Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hello,


I have just discovered an optional 'Reasons for Preference' section on the secondary school admissions form.


It says 'Only use the space below if you wish to give any reasons for your preference for this school. These might include religious, philosophical or any other reasons. Please do not use this box to enter any exceptional, medical or social reasons or sibling (brother or sister) information.'


Is anyone able to explain to me how this information is used in relation to the individual school's admissions criteria?


If you have gone through the process, I would be grateful if you could tell me the type of information you put in that section, if you chose to complete it.


Many thanks

Apologies if I get this wrong, but when you apply for your preferences NOT CHOICES on the form it is the council that eventually allocate you your place not the school. Therefore if you have religious reasons for wanting a school, you are not required to send the documents (priest letters etc) with the council form. It will be the school that will require those documents that you send separately.


After you have made your preferences all of the names are then given to all the schools on the preferences, the school will then rank them to there admissions criteria, faith, lottery, distance etc. They then hand back all the names in the rank back to the council and then the council are responsible for the allocation. I am not quite sure how that part works, but assuming that it's some kind of complex algorithm.


If in a situation where you may not get your preference I imagine that this box is used to avoid (for arguments sake) an athiest being sent to faith school, assuming that the faith school was undersubscribed and that the parents had not put down realistic choices.


Having gone through this, I used the opportunity to validate my reasons for wanting my son to go his school as we were unable to put any other evidence together to either the school or the council.


Saying that i dont know if it made any difference and it was a very stressful time. So take all the boxes you can and fill them in, it can only help.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • It’s a 4 year old on a bike do you really think he is going 15mph. Grown adults complaining about a child who probably isn’t able to string a few sentences together says a lot about the people in this forum. If this member was hit from behind the father was probably walking behind the bike so I don’t get the point of stretching out an overreaction from a child in Nursery bumping into you. Grow up Obviously a four year old should be cycling on the pavement.
    • Malumbu,  if none of us were there, does that mean that nobody should post anything on here unless they have witnesses from the EDF? Why would someone post something like this if it  wasn't true? This is not about whether children should or should not be cycling on the pavement. There are specific issues. a) the child was out of sight of the person supposed to be caring for him b) he appears to have been  either not looking where he was going or was out of control of the bike c) if he did see that he was about to hit someone  he apparently did not give them any kind of warning  d)  a person was unexpectedly hit from behind whilst just walking along, which in my view makes him a victim e) does the title of the thread really matter as the issue was described in the first post?  f) nobody is blaming the child, they are blaming the person who should have been watching him g) do you really think it was acceptable for that person to find the situation funny? The OP was not complaining about the 4 year old. They were complaining about an adult's lack of supervision of a 4 year old who was not capable of riding a bike and who hit someone from behind with no warning. Also, apart from reading the OP more carefully, perhaps also choose your words more carefully. Jobless? Lunatic? Charming.
    • Completely jobless and lunatic behaviour coming on a forum and complaining about a 4 year old and the child’s bike riding skills. Honestly grow up
    • I have to say, I too am upset about the passing of DulwichFox. He was a real local character, who unlike me, managed to stick with ED despite all of the nauseous yuppification of the last three decades. R.I.P to foxy    Louisa. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...