are adjacent to - which is on the highway
that the town planners envisaged with two directional access.
1
Consultation on Admission arrangements for 2011-12
Responses by Question - All Responses (Email, Postal, Online Survey)
1.
Proposal to move to a straight line distance measurement for
admission allocation purposes for 2011-12
This is a much fairer and balanced way of allocating school places. I have known cases where
children have lived close to a particular school and would use 'nregistered' paths, although public
rights of way to get there. Yet have been denied a place because the designated route is much longer.
The children who live further away in a straight line have got a place because their designated route is
much shorter. The ridiculous situation arises that the original child has to be bused to a school even
further away because there is not sufficent places in their 'local school'. This proposal has been long
overdue and welcome it very strongly.
Due to new flats that have been built in recent years, these will have a higher priority over houses that
have been there for many years based on the straight line method.
This will make the system fairer to those who have potential routes they consider to be acceptable but
don't agree with HCC's distance system.
Although people tend not to travel in straight lines, it seems to be the least ambiguous measurement
and less open to interpretation where there are discrepancies about distance.
Much safer for children to be able to walk to school.
This seems a far more suitable method of deciding school admissions.
Straight-line is a better system - however neither system is appropriate for MIddle School place
allocation in Berkhamsted: this is a linear settlement, with a Middle School at either end. Places
should be allocated from the 'outside - in' so that the children who live in the centre of town, and are
largely equidistant to both schools, are allocated places to balance the numbers. The effects of this
would be to :increase the number of children able to walk to Middle School, reduce traffic during those
times and support carbon emission reductions; Remove the continued need for a petition for the
school bus to be provided for children living in Northchurch to be taken safely to Thomas Corum
school; reduce the number of appeals and associated cost to HCC and parents(!).
The present system doesn't seem to take into account gates in fences, snickets and alleyways which
since walking to school is encouraged sometimes looks a little odd.
All local authorities should follow the same criteria, esp when area borders are so close together.
Moving to straight line measurement I think is fairer. At the moment some people at a greater distance
from the school but who happen to have a 'cut through' recognised are at an unfair advantage to those
who live geographically closer to the school but the quirkiness of the road system means their route is
longer. There can be less argument over this system.
Although this seems to make things worse in terms of numbers, it will make the assessment easier to
understand and check.
I think this is the fairest way for admission.We are waiting on the outcome of our daughters admission
for September 2010. I am dismayed with last years admissions- failure of children in Northchurch to be
accepted into Bridgewater, their nearest local middle school and forced into travelling to the far end of
Berkhamsted to Thomas Corum by car!I am also aware of children from the other end of the town
travelling to Bridgewater by car! This adds to an increased volume of traffic on the roads in the
morning and at end of school day, with no alternative option by school bus to Thomas Corum offered.
brings us i line with other authorities too
I would prefer my children to have the option of whatever distance the school they like is. At the
moment i believe we are out of the catchment area for the girls school which is unfair as we do live in
Hitchin but on Highover Way.
2
Consultation on Admission arrangements for 2011-12
Responses by Question - All Responses (Email, Postal, Online Survey)
1.
Proposal to move to a straight line distance measurement for
admission allocation purposes for 2011-12
In principle this change is positive so long as the criteria are clear and employ distance measurement
from a trusted 3rd party - currently royal Mail proposed
It should be done on shortest route to school to help with the enviroment and keep cars off the roads,
so Children can walk to school.
This seems by far the most sensible way of allocating school places. It is safer, more environmentally
friendly and makes common sense. Why it would have been differently previously beggers belief
I agree with movement to straight line distance measurement for clarity reasons, however wish to note
reservations as the modelling statistics do not include schools responsible for their own admissions, ie
all the secondary schools in the Three Rivers District. We would wish this to be reviewed for
subsequent years should Parental Satisfaction rates be adversely affected.
I think this is a much more straightforward method
Whilst there are clearly advantages to the LA in having a simpler measurement basis disputes will still
occur as postcodes (if this is what will be used) can cover a significant distance. If the pupil's house is
at the furthest point parents will not challenge this measurement but a challenge could occur if the
pupil lives at the closest point and measurement is to a centred postcode point. Also this change does
not help the inequality of allocation provision for most pupils attending rural schools
Support it because it frees up resources for HCC but disputes will still occur as postcodes can cover
larger distances in rural areas and is unlikely to result in changes to inequality suffered by pupils in
some rural areas.
Having lived in a property alongside a direct pathway to Parmiters School, in Garston, I now realise
that under these new proposals although I will be closer on a straight line measuring system so will a
lot of other properties. Hence my three children will be at a disadvantage and we are no longer likely
to be in the catchment area (despite being only 15 minutes walk away). In an age of being
environmentally friendly it seems you will encourage the car users and not the walkers. Many people
may have exactly the same distance from home to school under the new system and as I understand
it there is no decision on who would get priority. I understand it may even come down to a lottery.
The present system measure distance to both the gates at Parmiters School which deals favouroubly
with residents in Abbots Langley and Bricket Wood. I understand the new system will measure
distance to the place/door wherepost is delivered to the school - this will favour the Bricket Wood area
and penalise Abbots Langley children. I think there is nothing wrong with the present system of
measuring. Problems arise in the admission process because local chilren are prevented from getting
places in good local schools because of the influx of children from outside the county where it seems
parents have a choice of six schools and can name all their local schools as well as our local ones.
Bus loads of children are coming in from Harrow. This cannot be right when Hertfordshire has not got
enough places for its own children. Sort this situation out rather than change the present measuring
system. Why should local children be left with the failing schools - those with 20 - 30 per cent passing
their external exams?
This would make it easier to apply the rule in a way that is easily understood by everyone.
3
Consultation on Admission arrangements for 2011-12
Responses by Question - All Responses (Email, Postal, Online Survey)
1.
Proposal to move to a straight line distance measurement for
admission allocation purposes for 2011-12
I agree with movement to straight line distance measurement for clarity reasons, however wish to note
reservations as the modelling statistics do not include schools responsible for their own admissions, ie
all secondary schools in the Three Rivers District. I would wish this to be reviewed for subsequent
years should Parental Satisfaction rates be adversly affected.
Strongly Agree with this movement.
I agree with movement to straight line distance measurement for clarity reasons. However, we wish to
note
reservations as the modeling data provided does not include schools responsible for their own
admissions, ie all the secondary schools in the Three Rivers District. We would wish this to be
reviewed in subsequent years should parental satisfaction rates be adversely affected by this move
However, if it works best for the admissions team, then it's fine by me!
The only fair system is one where all parents are allocated the school they choose for their child. But
when a system to keep some children out of a school is needed, then that system should be one
which is applied equitably to everyone and costs as little as possible, while doing what it sets out to
do.
Much easier to understand system of measurement
This is definitely a good idea. It would remove the ambiguity associated with the current system and
allow parents to easily assess their local schools for themselves. The decreased costs associated with
reducing disputes and administration make this change, in my opinion, essential.
I believe this would make measurement and understanding of the distance rules easier to understand.
The timing of the change does not consider the impact on children who have already visited and
selected preferred schools as part of the 2009 school open evenings based on the current criteria Just
because other LAs use the proposed principle does not make it right
The impact on placements is negligible
A clearer and fairer system. As a Northchurch resident, I believe it will more accurately show that
Bridgewater is a much closer school than Thomas Coram for my children to attend.
I do believe that this would make measurement and the understanding of the distance rules easier to
understand.
I believe this would make measuring and understanding the distance rules simpler to understand.
We the undersigned support the consultation on school admissions arrangements for 2011/12 by
Hertfordshire County Council, section 2. Specifically, this is the proposal to move to a straight line
distance measurement for admission allocation purposes. We the undersigned believe that this would
be hugely advantageous to the Sarratt community. This is a much fairer method of allocating places
by distance and means that Sarratt will be approximately 30% closer to Kings Langley school; our
closest community, non-selective school. Children in rural areas are typically disadvantaged by the
indirect nature of the country lanes. This proposed new rule will go someway to level the playing field.
4
Consultation on Admission arrangements for 2011-12
Responses by Question - All Responses (Email, Postal, Online Survey)
1.
Proposal to move to a straight line distance measurement for
admission allocation purposes for 2011-12
Against
At the moment anyone from Northchurch uses the footpath to Bridgewater school off of New Road.
This is a nice safe traffic free shortcut especially for children who were formerly at St Mary’s and then
go on to attend Bridgewater and live in either Northchurch (or Dudswell.)
If it is proposed that this frequented and safe footpath is not counted in the straight line measurement
from Northchurch homes to Bridgewater it will restrict pupils from attending Bridgewater and force
them into a situation of relying on a bus fro Northchurch to Sir Thomas Coram. (Scrapped I believe last
year forcing children to walk huge distances or get lifts in cars with parents! Many parents do not have
cars as their partners have already left for work with the Family car!))
I certainly do not want my child on a bus at such a young age(year 5) nor appreciate the expense
when the current walking route is a safe carbon free route for my child and will keep them fit.
you dont travel to schools as a crow flys you have to walk so shpuld be taken on the walking/driving
route
It is surely more logical for children living in Dudswell/Northchurch to go to Bridgewater School, rather
than being forced to go to school at the other end of Berkhamsted.
Distances accross large rurual areas should be discounted.
Local children of average ability are currently being descriminated against and are not being allocated
local school places.
Being one of the parents with NRA last year, this proposal would have actually made things worse for
us.
As a resident of Colney Heath I cannot agree that changing the way a school is allocated due to how
the measurement is made will be of any benefit. It is a fact that our village is on the edge of the area
and as such we are often not allocated any of our choices due to the over subscription of the St Alban
schools and therefore we are allocated schools out of our area using an unsuitable footpath/subway
route, well known for flooding. In my own experience, we were allocated a school which by county's
designated route was approximately 1 mile from our home. In reality it was a 4.5 mile road journey, not
served directly by any public transport; in fact it would be a '3 bus trip'. I would never have allowed my
daughter to use the designated route; a third of the route was made up of ill-maintained, badly lit, little
used footpaths together
with the flooding subway - this particular route was inspected by county on a sunny day in May (which
bore no resemblance to the route in winter) and deemed suitable. In our particular case a successful
appeal led us to our number 1 school and the designated route being labled 'illogical' by the panel. For
residents of Colney Heath or other out-laying villages to benefit in any way county should judge
realisticly what is a suitable route.
I have lived in this village for 12 years and during that time everybody allocated a Hatfield school
instead of one of their 3 choices has been to appeal then awarded a St Albans school; I consider this
a huge waste of funds.
We have several schools close to our village with easy bus links, however as the closest non faith coed school happens to be the most popular in the area, ergo our children are discriminated against as
they live furthest away; the journey to alternative schools is not given any credit when these decisions
are made.
5
Consultation on Admission arrangements for 2011-12
Responses by Question - All Responses (Email, Postal, Online Survey)
1.
Proposal to move to a straight line distance measurement for
admission allocation purposes for 2011-12
This proposal appears to do nothing to improve the villages secondary school prospects around
Harpenden, in fact the reverse. What happened to the out of area sibling rule consultation which we
were told was running with this one? It is not the simplest to understand system that Wheathampstead
needs, it is local places for local children.
Silly me, I actually had faith that HCC were at last addressing this issue in this consultation.
In theory I could have 2 children at different schools
We should be encouraging children to walk to school. Often the best journey for pedestrians is away
from main routes, ie cut throughs on housing estates. Children should be allocated the school that is
nearest to their home address and the straight line messurement appears to be the fairest way of
calculating this.
1 - While simpler it would create perverse outcomes. For instance, in a straight line many parts of
Oxhey and Watford would count as close to Rickmansworth school - when in reality (because of the
canal, river and moor) they are a very long drive away.
Any move to a "direct line" basis would need to prevent such strange outcomes - which would
probably cause as many problems as the current system.
I think the current system is fairer to the majority.
Parents and children should be encouraged to walk or cycle to their local school where possible and
therefore footpath/cycle path distances should be used to facilitate this. The only errors I know about
locally were extremely basic and could have been easily avoided using somebody with reasonable
local knowledge or in consultation with the relevant school (e.g. a road closed to traffic was ignored
when it is clearly an obvious pedestrian route). It seems very odd to change the system for entry
criteria but not change it for transport arrangements!
This just doesn't make sense at all. Children do not walk to school in a straight line, they go down
roads and across parks, so the difference could be enormous, and the results very different form what
you get now. I simply cannot see the reasonong for changing a system that everyone understands to
this.
Distance walked via a footpath would be a prefered method.
I currently live in Bricket Wood and my 15 year old son currently goes to Sandringham School in
Marshalswick. He got into the school before I moved home. My daughter who is currently 10 and due
to move to secondary school in 2012 obviously we would like her to go to the same school as her
brother who wil be in his last year there. However, if the new proposal goes ahead, my daughter will
almost certainly not get into Sandringham because of the distance.
Your proposal document states that the move would lead to greater dissatisfaction. To measure in a
straight line, not taking into account the paths that children/parents would use when walking to school
means that children could end up at a school that is, actually, not their nearest school within walking
distance.
The current method has a rational explanation for its use being based on the distance a child will have
to travel to get to the school. Moving to a straight line system is moving to an arbitrary system and in
some areas will mean that children will be admitted who will have a longer route to school than some
who will not get a place. I accept thayt in many areas there will be little difference but in some towns
the difference could be marked.
6
Consultation on Admission arrangements for 2011-12
Responses by Question - All Responses (Email, Postal, Online Survey)
1.
Proposal to move to a straight line distance measurement for
admission allocation purposes for 2011-12
The single sex rules mean that too many places are being allocated to children from outside Hitchin.
Letchworth, Baldock and Knebworth have schools of their own and the belief that people from these
towns choose Hitchin single sex schools because they want a single sex school is a fallacy it is
obviously results driven. People from Hitchin should have a choice of Hitchin schools and people
should be able to send their children to their nearest school.
Currently this is not the case, there are children commuting miles by train, bus and in cars when
children that could walk to these schools are not getting places. Surely on an environmental stand
alone this does not make sense.
The basis of allocating places on distance from the school is about ensuring that a child can choose to
go to school that is easiest for them to reach. In a rural area it makes no sense to use direct
measurement as the distance accross a field may be much shorter than the actual travel time to get to
the school in practice.
The route should be that taken by the child i.e. distance to walk.
If you now use the straight line system to calculate and allocate us our "nearest school" it means my
child will have a longer walk to school. It seems ridiculous to me to not take into account anymore the
actual walking distance.
Whatever school you give my child she has a really long walk because you closed down our local
school some years ago and now you propose to make it even longer by using a method of calcuating
home/school distance that has no relevance at all to walking distance. I think it is awful that also have
given us no notice of these changes. I do not feel that you should be allowed to change the rules of
entry to these schools giving parent only few months notice. I feel if you want to move the goal posts
you should be giving parents a couple of years notice at least so that they can react and change their
lives accordingly. These "little adjustments" that you make effect peoples' lives in a huge way. What
school my daughter goes to could have a monumental effect on the outcome of her education and I do
not feel that you should have the power to just "change" that without giving us a substantial period of
notice so we can make decisions on how we are going to "react" to these.
The straight line method of measurement should be a measurement of the distance from your property
to the nearest public entrance of the nearest school. This is where a pupil would walk to in order to go
to school, not an address point where Royal Mail delivers the post. The nearest school is surely the
nearest one you walk to using a public walk way, not a distance determined by how a crow would fly
there.
Sceptical of change in this field for Potters Bar residents as their access to schools of choice in the
area is already heavily compromised. Stick to a reality distance. Hardly anyone accesses their school
by a straight line so why change to this method.
Overall Summary
I do not feel well consulted.
I was lucky to find the newspaper advert
I do not feel you have proved the need for change
I do not feel you have given enough info to inform those being consulted
I feel that the timescale is inappropriate
I support my concerns with the following:If you only placed the paper ad then it is inadequate
Re. the admissions code you state that (DCSF) SAC says that you must use a reliable & reasonable
system which parents can easily understand but you do not say how you know that a SL method will
improve this
Taking each one
Reliability - you give no info re. how many parental challenges are correct. Neither do you give info
about how many less correct challenges the proposed system would give, do you know?
7
Consultation on Admission arrangements for 2011-12
Responses by Question - All Responses (Email, Postal, Online Survey)
1.
Proposal to move to a straight line distance measurement for
admission allocation purposes for 2011-12
Reasonable - why is a system based on a straight line more reasonable than one that uses the roads
etc. that are there?
Understanding - do you have info that proves parents’ understanding improves by the intro of the
straight line system or is this just hoped for? Unless you have evidence it is unknown whether you
may have just as many misunderstandings. I have used a computer model that showed me my
nearest school by SDR system (www.schoolguruhertfordshire.co.uk/aboutschoolguru.html) and I had
no difficulty at all understanding it. Perhaps, instead of risking changing your entire system without
having any guarantee that it will improve understanding and reliability, parent’s could be advised
to use it OR they could be advised of the distance from their home to their choice when they make
them thereby ridding the system of last minute delaying appeals
In summary, I can’t agree that you have proved the case for a change being needed & I believe
that you risk a lot without trying methods of improving what you already have
Provision of sufficient info
In 2009/10 allocation you state that 19 schools across the county from 562 schools (your website) had
over-allocation errors. This is 3.38% and I agree it is not insignificant. But you don’t say what
these over allocations were. If they were only 1 pupil/school from 176K pupils (your website) then it is
a tiny %age.
Your chart of stats
I agree that a diff of 92.85% to 92.63% in ‘% with a ranked school’ is insignificant. But you give
no info about % being given their top ranked school, very significant to parents. Do you have this info?
In the paragraph below you speak of likelihoods and assumptions which give me no confidence of the
figures being reliable.
Re. the ‘Number of NRAs’ you show a %age incr of 2.13% (18 in no.) This may or may not be
significant, I have insufficient info to comment but it is a similar number to your 19 or 3.38% over
allocations on the previous page which may be significant. Your standards of comparison may have
changed from one page to another
Your final two paragraphs on page 6 re. other LAs using the SL system is a statement but it
doesn’t prove that ‘the norm’ is simpler to understand and less open to dispute
In summary, I find your info lacking in the necessary detail for a meaningful consultation and am
disturbed by the use of assumption and hope. You are risking a major change into the unknown
without showing that you have tried everything to make your current system better
Inappropriate Timescale: Even if you prove the need to change I feel that for senior school
applications this timescale is too short.
You know Y5 pupils visit senior schools as well as Y6. This is an important decision for children &
families to make and many people that I know from the Y5 cohort already have a preferred school.
Those in Y6 say that the timescale between school open evenings and the decision having to be in is
so short that the Y6 visits are just a final check. The open evenings at Predales were only 5 & 3 days
ahead of the deadline, this does not make for quality decision making
In summary, if this system is changed for 2011/12 then this particular intake of children would have the
rules changed part way through their decision making process.
Absolutely ridiculous idea. The 'nearest' school for my son is a school I will not be sending him to.. the
next nearest and currently is the 'same' distance away IS the school for him.... A wooded area
inbetween home and school, still means that the children have to go safely to school and therefore go
ROUND the woods. What happens if a motorway is in between the school which means going all
around the houses to get to the 'nearest' school..... idiotic idea to say the least.
A pupil travels to school using paths, roads and bridges (not by helicopter!) Therefore this cannot be
measured using a straight line distance.
You have not widely advertised this consultation so I feel you are trying to make changes that benefit
you and nobody else. I luckily noticed the small ad in the Mercury. I looked at secondary schools
whilst my son was in Year 5 based on the criteria. Surely you should not change these criteria within
such a short timescale but give notice so that we have the correct facts when we start to consider
such an important decision as secondary education. The figures you quote in the consultation
document do not justify changing the rules.
8
Consultation on Admission arrangements for 2011-12
Responses by Question - All Responses (Email, Postal, Online Survey)
1.
Proposal to move to a straight line distance measurement for
admission allocation purposes for 2011-12
In fact, it appears to me that the percent of those receiving preferred schools actually goes down.
East Herts already does well on the % of children who get a ranked school. What other councils do
does not mean that you have to follow suit. You have a system which is now well known and should
not be changed without good reason. The shortest designated route is surely the best way to
measure as it is actually the way your child physically travels to school and this affects transport
arrangements. The reasons in your consultation document are not good enough to warrant such an
early change.
I feel that to change the rules after many parents have visited the schools with their year 5 children is
unfair. We contacted the council to check which our nearest school was but this change in rules would
make it our second nearest. Not a big issue if both were coeducational as we would still stand a good
chance of getting into either. However this change means that in our case the chances of getting into
that school now go from virtually 100% to 60% ( as it is single sex) many parents visiot sceondary
schools in year 5 to allow themsleves plenty of time to make a decision. The open evenings are well
into October and in fact the Presdales one is the week the applications have to go in.
The main issue the council seem to be trying to resolve is to reduice the number of appeals. Surely a
simpler way would be for the applicant to enter their postcode and the system ( which must have the
data there) to bring up their nearest school at the time of application. This allows any potential
disputes to be resolved before the allocation of places.
Moving to a straight line measurement ignores the fact that it may be difficult to actually get the child to
school using a safe walking or public transport route.
The consultation doucmenbt failed to give adequate information about why this change was
necessary. Figures wree given showing a rerun of the process using the proposed system and
showing that the majority still got one of their top 3 ramked shcools. It didn't however say whether it
affcted whether parents got their first choice school. This would be a crucial piece of information to
understand whether the number of appeals would actuall;y decline.
Finally the consultation process itself seems very badly publicised. I heard about it by chance and
made some parents aware but there was no letter home to year 5 parents nor I assume to prospective
nursery or the other schools.
We all have to travel by road to get to the schools. The straight line method would not improve
fairness.
This will not improve fair allocation of places. So long as the designated routes are accurate and
practical, they are fairer.
This seems a ridiculous proposal, pupils go to school via the shortest designated route, so this is how
is should be measured. You cannot change the rules and then reinstate them (Ie transport
arrangements) when it suits the Education Authority.
Neither For or Against
The proper comparison should have been total distance travelled, not percentage of children getting
into their chosen school.
Is there really a choice in terms of what schools we would like our children to attend. In school entry
2008/9 into reception - whilst I appreciate the large number of infants to place, the system was a
shambles.
9
Consultation on Admission arrangements for 2011-12
Responses by Question - All Responses (Email, Postal, Online Survey)
1.
Proposal to move to a straight line distance measurement for
admission allocation purposes for 2011-12
I feel as a resident of Hitchin I should have a choice on which schools in Hitchin my children are sent
to. As it stands I don't have a choice due to where I live. THe straight line distance is no better than
any other distance measurement. Surely everyone in Hitchin should be allowed the same choice as
each other and should not be discriminated against due to exactly which street in Hitchin they live.
The proposal was also announced in January 2010 to be applicable to people who have to apply for
the schools by the deadline of October 2010. This means that from January 2010 until the result of the
proposal is announced in April 2010, people who have to apply by the October 2010 deadline, have no
idea what their nearest school it. This is because it is not known what method is going to be used until
April 2010. This can not be a correct way to introduce a new proposal, surely the fair way if a change
is going to be made is to introduce it for the 2012/13 intake, and then everyone will know where they
stand. It must be the duty of a public body to provide accurate information all of the time, which is
currently not available.
It is also not clear what the address point of someone's property is. Is it where the Royal Mail delivers
the mail to? If so are we going to get the situation where people living in properties located in the
middle point of two schools, moving their letter boxes to be nearest to the school of their choice.
You have not even considered the impact of increased travel time for some children and the impact on
safety, roads and the climate - why not ?
You assume a straight line system would be simpler to understand - on what basis ?
10
Consultation on Admission arrangements for 2011-12
Responses by Question - All Responses (Email, Postal, Online Survey)
A) Nursery admissions oversubscription criteria
For
I am a firm believer that voluntary-controlled schools should not be allowed to use regular church
attendance as a criteria for oversubscription. This is exclusive rather than inclusive and causes stress,
dishonesty and unfairness in both the schools and the parents.
If a nursery is oversubscribed then they should seek to expand places by employing more staff or
opening in the afternoons and not just mornings.
Seems fair
Against
I'm not quite sure what the change/addition to the rules is. If it is that the school should administer the
rules, then I disagree. Parents need to be able to have the confidence and courage to enter a dialogue
with the body in charge of allocating places. It is much better that this body is County and not the
School as Schools can be intimidating.
Parents applying for nursery places are new to the system and may not have the confidence to
question the Head, but would feel able to communicate effectively with County. Also, if things get
heated it's better for the (possible) future relations between parent (and thus child) and School that the
negative communication happens with County and not the School/Head/Deputy. Also, Schools cannot
(always) be trusted to administer the system fairly. They make honest mistakes or allocate partially
and it's harder to make Schools to be transparent and accountable than it so to make County do so.
this puts children who do not have special needs at a disadvantage, surely that is discrimination???
Neither For or Against
What additional resources are being given to help Primary Schools undertake the additioanl burden of
administering the admissions process for Nursery?
request extra resources due to schools being responsible for process
11
Consultation on Admission arrangements for 2011-12
Responses by Question - All Responses (Email, Postal, Online Survey)
B) Admission rules for community and voluntary-controlled, first, infant,
primary, junior and middle schools for the school year 2011-12
For
Rule 5 Nearest school should mean nearest walking distance - not straight line (where there may not
actually be anyroads/paths)
agree with them all other than rule 5 for multiple births why should they get priority over other children
who actually live nearer the school. I think this is grosley unfair and discriminatory
These look sensible to me
Content - but bitterly disappointed that the consultation did not propose to extend the number of
schools that can be applied for. The world fell out from our feet when my daughter did not get one of
her three options last year. On second allocation we applied to our 4th and 5th choices and were
ofered a place. it was so different to get a school we chose over one we didnt. Most LAs offer up to 6
choices. Hertfordshire - esp sw herts - needs this level of option.
Better choice - or is a there choice really?
Generally, I agree however Rule 5 is inherintley unfair. Under Rule 5 applications from homes that are
just out of 'reach' of the nearest and very popular school so a place would not be allocated. The
application to the second closets school will only be considered under Rule 6. In this scenario a child
would not get a place at either school as closest school places filled under Rule 5 then child misses
out again in second closest school as places also filled under Rule 5 even when proximity to the
school is far greater. in HCC few places in preferred schoold are allocated under Rule 6.
A fairer rule would be to remove Rule 5 completely and allocate places based on proximity to the
school regardless of whether it is the closest school or not.
Distance to the school should be the only criteria beyond sibling attendance and children with special
needs.
provided that the distance rule (where used) is based on the current route based system rather than
the arbitrary straight line system.
Content - but bitterly disappointed that the consultation did not propose to extend the number of
schools that can be applied for. The world fell out from our feet when my daughter did not get one of
her three options last year. On second allocation we applied to our 4th and 5th choices and were
ofered a place. it was so different to get a school we chose over one we didnt. Most LAs offer up to 6
choices. Hertfordshire - esp sw herts - needs this level of option.
Generally, I agree however Rule 4 is inherintley unfair. Under Rule 4 applications from homes that are
just out of 'reach' of the nearest and very popular school so a place would not be allocated. The
application to the second closets school will only be considered under Rule 6. In this scenario a child
would not get a place at either school as closest school places filled under Rule 4 then child misses
out again in second closest school as places also filled under Rule 4 even when places will be
allocated to homes where the proximity to the school is far greater. In HCC few places in preferred
school are allocated under Rule 6.
A fairer rule would be to remove Rule 4 completely and allocate places based on proximity to the
school regardless of whether it is the closest school or not.
Mostly agree with your admission rules but twins/multiple births should be considered in the same
fashion as the sibling rule (and the sibling rule should not be phased out). And unless it's a grammar
school, all community schools should admit on locality not academic ability.
12
Consultation on Admission arrangements for 2011-12
Responses by Question - All Responses (Email, Postal, Online Survey)
B) Admission rules for community and voluntary-controlled, first, infant,
primary, junior and middle schools for the school year 2011-12
Against
I don't agree with the siblings rule not including those in the final year.
Children living in Hertfordshire should be allocated placeds Hertfordshire schools without those
outside the county offered places where there is undersubscription. I believe Buckinghamshire use
this criteria yet Hertfordshire accept children from out of the county.
Allowing 3 choices to Hertfordshire children prejudices them against other boroughs who allow up to 6
choices; it would be fairer to offer more choice and lessen the chance of not receiving any choice.
When the closure of Sunnybank took place the agreement was to lose 3 forms of entry two by closing
Sunnybank and the other by making Oakmere 1 form of entry. Having looked at this list Oakmere is
still going to be 60 rather than 30. I do not agree for Cranbourne school to only have one form for
reception for reception, as in all the original plans have not been aherd to, as the govening body & the
LA had already made provisions for this to happen which is why Oakmere would be losing one form of
entry to compensate this. Potters Bar and it's schools have been through enough with the chopping
and changing. As it is year 2 is 3 forms of entry and the old year 6 was also 3 because of the last
change. I think that you need to look over what has happened. Cranbourne has been made into a 2
form of entry school and it should stay that way.
I noticed that there was no reference made to faith schools. If I belong to a particular faith (and was
able to prove it) and wished for my child to go to a school of the same faith, I would expect this factor
to be taken into consideration after the sibling rule. I also do not see the point of separating Rules 4 &
5 and 6 & 7. Just another point - a friend of mine, who lives 5-6 miles away from Edwinstree Middle
School, did not get her child into the school last year, and yet many children joined the school who live
in Stevenage, which is further away. I do not see how this fits in with the admission rules and is plainly
unfair.
It's vital that rule 3 is kept for admissions to Junior Schools. Otherwise parents/children at JMIs have
an unfair advantage. It would be quite wrong for a child moving from Infant to Junior School to lose
his/her place because someone moves closer to the School when that couldn't happen in a JMI. In
fact, the whole formal application to Junior School should be scrapped as it is an expensive,
meaningless bureaucratic exercise.
to much selection. Dont feel its fair that children from harrow should come to schools near me but my
children have to travel to the other side of watford!!!!!!
13
Consultation on Admission arrangements for 2011-12
Responses by Question - All Responses (Email, Postal, Online Survey)
C) Admission rules for community and voluntary-controlled, coeducational
and single sex upper and secondary schools for the
school year 2011-12 (except Tring and Kings Langley Schools)
For
Provided that the distance rule (where used) is based on the current route based system rather than
the arbitrary straight line system.
Content - but bitterly disappointed that the consultation did not propose to extend the number of
schools that can be applied for. The world fell out from our feet when my daughter did not get one of
her three options last year. On second allocation we applied to our 4th and 5th choices and were
ofered a place. it was so different to get a school we chose over one we didnt. Most LAs offer up to 6
choices. Hertfordshire - esp sw herts - needs this level of option.
Generally, I agree however Rule 4 is inherintley unfair. Under Rule 4 applications from homes that are
just out of 'reach' of the nearest and very popular school so a place would not be allocated. The
application to the second closets school will only be considered under Rule 6. In this scenario a child
would not get a place at either school as closest school places filled under Rule 4 then child misses
out again in second closest school as places also filled under Rule 4 even when places will be
allocated to homes where the proximity to the school is far greater. In HCC few places in preferred
school are allocated under Rule 6. A fairer rule would be to remove Rule 4 completely and allocate
places based on proximity to the school regardless of whether it is the closest school or not.
Mostly agree with your admission rules but twins/multiple births should be considered in the same
fashion as the sibling rule (and the sibling rule should not be phased out). And unless it's a grammar
school, all community schools should admit on locality not academic ability.
Against
The residents of Hitchin are disadvantaged by having an expanded priority area under rule 4 when
considering Hitchin's single sex schools. Villages that do not have secondary schools should be
aligned to their nearest town for the purposes of admission, but I fail to see why a Garden City such as
Letchworth and other towns receive any allocation to single sex schools in Hitchin under rule 4. My
reasons for this conclusion are:
There is no clamour for single sex primary education from the residents of Letchworth and other
towns, so why is there a need to have an expanded catchment area for Hitchin’s two single sex
secondary schools beyond the boundaries of Hitchin and its aligned villages?
Letchworth has seen fit to close one of its three secondary schools (Norton). If Letchworth requires
places allocated in Hitchin because of a shortage, then this policy was short-sighted in the extreme!
It is convenient to allow the residents of Letchworth an allocation, because the two remaining schools
(Fearnhill and Highfield) are on the town’s Western border, making it easier for education
authorities to allocate places to Hitchin children. I suspect that this policy would not have been
implemented if these two schools were on the East edge of Letchworth!
We have children in Hitchin going to school in Letchworth and children in Letchworth making the
opposite journey; perhaps we should plant some more trees along the A505 to reduce the carbon
footprint! These children cannot make this journey on foot.
Continuity of education is important, but in my opinion continuity of friendship is equally important. The
current rules spread the primary age children of Hitchin over an unnecessarily large area when they
commence secondary education. The probability of attending the same secondary school with a friend
from a Hitchin primary school is unnecessarily reduced.
I offer the following solutions:
Retain the right for all children in Hitchin and its aligned villages to go to school in Hitchin, in advance
of children from any other town with their own secondary schools.
14
Consultation on Admission arrangements for 2011-12
Responses by Question - All Responses (Email, Postal, Online Survey)
C) Admission rules for community and voluntary-controlled, coeducational
and single sex upper and secondary schools for the
school year 2011-12 (except Tring and Kings Langley Schools)
If the residents of other towns do not like this policy, then ask local authorities to make schools in
Letchworth, Baldock and elsewhere single-sex.
Many of our friends whose children attend Samuel Lucas are not bothering to even express the Girls
School in Hitchin as a preference as they realise they have no hope of success. This attitude reduces
Hitchin’s allocation even further. Soon pupils from Hitchin in either of the single sex schools may
be in a minority. One of our friends has a son in year 7 at the Boys School and he has yet to find
another boy from Hitchin in his class!
I strongly disagree with the current rules for single sex school admissions. Lottery is not good enough.
I see no reason why single sex schools should be treated differently to co-eds. In Hitchin there is only
one school that is not co-ed and so by giving children outside of Hitchin places at the single sex
schools because they are the nearest single sex schools to them limits choice for Hitchin children. In
addition the rule is open to abuse as parents may falsely claim that they want a single sex school
when they actually prefer the school for other reasons.
I cannot see why single sex school should have different selection criteria than co-eduational. Firstly in
the case of Hitchin, there are only 2 secondary schools in the town - Priory and the girls/boys schools in widdening the catchment area for the boys/girls school, parents on the West side of Hitchin town
effectively only have the choice of the Priory as their chance of entry to the girls/boys school is
reduced by the higher catchment area of those schools. Effectively childen who live within a 20 minute
walk of the school are being turned down, whilst those who commute an hour by public transport gain
places. Second, I suspect there are as many parent who with their child to go to a single sex as those
who specifically wish that they don't go to a single sex school, so in that event proximity to a single sex
school should be disregarded for applications to a co-ed school. Surely parents who prefer their child
to
go to a sports biased school or an arts biased school should, on the current logic, be able to have a
chance of access to one - and so these schools should have a wider catchment area where
comparable focus is not available in another school. Third, it is impossible to ascertain whether
someone in, say, Letchworth or Knebworth, selects the Hitchin girls/boys school for their single sex
status or for other factors, such as results. Fourthly, there is the environmental factor that children are
travelling such a distance to these schools, whilst the schools themselves encourage walking to
school. Ideally the same criteria are used as for the other co-ed schools, based on nearest
school/distance rules should be used. There could perhaps be an exception for those parents who can
quote a particular requirement for single sex status. If a wider catchment areas is retained, there
seems no rationale for allocating places on the proportion of applicants, it would be fairer to have a
total lottery for all places. Overall, the popularity of these single sex schools suggest that co-ed
schools should look at having some element of segregation of sexes in their learning environment,
with single sex classes in most subjects, where parents elect.
The single sex rules mean that too many places are being allocated to children from outside Hitichin.
First and foremost, children from Hitchin and nearby villages should have priority in their choice of
school. Towns such as Letchworth, Baldock, even Luton have secondary schools and children from
these could be offered any unallocated places at the end of the process. The belief that the current
system does away with catchment areas is a fallacy as is the idea that people choose Hitchin Boys
and Girls Schools because they want a single sex schools, the choice is results driven.
If an application is made for your nearest school as your first choice, then they should have priority.
And apply to all within an acceptable walking distance eg. 1.5 miles. Some junior schools could have
an associated secondary school, so if a child has attended it for 3 years or more they would get
second priority at that secondary school, after the distance rule. Most children are not too bothered,
but want to be with their friends, it is the parent that is bothered! Thirdly those from a village or outside
area school would have their prior junior school as their source of priority, so they and their friends all
get in or none do! ie. villages are chosen by random selection if places are available.
15
Consultation on Admission arrangements for 2011-12
Responses by Question - All Responses (Email, Postal, Online Survey)
C) Admission rules for community and voluntary-controlled, coeducational
and single sex upper and secondary schools for the
school year 2011-12 (except Tring and Kings Langley Schools)
I am a hitchin resident and I would like to have a choice on the secondary schools that I send my
children to. Making the girls and boys school available to much of Hertfordshire limits my choice as a
local resident. If I want a choice on where to send my children to school then that would mean looking
outside Hitchin and all the unnecessary travel costs (both environmental and economic) associated
with this. I would like Hitchin parents to be provided with a choice of the two schools within the town.
We are concerned that siblings might not get a place. It is not acceptable for a sibling to go to a
different school.
For Hitchin Boys and Girls schools, you have added Letchworth and Baldock as Priority areas. I think
that is the big change. This will presumably mean more children from these areas will gain admission
to these schools. That will mean more cars on the roads, more buses, and more hithcin children not
getting into hitchin schools, which leads to more travelling again. How can this be compatable will the
govenmants green policies and their encouragement of children walking or cycling to school. This
won't happen from either of those towns. I am sorry for those parents who want a single sex education
for their child, but they should take it up with the government and not try to force their way into Hitchin
schools. This towns have perfectly good schools of their own to take their children and for the good of
the children, they should go to local schools, not ones miles away.
I moved into the "catchment area of the Hitchin schools" so I could send my children there and they
could walk to school and have local friends. The house prices are high here for that reason, its a
choice you make, unless you have overwhelming proof that school children numbers are going to drop
significantly in the next few years making some schools unviable, this is a really bad idea.
Its not even fair since I don't see Hitchin children having prioity in Baldock and Letchworth schools!
After going through this process this year, I would have like to have seen a ‘special
circumstances’ section where one could give a social or medical reason why not to get a certain
school allocated. Rather than having to specify why ONE is a must. When considering such issues or
problems any concerned caring parent would only select the three schools which would suit and
satisfy any such issues.
I would have liked a section to justify without the rule 2 route and justifies why only one school can
meet a child’s individual needs when by carefully selecting the right choices parents would have
aready done that in the best interest of the child. I think this would save a lot of time and
money because when a listed school place does not get allocated they then go through the appeals
and other processes which is time consuming and costs money and very upsetting for the child. Also
same if a child has an SEN statement, the same rule should go to those on the Gifted and talented
register
(proper NAGTY registered). This would allow greater options to find a school best suited,
as every child has an educational need regardless what end of the learning spectrum they are.
If they live in reasonable distance i think everyone should have the single sex school choice. St albans
girls is nearer to us in nash mills and leverstock green than some schools we could be allocated. And
the local boys can apply to Verulamium so that is unbalanced.
The balance of secondary provision for WD3 is completely out of kilter with current family
requirements. Our 3 nearest schools in WD3 - Rickmansworth - are all Voluntary funded or
Foundation. This means they are partially selective and if you have no musical ability or are not a
catholic, in WD3 your child will not get in and could be bussed miles away to a school in a completely
different town. I understand each school may want to make its own arrangements but as the authority
in charge it is your duty to look at the overall provision in each area to make sure its fair and that there
is something for everyone. In WD3 we completely lack a local school prioritising normal local residents
for their intake. This is a HUGE issue. For example, why is rickmansworth school only taking 18 places
(10%) of their intake on distance?
16
Consultation on Admission arrangements for 2011-12
Responses by Question - All Responses (Email, Postal, Online Survey)
C) Admission rules for community and voluntary-controlled, coeducational
and single sex upper and secondary schools for the
school year 2011-12 (except Tring and Kings Langley Schools)
Musical and academic success are prioritised way over local residents who don't stand a chance of
getting in unless they live on Croxley green itself. Why, when there is such huge pressure on places,
are you supporting financially an entirely Catholic school in our town which excludes the non-Catholic
majority of the population? Its blindingly obvious that Rickmansworth/Mill End needs a community
secondary school. Either a new one or you need to act now to ensure the admissions policy of the
current schools in teh area are fairer.
Apart from "grammar" schools, no secondary schools should be able to apply any academic testing or
selection criteria at all. The impact on children's confidence and self-esteem can be appalling when
children "fail" to get in a school on abilty.
I would like to see a two-tier sibling rule so that not all siblings are given priority over those nearest the
school. The problem with over-subscribed schools in my area (St Albans) is that people rent properties
or move temporarily into the vicinity of the school just to get their first child into the school; then they
move away to a cheaper area, sound in the knowledge that all subsequent siblings will automatically
get into the same school. This results in our current ludicrous situation where those who live only a
mile away from their nearest school are not offered a place but a significant number drive in from miles
outside the catchment area just because they are siblings. This adds to the horrendous congestion on
the roads and is surely against the county's aim to allocate people to their 'nearest school'. I think that
Rule 3 should be 'Siblings for whom the school is their nearest'; Rule 4 should be for those for whom it
is their nearest school, and then an additional rule lower down should be for 'Siblings for whom the
school is not their nearest'.
This gives those who live on the doorstep of the school priority over those siblings who live further
away, but those siblings still have priority over those for whom it is not their nearest school. I think the
division of the sibling rule will make far more difference than changing the distance rule and will
overcome a lot of the problems of people not being allocated their nearest school. If people want their
children at the same school, they should not move out of the area or cheat to get them into the school
in the first place. By all means give siblings priority when they still live nearby, but they should not take
the places of those children who have always lived closer to the school than they do.
1) The single sex admissions policy discriminates against St Albans parish - see figures for STAGS for
the last few years... The other parishes typically end up with 50 - 100% of their applications gaining
places, where St Albans ends up with around 5-10%. Surely it is obvious that rules 4 and 5 must be
counted separately! Carry out rule 4 for those children for whom this is their local school, THEN apply
the proportional allocations for the parishes. That way those of us who live in St Albans, but not
closest to STAGS have some chance of a place. Better still, dispense with Rule 4 altogether and give
every child in the priority area an equal chance of a place. 2) Sibling rule - PLEASE can we change
this rule to allocate places only to siblings who STILL LIVE in the PRIORITY AREA! We all know how
many people cheat by moving into area to get their first child into our good schools, then move away
and continue to gain places for younger siblings ahead of local children. This cannot be right.
The county provides insuffient places at Westfield for these rules to make any sense to people in the
Rickmansworth area - who generally are too far to get into Westfield, while the other schools are very
distant without suitable transport being provided
I am responding as county councillor for Hitchin South on behalf of my constituents who are finding it
increasingly difficult to secure places in the Hitchin schools ,particularly Hitchin Girls School. It would
appear that increasing numbers of applications for Hitchin Girls from parishes outside of Hitchin are
bearing down on the places available for Hitchin children. Increasingly those who live in Hitchin and for
whom the girls school is thir closest school are not securing places. There has been at least one
instance of parents being offered a place in a Letchworth school when their nearest school is Hitchin
Girls and it is totally incomprehensible to local parents to see pupils crossing paths between Hitchin
and Letchworth.It is also questionable whether this option should be offered to parishes that have
secondary provision within their boundaries.
17
Consultation on Admission arrangements for 2011-12
Responses by Question - All Responses (Email, Postal, Online Survey)
C) Admission rules for community and voluntary-controlled, coeducational
and single sex upper and secondary schools for the
school year 2011-12 (except Tring and Kings Langley Schools)
Promoting unnecessary travel would also seem to run counter to the County Council's carbon
reduction policies. Even if this option were to remain as well as other criteria relating to rural parishes
there should be a presumption that children living within the parish and for whom it is the closest
school ,should have priority.
Again children should be offered a school close to home
siblings of children who intially obtained a place under criteria music and academic that live further
than 3 miles should no be allocated a pace. This will free up more places for local children.
If a child has been in feeder schools then they should get a higher ranking for senior school. My son
went to St Roses and St Cuthbert Mayne but was turned down for John F Kennedy despite it being
our closest school. We are committed Christians but not practicing Catholic; however we were good
enough for the primary schools but not good enough for JFK
Should retain distance measure to determine places after intial rules rather than using random
selection for children within the priority area.
Think it is very wrong that children in Letchworth & Baldock get priority to Hitchin single sex schools
over Hitchin children, when there is no reciprical arrangements whereby hitchin children can attend
Letchworth & Baldock schools with different specialisms. People buy houses in a town because of the
schools available to them only to find children in neighbouring towns getting priority. Also children
should be at schools they can walk to, giving them excercise & encouraging a healthier lifestyle. It
also saves a large amount of unneccessary traffic & pollution when people live near to schools &
therefore use legs above cars.
I specifically would like to comment about the number of allocations for girls in the parish of St
Ippolytts and Gosmore for Hitchin Girls school. I would also like to point out that while we have
emailed Gemma Parry in the Central Admissions Team to gain further information on parish allocation
numbers (email of 05 February 2010 also copied to Admissions Central) we have not, at the date of
writing received a reply hampering our ability to respond on the basis of sufficient factual data.
Consistently, girls who live within the parish are not able to attend Hitchin Girls as building homes has
increased closer to Hitchin - but analysis of the pattern of admissions clearly shows that the number of
allocations is challenged every year (in 2009 9 were accepted against 5 allocated; in 2008 15 were
accepted against an allocation of 7 - in 2005 16 were accepted against an allocation of 7!) However,
despite this appeal process which clearly shows that girls not accepted are suffering as a
consequence, some children (including my daughter who was allocated a place in Hatfield) are clearly
further prejudiced when their peers are accepted during appeal. All in all the data clearly shows that
the parish as a whole is not being allocated anywhere near enough places to come near to satisfying
demand for A SIMPLE PLACE AT THE CHILD'S NEAREST SCHOOL. This clearly prejudices against
particular children in the parish with consequential social results. Why does the council not review its
allocation to the parish? On the other hand, a child in St Pauls Walden is much more likely to gain a
place as is one in Langley and Preston.
Allocations for girls in the parish of St Ippolytts and Gosmore for Hitchin Girls school appear to be
inadequate. The data clearly shows that the parish as a whole is not being allocated anywhere near
enough places to come near to satisfying demand. Our daughter was offered a place in Hatfield nearly
20 miles away, compared to a school 1.5 miles away. Could the council not review its allocation to the
parish? On the other hand, a child in St Pauls Walden is much more likely to gain a place as is one in
Langley and Preston.
18
Consultation on Admission arrangements for 2011-12
Responses by Question - All Responses (Email, Postal, Online Survey)
C) Admission rules for community and voluntary-controlled, coeducational
and single sex upper and secondary schools for the
school year 2011-12 (except Tring and Kings Langley Schools)
Children who live in Gosmore clearly suffer from being grouped with either St Ippolytts or Hitchin
rather than being given their own allocation. I would like to be given the results of a wholesale review
of the number of allocations for Gosmore or the wider parish so that this consistent prejudice is not
allowed to continue.
I feel that it is unfair to change the rules withiut at least 2 years notice as many parents including
mysef will allow our children to walk to school. Obviously this will generate much less traffic which will
be beneficial to the morning rush hour and a much geener environment. Last year we bought a house
within the catchment area of our prefered shool and felt confident of our decision. Due to the current
climate it is not possible to move again and as it is impossible to walk to school in a straight line it
seems a pointless move, Our children do not have wings so the route to school as the crow flies is
absurd.
With reference to The Bishop's Stortford High School for Boys seeking to introduce many more
primary feeder schools particularly from Essex. This will exacerbate the acute shortage of single sex
secondary school places in Bishop's Stortford and should not be permitted. Current admissions based
on living furthest from the nearest alternative school should be replaced with admissions based on
those living nearest to the school as in other local schools.
Priority catchments areas for Hitchin Girls' and Hitchin Boys' Schools: the inclusion of Letchworth and
Baldock in these priority catchments areas means that large numbers of non-Hitchin residents can
apply for these schools and gain places ahead of local children. This will mean that many Hitchin
children will not get a place at their nearest school that they could walk to, resulting in increased
carbon footprint, negative impact on healthy lifestyles and opportunity to maintain basic fitness. There
is also a negative impact on choice for Hitchin residents particularly as Hitchin pupils are out of Priority
catchments areas for schools in Letchworth and Baldock.
I have just heard of proposed changes to education admission rules on the radio. You suggest that
this may now be ‘as the crow flies’ between post codes. I have corresponded with Peter Lilley and
other government ministers using the letter attached. Peter Lilley followed up and I had a response
from Herts County Council that said the rules allowing an allocation for Letchworth and Baldock are in
response to residents’ wishes. If you read my letter I find this wrong. Many of our friends whose
children attend Samuel Lucas are not bothering to even express the Girls School in Hitchin as a
preference as they realise they have no hope of success. This attitude reduces Hitchin’s allocation
even further. Soon pupils from Hitchin in either of the single sex schools may be in a minority. One of
our friends has a son in year 7 at the Boys School and he has yet to find another boy from Hitchin in
his class! I am an old boy of Hitchin Boys School and in a generation I have witness this relentless
change. I propose we put a stop to this and revert to Hitchin schools being for Hitchin (and aligned
villages). I would welcome your thoughts and a fuller explanation of your new proposed policy.
I find it unacceptable that children who live in Hitchin do not get first priority to join Hitchin Boy’s
School or Girls School. It is not sound judgement that children from Baldock, Knebworth and
Letchworth have an equal chance of getting into the school.
In the interests of ecology, school runs should be kept to a minimum and children should be able to
walk safely to their local school over a period of six years without worry or concern for lifts and
transport.
I hope that you understand my objection and will register it when decisions are made regarding this.
19
Consultation on Admission arrangements for 2011-12
Responses by Question - All Responses (Email, Postal, Online Survey)
D) Rules for Tring School 2011
Neither For or Against
Don't know background but all schools should conform to the same rules.
20
Consultation on Admission arrangements for 2011-12
Responses by Question - All Responses (Email, Postal, Online Survey)
E) Rules for Kings Langley School for 2011
For
Content - but bitterly disappointed that the consultation did not propose to extend the number of
schools that can be applied for. The world fell out from our feet when my daughter did not get one of
her three options last year. On second allocation we applied to our 4th and 5th choices and were
ofered a place. it was so different to get a school we chose over one we didnt. Most LAs offer up to 6
choices. Hertfordshire - esp sw herts - needs this level of option. I do appreciate the seperation of
priority area 6 into two parts here.
Against
Strongly feel Nash Mills should be in priority area 6b with Bovingdon and chipperfield etc.. Nash mills
are equally an extended school of Kings Langley and remains to work closely with them. The higher
priority should certainly include the areas of the extended schools partnership rather than singling one
very locally link area/school out so obviously and unfairly. By doing this the selection only allows one
choice for Nash Mills area resident. When indeed KL and THHS are also nearest schools along with
Longdeanbut they will never have a chance of choosing them because of this ruling. KL may be the
actualy nearest school but still in priorty 6a which is truly unfair.
I disagree with the admission rules for Kings Langley School. WD3 is stated as a priority area for this
school, however it is an hour and a half journey by bus (8.5 miles) from the WD3 area and would not
qualify for free transport as it is not our closest community school. In 2009, the "furthest distance"
successful applicant was 3 miles away, and therefore it is completely pointless to state WD3 as a
priority area. It would only be an appropriate parental choice if free and direct transport (ie County
provided) was available and it was not an over-subscribed school. In 2008 & 9, children applied from
Croxley, Chorleywood, Sarratt, Flaunden and Watford - none secured a place. If HCC desire Kings
Langley School to be an appropriate parental choice, children from the WD3 area should be
considered higher up the selection criteria and with free transport provided.
I disagree with the admission rules for Kings Langley School. WD3 is stated as a priority area for this
Strongly Disagree
We the undersigned disagree with the admission rules for Kings Langley School. WD3 is stated as a
priority area for this school, However it is an hour and a half journey by bus (8.5 miles) from the WD3
area and would not qualify for free transport as it is not our closest community school. In 2009, the
"furthest distance" successful applicant was 3 miles away, and therefore it is completely pointless to
state WD3 as a priority area. It would only be an appropriate parental choice if free and direct
transport (ie County provided) was available and it was not an over-subscribed school. In 2008 & 9,
children applied from Croxley, Chorleywood, Sarratt, Flaunden and Watford - none secured a place. If
HCC desire Kings Langley School to be an appropriate parental choice, children from the WD3 area
should be considered higher up the selection criteria and free transport provided.
Living in WD3 doesn't make this a good choice for me.
If WD3 is to be considered then free transport needs to be provided.
Suggesting that WD3 is a priority area for this school is impractical and misleading.
21
Consultation on Admission arrangements for 2011-12
Responses by Question - All Responses (Email, Postal, Online Survey)
F) Co-ordinated Schemes of Admission for First, Primary, Junior, Middle,
Secondary, Upper Schools and In-Year admissions for 2011/12.
For
There should be a co-ordinated and cohesive approach to all school admissions.
It is important that schools do not return to individual admission procedures where some children
received several offers and others none; all children should received one place on the same day - it is
important that this continue.
Home address evidence should be rigorously checked.
Against
The single sex rules mean that too many places are being allocated to children from outside Hitchin.
Letchworth, Baldock and Knebworth have schools of their own and the belief that people from these
towns choose Hitchin single sex schools because they want a single sex school is a fallacy it is
obviously results driven. People from Hitchin should have a choice of Hitchin schools and people
should be able to send their children to their nearest school. Currently this is not the case, there are
children commuting miles by train, bus and in cars when children that could walk to these schools are
not getting places. Surely on an environmental stand alone this does not make sense.
I disagree with the coordinated schemes of admissions for all schools. All applications will be
processed by the Local Authority and and will be managed in line with the Pan-London Co-ordinated
Admissions System (comprised of 39 local authorities in and adjacent to London). Other neighbouring
local authorities give parents 6 choices of preferred schools (inc Bucks, Hillingdon & Harrow). This
does not give Hertfordshire parents the same choices or right to appeal as out-of-county parents
applying for the same schools. Therefore we disagree with the scheme on the basis of
Hertfordshireparents being discriminated against by their own Local Education Authority.
Should be more than 3 choices, in line with other LA's surrounding us who give 6 choices.
I disagree with the coordinated schemes of admissions for all schools. All applications will be
processed by the Local Authority and and will be managed in line with the Pan-London Co-ordinated
Admissions System (comprised of 39 local authorities in and adjacent to London). Other neighbouring
local authorities give parents up to 6 choices of preferred schools (including Bucks, Hillingdon &
Harrow). This does not give Hertfordshire parents the same choices or right to appeal as out-ofcounty parents applying for the same schools. Therefore we disagree with the scheme on the basis of
Hertfordshire parents being discriminated against by their own Local Education Authority and are
petitioning Hertfordshire County Council to amend its scheme such that Hertfordshire children can
state up to 6 schools on their LEA application form.
If parents have children across the school years they could find themselves having to look at a number
of secondary, primary and nursery schools all around the same time - very time consuming and too
many things to think about at the same time.
I disagree with the coordinated schemes for admission for all schools. All applications would be
managed by the Local Authority and managed by a pan-London co-Ordinated Admision System
(comprising 39 local authorities in and around London) Neighbouring authorities give parents 6
choices of preferred schools (including Bucks, Hillingdon and Harrow. This does not give Hertfordshire
parents the same choices or rights of appeal as out-of-county parents applying at the samr school.
I disagree with this scheme as it basically allows Hertfordshire parents to be discriminated against by
their own LEA and am petitioning HCC to amend its scheme so that Hertfordshire children can state
up to 6 schools on their LEA application form
22
Consultation on Admission arrangements for 2011-12
Responses by Question - All Responses (Email, Postal, Online Survey)
F) Co-ordinated Schemes of Admission for First, Primary, Junior, Middle,
Secondary, Upper Schools and In-Year admissions for 2011/12.
We the undersigned disagree with the coordinated schemes of admissions for all schools. All
applications will be processed by the Local Authority and and will be managed in line with the PanLondon Co-ordinated Admissions System (comprised of 39 local authorities in and adjacent to
London).
Other neighbouring local authorities give parents 6 choices of preferred schools (inc Bucks, Hillingdon
& Harrow). This does not give Hertfordshire parents the same choices or right to appeal as out-ofcounty parents applying for the same schools. Therefore we disagree with the scheme on the basis of
Hertfordshire parents being discriminated against by their own Local Education Authority
Herts residences are discriminated against by having only 3 choices of schools compared to other
LAs. Herts should allow 6 choices to be in line.
Neighbouring LAs allows parents 6 choices on their application for secondary schools but Herts. only
allows 3. This puts Herts. parents at a disadvantage compared to, for example, Bucks and Hillingdon.
Herts must allow 6 choices so that it is not discriminating against its own tax payers.
Children from other counties should not have different/favourable (more choices) admission rights
(unless straight line distance applies).
We continue to be unhappy that there is no consideration for the rank order given by the parent unless
they meet the criteria for more than one school. This means that each year children who rank our
school first may not get a place whilst others who have ranked us third do. We would prefer to see a
syatem where parents can rank and all first choice are then allocated according to the rules, followed
by second and third.
23
Consultation on Admission arrangements for 2011-12
Responses by Question - All Responses (Email, Postal, Online Survey)
G) Sixth form admission arrangements for community and voluntarycontrolled schools for 2011/12
For
I Agree so long as Nearest school does not prevent applications to second closest school
It is important that children at the secondary school already should be exempt from this process, as is
the case.
Against
All children should be treated the same even if they have been or not been at the school already.The
tie breaker in all cases should be distance to school and not total GCSE points. A local child should
not be descriminated against especially if they have not been lucky enough to have a place at their
closest school already in year 11.The entrance requirements should be more in line with year 6 entry
and distance to school should be main criteria.
The single sex rules mean that too many places are being allocated to children from outside Hitchin.
Letchworth, Baldock and Knebworth have schools of their own and the belief that people from these
towns choose Hitchin single sex schools because they want a single sex school is a fallacy it is
obviously results driven. People from Hitchin should have a choice of Hitchin schools and people
should be able to send their children to their nearest school. Currently this is not the case, there are
children commuting miles by train, bus and in cars when children that could walk to these schools are
not getting places. Surely on an environmental stand alone this does not make sense.
I do not agree, having been through the process of selecting a different 6th form school than the one
he attended, our son selected the school which best suited his subjects. With the school
specialism’s and also consortium, you could attend one school as your main but travel to two
others to fulfil your course criteria. Rarely would one Post 16 students soling attending the main school
for all their courses so this proposal does not seem fit. I do like the idea of a formal process though as
we moved from private to Tring for 6th form and at the time had to run around all over looking for info
on schools, courses, open eve dates as only geared to those already on roll. Mixed feeing about
having min grade criteria, like the idea as a parent as again choose Tring as they had to get the
grades to get in and motivated them, but the down side is it will again create a divide between those
schools deemed ‘good’ and‘bad’ in the community. This will create academic subject
focused schools and vocational focused schools in the long run and then the LA’s yr 7 admission
process with not match this, creating more problems. I agree with min entry requirments though in
principle as those correctly matched to course remain and pas rather than staying on to take just
anything knowing they di dnot do that well previously. But it will single them out and create these
'diffrent' schools as some schools have to give chances and try to continue the education etc..I totally
agree to ensuring students do a min number of courses and do not just stay on school part time or
drop subjects so they have too many blanks on the timetable. Especially with EMA they should ensure
they are truly in full time education as far to many drop out after getting it and only continue with one
course. This idea is good to enforce. My son had to drop a subject as struggled but he had to replace
it with mentoring in school for yr 7's and doing in school community work he was not allowed to have
extra time out which was fantastic.
24
Consultation on Admission arrangements for 2011-12
Responses by Question - All Responses (Email, Postal, Online Survey)
H) Published admission numbers (PAN) 2011/12 for community and
voluntary-controlled schools
For
This would allow parents to manage expectations of children. If there is only a certain amount of space
then other options have to be considered.
My experience shows that LEA can manipulate data to suit its case. Last year the PAN for
Bridgewater School was 95, the previous year it was 110, the following year 105 and then 110 again.
It is the IAN which is most important and should be used consistently each year. School don't change
every year, the number of pupils who can enter a school each year should reflect this.
Does not seem to be sufficient primary places allocated within St Albans - where willt he oversplill
classes be (Cunningham Hill going back to 60 intake)
Concerned by the vast expenditure involved in closing schools and then expanding other schools
barely two years later.
Strongly support expansion
this would make th eappeals process and shorter as descisions could be made sooner.
Against
Overall numbers are less of an issue than criteria for getting in - everyone should be able to go to their
closest school where it is in walking distance, on environmental grounds. LAs should build in criteria
to reduce car journeys and car use for school journeys. Also music tests appear elitist don't they
favour children who've had music/instrument lessons? Not everone can afford this.
While the increase at Westfield is welcome, it does not tackle the problem of there being insufficient
secondary school places for the Rickmansworth, Croxley and Chorleywood areas (this problem having
been caused by the county council demolishing 3 secondary schools in the area previously!)
The authority should seek PANs as multiples of 15 to avoid organisational and funding issues for
schools. Mixed year groups and in particular those that are imbalanced mixed year groups give rise to
parental concerns about curriculum and opportunities to develop learning at the child's own level
Outraged that Strathmore Infant and Nursery should bear the brunt of the over subscription of children
in Hitchin with a THREE form entry, whilst there are many examples of schools with a single form
entry only. This causes unnecessary pressure on school, a disadvantage to the children as it
completely unfair - consider Ickleford, Samuel Lucas, Oughton, where many of the 'overspill' come
from.
Westfield Community College is set to again run considerably over PAN fro 2009/10. It is currently
running over numbers and the Head gave us to understand that this was a temporary situation and
they did not have the facilities to support additional numbers of children.
There are not enough spaces in sceondary schools for residents in the Mill End/Maple Cross area and
there is no real choce for those applying from Rickmansworth or Chorleywood. We need an extra
school!
Primary schools are now oversubscribed and the county should take action now to increase the PAN
in successful secondary schools or even merge them with less successful schools.
Would be very interesting to know HCC plans for extending high achieving schools - There is great
demand for these schools so they must be doing something right.
The review of Net Capacity is welcomed and the PAN's should be adopted
25
Consultation on Admission arrangements for 2011-12
Responses by Question - All Responses (Email, Postal, Online Survey)
H) Published admission numbers (PAN) 2011/12 for community and
voluntary-controlled schools
HCC should make it clear what is being done to increase places at top performing school. Little seesm
to being done in this area with the expectation that it is acceptable to force children to commute long
distances by bus to underperforming schools.
Hertfordshire needs more good secondary and primary schools to cope with growing demand.
Primary schools will become too large if they have to take on more classes and pupils will be taught in
mobile units - not ideal.
I am appalled that Cranborne Primary School has a proposed intake of 30 rather than 60. In every
other year Cranborne has been a 2 form entry school rather than 1. Reducing numbers to 30 I am
sure will have the knock on effect of composite classes which is detrimental to teaching staff, and
students in both years. This is typical of the lack of support given to Cranborne school by the local
authority with their previous short sighted and empty promise to support the school through the merger
with Sunnybank. There is currently a 3 form year 2 which is the year that was most effected by the
merger. If the LA has any conscience or interest in educating children properly they will continue to
finance this arrangement until these children has completed primary school. The mess up yet another
year group (2011/2012 intake) with further short sighted attitudes to intake numbers is appalling and
shows a complete disregard for the educational welfare of the children involved.
Potters Bar is being built on and there are lots of young families moving into the area, one school has
already been shut and 3 of the local schools are tiny one form entry schools whereby you have to live
on their doorsteps to get in. If you reduce numbers at Cranborne then where are the children
supposed to go?!
I have asked the Council for the rules on which the PAN for Hitchin Girls school is set. I have been
informed that the PAN is required to be the same as that for the Boys school although the boys school
offers greater sq footage. I have however, not received a reply to my enquiry.
Obviously though the PAN for Hitchin Girls school is insufficient creating a situation where local
children are not allowed to go to their local school with terrible social consequences. If it is based on a
rule which says it must be the same as the Boys school why does the Council not challenge that rule
and instead of making parents go through an inpenetrable appeals and CI list process where facts are
very difficult and success seems unlikely, increase the allocation to meet more of the demand?
Currently I cannot find out what number my daughter in year 7 is on the CI list but I do know that there
are 165 children in year 7 versus an allocation of 160. However, I was also able to discover that 13
appeals were accepted last year above the PAN (no mean feat as the council tries extremely hard not
to provide any information to parents). Yet, even in this situation, while there was clearly space for 173
children, my daughter is not offered a place.
I challenge the council to find a solution to this ridiculous PAN and allow local children to attend their
local school alongside their friends.
I would like to be given six choice rather than the current three.
The PAN for The Cranborne School (Potters Bar) for 2011/12 should remain at 60 and not reduce to
30.
The school is successful (see OFSTED), popular (e.g. over-subscribed in nursery this year), and was
expanded to accommodate the recent closure of Sunny Bank School. It should not itself now be
reduced in size. The whole year intake of 30 might not be sufficient even just for the whole cohort of
siblings that year. That will deny some families the possibility of having both/all of their children at the
same school (one of the guiding principles in the allocation of places) and it will also not allow other
children from the local area, many of whom will live on the doorstep of the school, entry in 2011/12.
When all other years in the school are at 60 (or even approx. 90 in Year 2) this will leave the school
out of balance.
26
Consultation on Admission arrangements for 2011-12
Responses by Question - All Responses (Email, Postal, Online Survey)
H) Published admission numbers (PAN) 2011/12 for community and
voluntary-controlled schools
Considering one year's birth rate in isolation is short-sighted and wrong - there will be a knock on in
that younger siblings of children denied a place in 2011/12 will then also not go to the school when
their time comes. After the investment that the County put into Cranborne School and its buildings
after the closure of Sunny Bank School, one wonders why the County would now want to weaken the
school in this way. It appears non-sensical.
13 appeals were accepted last year above the PAN. Yet, even in this situation, while there was clearly
space for 173 children, my daughter is not offered a place, despite being no 1 on the CI list.
The council needs to find a solution to this ridiculous PAN where local children can get to attend their
local school instead of children from many many more miles away which are not local.
If this means Cranborne Primary school then why is it not named here? Having closed Sunny Bank
Primary and spent £3 million to take in extra children why reduce cranborne to 1 form of entry for just
one year? No school should be reduced for just one year, and why hit this area twice? As part of the
consultation which resulted in the closure of Sunny Bank school, Oakmere Primary was scheduled to
be reduced to one form of entry. This was not carried through. Why not? And why propose to reduce
the very school 'made big'to accomodate 450 children instead?
Increasing numbers at harpenden schools cannot be accommodated. There is insufficient capacity at
the schools and little space for provision of additional buildings.
Our school recently amalgamated with Westbury primary school. As a result we received 44 extra
pupils and members of staff from the school also transferred over (2 teachers, 2 TAs and 2 MSAs).
We also received a new mobile classroom. During the next two years our numbers are due to fall back
to what they were before the closure.
Having spoken to Diana Tuck, Admissions and Transport Manager at Herts, and explained our
situation, and also finding out that there are a number of new housing developments happening in
Letchworth town centre, to which our school would be tbe nearest, we feel that we would like to raise
our admissions number from 80 to 90 per year group. We have relatively small class sizes of 23-24
and we could easily accommodate more. We have heard that some parents are having to take their
children to Radburn School, who move near to us, which is a shame as that is quite a distance for
them. We are the local school and would like to admit pupils who live locally.
It is proposed to reduce Cranborne School in Potters Bar to a 1 FE in September 2011. This would
further reduce parental preference in the town. In addition if a reduction is to take place, why are you
not reducing Oakmere School as consulted and agreed upon in the Potters Bar Primary School Places
Review, as this is the school with the least parental preference. I have been told that it is because the
Governors of Cranborne asked for the reduction, but having spoken to both the Head and Chair of
Governors, they
deny this. Even if it is for 1 year only, as advised by HCC on request, it would impact on Cranborne in
future years, as the siblings of those children allocated Oakmere instead of Cranborne in 2011 would
then go to Oakmere too. With £3 million having been recently spent on Cranborne, this is a
disgraceful waste money if this proposal is implemented.
As a parent/carer of a child in the WD3 area, I am extremely concerned at the lack of secondary
school places in Rickmansworth and West Watford.
I demand Hertfordshire County Council, in conjunction with the Three Rivers District Council,
commence work to build a new community secondary school in the WD3 area, with a target opening
date of September 2015.
Additionally, I also request that on or before 31 March 2010, Hertfordshire County Council advises me
of what measures HCC will implement to ensure local children have fair access to sufficient local
school places in the interim period.
27
Consultation on Admission arrangements for 2011-12
Responses by Question - All Responses (Email, Postal, Online Survey)
H) Published admission numbers (PAN) 2011/12 for community and
voluntary-controlled schools
Neither For or Against
Nash Mills school is missing of the list for some reason. Also Hemel Hempstead school states 186 in
2009. When we had our moving on 2011 book THHS stated 180. We asked how many appeals etc
and what was the figure ans was told flatly 180. It should have been clear there were in deeed some
over that figure like the other schools has listed.
What is the PAN for Thomas Coram CofE school in Berkhamsted? I cannot find this specified
28
Consultation on Admission arrangements for 2011-12
Responses by Question - All Responses (Email, Postal, Online Survey)
I) General comments and responses
The admissions appeal process is fundamently flawed. It does not have the pupil's best interest at the
centre of the process.
it is a shame that the sibling rule has not been altered significantly to avoid the common practice of
parents renting houses close to the school to gain admission for an elder sibling and then moving a
considerable distance away.
This decreases catchment areas and increases traffic congestion around schools and is very unfair.
Hitchin Boys & Girls School Allocation
After a battle (go to appeal) to get my son into his closest school (Hitchin Boys School), it seemed
more places were be offered to children outside Hitchin. A lot of children our being offered Letchworth
schools as there are not enough places for children in the Boys and Girls school, when children are
coming from Letchworth to take these places, the normal Hertfordshire LA madness, only a local
authority would think this allocation policy is a good idea. With global warming a major issue for us all
your policy is encouraging long distance travel for pupils to attend Hitchin schools, and morning and
afternoon traffic jams were parents from outside Hitchin drop there children off and beyond a joke
around these schools.
Last year Hitchin Girls' School only allocated 40 places to girls from Hitchin the rest were from outside
Hitchin including Letchworth. Most tutor year groups come from Knebworth, Welwyn, Stevenage,
Pirton and Offley for both schools. The current rules give a percentage of places to Letchworth &
Baldock based on the number of applicants. Over the years more and more people in Letchworth have
realised they can get into a good school so the number of applicants from Letchworth is increasing.
This should be a set quantity and not a percentage, and children from main towns should be allocated
within there own towns, Knebworth should be Stevenage schools, why pass several good secondary
schools to come to Hitchin?
I want to move house next year but trying to understand which roads fall under which schools is a
nightmare and constantly changing feast! Catchment area maps showing a likely (but of course not
g'teed) place would be so helpful!
The single sex rules mean that too many places are being allocated to children from outside Hitchin.
Letchworth, Baldock and Knebworth have schools of their own and the belief that people from these
towns choose Hitchin single sex schools because they want a single sex school is a fallacy it is
obviously results driven. People from Hitchin should have a choice of Hitchin schools and people
should be able to send their children to their nearest school. Currently this is not the case, there are
children commuting miles by train, bus and in cars when children that could walk to these schools are
not getting places. Surely on an environmental stand alone this does not make sense.
I think it would be great if you can publish online the findings of your consultation and actions you are
taking as a result. I would rather remain annonymous for this survey but will refer to the web site to
keep updated with your progress. Many thanks.
It is difficult to make comment on the sections which will not affect us ie secondary places for the
coming year. By the time my children are looking for secondary places, it is likely that different rules
will aply.
Please remember that these rules affect real, live children and their futures - fairness to each and
every child must be your primary concern, and priority must be given to local children above those
who live out of area.
To be getting a REAL choice in the education of our children would be welcome, rather than feel the
process exists for its own sake and that in truth, there is little choice
It continues to be absurd that Clement Danes school is allowed to take in siblings of children from
Harrow who have gained academic places when there are children living in Chorleywood who do not
get a place automatically at Clement Danes without appealing. Something MUST be done!
29
Consultation on Admission arrangements for 2011-12
Responses by Question - All Responses (Email, Postal, Online Survey)
I) General comments and responses
The main problem with the whole admissions system is the SIBLING rule !! Why have you not
changed this ?? If you stopped the siblings from London colney, park street, lower luton road and even
Harpenden coming into our st Albans schools there would NOT be a problem !! You need to tighten up
your system for fraudulent applications and put a distance measurement on the sibling rule, or simply
state siblings must live within the priority area.
Provide local school places for local children by using the same admissions procedure as bucks,
Hillingdon and Harrow.
A local school which children can walk to (and are given priority to) preferably that people dont sneer
at when you tell them where your children are going - much to ask?? My daughter will find out in a
few weeks where she will be going in September - she is really excited. I already know where she is
going as it is a foregone conclusion - NO REAL CHOICE AT ALL.
Herts should change its secondary school admissions into line with neighbouring LAs which operate in
a much more transparent and fair fashion. This should include allowing 6 choices for secondary school
and giving preference to in-county children before allow out-of-county admissions. This also means
challenging the untenable power of foundation schools in the county, who are partially funded by the
LA, to set their own admission criteria.
I am a parent concerned about the school admissions criteria to Bishop's Stortford area senior schools
and the recent Ofsted report on Stansted Mountfitchet College. My daughter attends Northgate
Primary, we now live in Stansted. We will be looking at senior schools in September/October for her
to attend as of September 2011. We would like to send her to attend 'really good' senior school, as
would any parent. My first comment would be as to how an Elsenham resident (Essex?) has a greater
chance of attending Birchwood or Herts and Essex in Bishop's Stortford over a Stansted resident on
the current or revised admissions criteria. My bigger concern now is that our local senior school
Stansted Mountfitchet has been described as barely satisfactory in parts by Ofsted. Therefore, as
parents we are concerned about how these priority areas now lie, and how it will affect us in the future
as regards to our 'closest' senior schools. Also, how soon and if at all Stansted Mountfitchet College
reaches the required standards by Ofsted. I don't think it's unreasonable for us to be unhappy about
this situation. It's all very well building new housing estates and switching school admissions to
certain religion only, but in the long term where is the space and more importantly CHOICE. Is there
really a choice?
The Town Council were concerned at the ability of the local secondary schools in Harpenden to cope
with the demand for places. The increasing numbers seeking secondary school placements in the
town has meant that the schools are now unable to manage. It is requested that the County Council
anticipate this trend and make provision for the future by identifying a suitable site for an additional
secondary school to the south of Harpenden, north of St Albans city, to serve the increased demand
for places. This would particularly help in serving the villages of Wheathampstead and Redbourn.
We are still seeing increasing numbers of students being admitted from outside our area to the
detriment of children in our town. The passage of children moving from Letchworth to Hitchin and vice
versa, particularly if the school is not their first choice seems to be ridiculous.
I can speak from my personal experience of the event so last year’s allocation process so what I have
to say is not just an opinion. My family and especially my daughter suffered at times intolerable stress
and anxiety, when my daughter did not receive a place at any of her chosen schools. All the schools
were in our priority area, and we qualified for her first choice school under Rule 4. We live in St Albans
itself and my daughter attended the local primary school. There are two issues I would like to raise:
Firstly: There has been no change to the sibling rule – this means that the unfair practise of parents
buying properties to ensure their first child gets into a ‘good’ school and then moving away ensures
that students like my daughter who live 20 minutes walk from their nearest school are allocated school
places at schools 45 minutes walk away, whilst other children are driven to the school as their parents
have ‘moved’ since their first child has been allocated a place.
30
Consultation on Admission arrangements for 2011-12
Responses by Question - All Responses (Email, Postal, Online Survey)
I) General comments and responses
Secondly: I would like to raise concerns about the allocation of places for St Albans Girls School for
the St Albans parish – In the fist allocation no girl in St Albans parish was allocated a place under Rule
5 as all the places are taken up by rule 4 – yet there are students bussed into the school from Potters
Bar whilst girls 20 minutes walk away cannot get a place. I feel the allocation process for STAGs
needs to be looked at again as girls seem to have been the main victims of the allocation process for
St Albans schools last year.
Finally I feel that that waiting lists need revisiting – it is unfair that those on the lists since March can
be sent down a list as happened to us several times by people ‘moving into the area’ or changing their
mind. Priority must be given to those who are there first.
You may also increase your free travel liabilities as shortest safe walking distance still has to be used
for the determination of that entitlement. Good luck in explaining to parents how it can be that HCC
having given you priority for a place on distance criteria then refuses to meet travel costs although
your child is beyond the statutory walking distance on the grounds that the school was the parent's
choice. It means of course that poor families will in practice be denied choice in favour of their better
off neighbours. So the LA may wish to give some careful thought to how place priority and travel
policies interact.
As a governor may I plead again that County officers refrain from using unexplained acronyms. You
may know what "HASSH" and "PHF" are but even as someone involved in education I do not
(paragraph 3 of your letter). I am also unclear what "PAN London group" is. Is it a pan-London group
or a Planned Admission Number London group (PAN is defined in the accompanying document at
para 4.2.1). I accept that most readers should manage DCSF, CE & RC but will most understand VA,
VC and Fdn? If they do I doubt that they will not understand the subtle differences between VA and
VC. I know it is tedious but please remember many of your governor readers will be much less familiar
with education jargon than you or I.
Thank you for your letter of 2 November with enclosure. I am responding as chair of governors of
Watford Infant School & Nursery although I do have some professional interest in education.
First may I wish you good fortune in administering the system however it works out. Rather you than
me.
I agree that "as the crow flies" is the more transparent method for measuring distance home to school
(provided you are clear where the front doors are) and easier to administer but my experience is it still
creates anomalies. In particular where there are few places to cross railway lines, major roads and
rivers children who actually have to travel considerable distances get priority over those with more
modest travel needs. Rural areas may present similar difficulties How does this dovetail with
Hertfordshire's commitments on carbon reduction?
You may also increase your free travel liabilities as shortest safe walking distance still has to be used
for the determination of that entitlement. Good luck in explaining to parents how it can be that HCC
having given you priority for a place on distance criteria then refuses to meet travel costs although
your child is beyond the statutory walking distance on the grounds that the school was the parent's
choice. It means of course that poor families will in practice be denied choice in favour of their better
off neighbours. So the LA may wish to give some careful thought to how place priority and travel
policies interact.
As a governor may I plead again that County officers refrain from using unexplained acronyms. You
may know what "HASSH" and "PHF" are but even as someone involved in education I do not
(paragraph 3 of your letter). I am also unclear what "PAN London group" is. Is it a pan-London group
or a Planned Admission Number London group (PAN is defined in the accompanying document at
para 4.2.1). I accept that most readers should manage DCSF, CE & RC but will most understand VA,
VC and Fdn? If they do I doubt that they will not understand the subtle differences between VA and
VC. I know it is tedious but please remember many of your governor readers will be much less familiar
with education jargon than you or I.
31
Consultation on Admission arrangements for 2011-12
Responses by Question - All Responses (Email, Postal, Online Survey)
I) General comments and responses
Turning to the draft scheme may I suggest that the footnote to paragraph 3 misses the point. It is when
the applications for the children listed in the footnote need to be made that is relevant, not the birth
dates of the children. The "normal" admission round is defined by the timetable for that process for
each September and I think that is what the footnote should explain.
You say in paragraph 4.1.2 that the information on parental preference "may" by made available at
appeal. I cannot think why you would want to keep it secret and I would think your chances of doing so
are remote. In any event it is the parents' appeal and they know what their preferences were. So I
think "will" would better reflect what will happen.
In 4.1.3 you say "The form can also be used" I think you mean "must also be used" since elsewhere
you say the form is the only accepted form of application.
In paragraph 4.1.5 you mention 10 school days (and similar references elsewhere). That works during
term time but are you saying that someone moving into Hertfordshire in late July will not be offered a
place until some time in September? That cannot be in the educational interest of the child. I would not
like to be the relevant ward councillor nor can I imagine the local government ombudsman being
impressed with such an arrangement. I think these time limits might need to be a bit more
sophisticated. May be a chart as an appendix?
I found paragraph 4.2 confusing; not helped by an obvious lack of proof reading of the first sentence of
paragraph 4.2.2
I think paragraph 4.2.4 would be clearer if it were spelt out who is receiving which form from whom as
in some cases it is the school from the parent and in others the school from the LA.
I think paragraph 4.2 onwards raises a general legal point. Unless there has been a recent change in
the law PAN applies to the normal intake year only. It has no legal force in relation to any other year
group. (Not something I think is very sensible but then they are not my rules). Otherwise the control on
admission relates to the total numbers on roll and the capacity of the buildings. My understanding of
the relevant case law is that there are no legal grounds to refuse admission if the NOR has not
reached the capacity of the premises whether or not this would make a mess of the school's
organisation. (Infant classes are an exception because you can argue unreasonable public
expenditure if the class size would go above 30). So I do not see how you can base your system for
overriding parental preference on a year specific pupil count however sensible that might be. Of
course it will work provided you are not appealed. However it is the most vulnerable families who will
in general know the law least well and are least likely to appeal.
So I would argue that what you are building is a system that at its heart promotes social division rather
than cohesion and is most likely to work to the disadvantage of the most vulnerable children. I do not
think that is what Hertfordshire should be doing or promoting.
I think the last paragraph of paragraph 4.3.4 should cross reference to paragraph 4.4.4 or make clear
in some other way that an offer of a place at a school will be made.
As drafted the first sentence of paragraph 4.4.4 does not make sense. As a distinction appears to be
being drawn between children already in a Hertfordshire school and others I presume that the first
sentence was intended to say that no offer of a place will be made. If that supposition is correct I
would argue that it is plain wrong. A person currently living in Royston who moves to Watford cannot
possibly leave their child in a school in Royston. Furthermore natural justice must treat them the same
as a Hertfordshire resident whose child currently attends an out county or private school.
I do not see the need for the qualifier in paragraph 4.4.1 after "5 school days". You have already said
that schools are expected to update their information at least once a week. So why not use that latest
updated figure. There is nothing to gain from delay waiting for the school to confirm what it told you
yesterday or what it was going to tell you tomorrow. If the next update changes the position that will be
true whether that information come to you via the regular updating process or a specific enquiry.
32
Consultation on Admission arrangements for 2011-12
Responses by Question - All Responses (Email, Postal, Online Survey)
I) General comments and responses
In either case you will need to decide if you need to change what you have told the parent so far. If the
concern is that some schools will be tardy in telling you about vacancies, fix the system and pester
them every week, not just when there is a possibility of an admission. They will soon get the message.
And if they do not, make sure their SIP knows so he or she can query the quality of leadership and
management.
Finally, does the offer of a place in effect provisionally book the place and is that recorded on the
system? I think it should do to avoid the same place being offered twice. If that is right I think the
scheme detail needs to make that clear. It would also provide an explanation to parents as to why they
have to accept an offer quickly.
I write with reference to the distinctly odd and worrying situation facing children in year 6 in Hitchin
resulting from the admissions policy in Hertfordshire that is in itself a response to the Government’s
own policy. I agree with the policy that the ability to buy a house near a school to gain admission
needs to be addressed, but in Hitchin and North Herts the rules governing admission have, in my
opinion, been wrongly interpreted.
Hitchin has three secondary schools; Hitchin Boys, Hitchin Girls and The Priory School. The Boys and
Girls schools are single sex. Once places have been allocated under special educational needs and
sibling rules, the admission policy for the three schools then diverge. The single sex schools boundary
for admission then expands to quite a ludicrous size, purely because the schools are single sex. We
now have the situation, for example, where pupils in Letchworth and Hitchin are travelling in opposite
directions and not being educated in their own towns.
Each village or town in this expanded catchment area receives an allocation in proportion to the
number of applicants. Villages that do not have secondary schools should be aligned to their nearest
town for the purposes of admission, but I fail to see why a Garden City such as Letchworth and other
towns receive any allocation at all. My reasons for this conclusion are:
• There is no clamour for single sex primary education from the residents of Letchworth and other
towns, so why is there a need to have an expanded catchment area for Hitchin’s two single sex
secondary schools beyond the boundaries of Hitchin and its aligned villages?
• Letchworth has seen fit to close one of its three secondary schools (Norton). If Letchworth requires
places allocated in Hitchin because of a shortage, then this policy was short-sighted in the extreme!
• It is convenient to allow the residents of Letchworth an allocation, because the two remaining
schools (Fearnhill and Highfield) are on the town’s Western border, making it easier for education
authorities to allocate places to Hitchin children. I suspect that this policy would not have been
implemented if these two schools were on the East edge of Letchworth!
• We have children in Hitchin going to school in Letchworth and children in Letchworth making the
opposite journey; perhaps we should plant some more trees along the A505 to reduce the carbon
footprint! These children cannot make this journey on foot.
• Continuity of education is important, but in my opinion continuity of friendship is equally important.
The current rules spread the primary age children of Hitchin over an unnecessarily large area when
they commence secondary education. The probability of attending the same secondary school with a
friend from a Hitchin primary school is unnecessarily reduced.
I offer the following solutions:
• Retain the right for all children in Hitchin and its aligned villages to go to school in Hitchin, in
advance of children from any other town with their own secondary schools.
• If the residents of other towns do not like this policy, then ask local authorities to make schools in
Letchworth, Baldock and elsewhere single-sex.
33
Consultation on Admission arrangements for 2011-12
Responses by Question - All Responses (Email, Postal, Online Survey)
I) General comments and responses
Incidentally, there is a plaque above the front entrance of Hitchin Girls’ School that states among other
things; that the school is for the “education of the girls of Hitchin.” Please canvas the opinion of any
Hitchin parent of any year 6 pupil. This admissions policy is causing significant anxiety and the parents
in Hitchin feel that their rights have been abused and their parental choice significantly restricted.
Please return to first principles and allow the children of Hitchin to attend the school of their choosing
within the boundaries of Hitchin. For the record, I have two children in excellent primary education in
Hitchin (years 2 and 6) and my wife teaches PE at Hitchin Girls’ School.
34