Lola misses a place at her local primary (From Echo)

All parents of children should be offered the chance of their nearest school. If they don't want their child to go to that school then fine. You don't offer someone a school 3 miles away and let people from 3 miles away take a local kids place. Twins in Ramsden had this problem and found out there was kids from over 3 miles away had been offered there local school which was under 80 yards from their front door to the school entrance. They put legal papers in to the council and authorities soon found the twins a place. Why should a kid living next to a school have to travel over 3 miles and a kid 3 mile away travel to another area to take a local kids place. DISGUSTING... The council and authorities should look at where all the accepted kids are coming from and the furthest away must drop out and that's how is should be. Not every parent wants their kids in their nearest school and that fine and must wait for another offer but if a child is under 80 yards from his school gates and wants that school then they must have a place and they must be prioritised.

'He said: “They’re saying we missed the deadline, but we were never sent a letter telling us it was time to apply. It’s been an absolute nightmare.'

Sympathy for the child, - but none I'm afraid, for parents that appear to rely on the Post Office and guesswork, in terms of their children’s education.

“They’re saying we missed the deadline, but we were never sent a letter telling us it was time to apply. It’s been an absolute nightmare."

So why is this in the paper then?? Are we celebrating the fact that they didn't know how the school admission system works after already having two children at school?!!
No sympathy at all, and I'm glad the council are not willing to bend the rules for irresponsible and lazy people. Why should they get preferential treatment?! Some people are so arrogant, not to mention playing the victim card when they are in the wrong!

Their time would now better spent trying to fix the mess themselves rather than running to the papers expecting sympathy for their own mistakes.

richcarol wrote:
All parents of children should be offered the chance of their nearest school. If they don't want their child to go to that school then fine. You don't offer someone a school 3 miles away and let people from 3 miles away take a local kids place. Twins in Ramsden had this problem and found out there was kids from over 3 miles away had been offered there local school which was under 80 yards from their front door to the school entrance. They put legal papers in to the council and authorities soon found the twins a place. Why should a kid living next to a school have to travel over 3 miles and a kid 3 mile away travel to another area to take a local kids place. DISGUSTING... The council and authorities should look at where all the accepted kids are coming from and the furthest away must drop out and that's how is should be. Not every parent wants their kids in their nearest school and that fine and must wait for another offer but if a child is under 80 yards from his school gates and wants that school then they must have a place and they must be prioritised.

But the child hasn't lost her place because it was given to a child further away, she lost her place because the parents didn't make an application in time! It's not the council's responsibility to make sure every child gets a place in the school of their choice, it's the parents!
They should know by now how the system works and f they hadn't received their letter then they should have been contacting the council to find out why, not ignoring it then moaning when it all goes wrong.
All children in the local area have an allocated place at their nearest school, and so do the siblings of pupils already attending, then the next priorities are children with special circumstances, then lastly come the children who just prefer that school. So the fact their child didn't get a place if entirely their own fault, or was the council supposed to guess that they wanted their child to go to school even though legally the child doesn't have to start until the age of 5?!
Not to mention the fact that nursery/pre school WOULD or SHOULD have reminded parents when it was school application time!
Then there's the fact that the council have tried to accommodate their needs by offering her free transport, which she turned down! Personally, I have my suspicions that they turned it down because they are too snobby to send their to a shoebury school, if that's the case then they should have done better at getting their child into the preferred school.

I get the feeling you haven't actually read this story properly before commenting, or surely you would see that the parents haven't been "victimised" or lost out to someone else, they have been silly and lost their place due to their own apathy.

richcarol wrote:
All parents of children should be offered the chance of their nearest school. If they don't want their child to go to that school then fine. You don't offer someone a school 3 miles away and let people from 3 miles away take a local kids place. Twins in Ramsden had this problem and found out there was kids from over 3 miles away had been offered there local school which was under 80 yards from their front door to the school entrance. They put legal papers in to the council and authorities soon found the twins a place. Why should a kid living next to a school have to travel over 3 miles and a kid 3 mile away travel to another area to take a local kids place. DISGUSTING... The council and authorities should look at where all the accepted kids are coming from and the furthest away must drop out and that's how is should be. Not every parent wants their kids in their nearest school and that fine and must wait for another offer but if a child is under 80 yards from his school gates and wants that school then they must have a place and they must be prioritised.

Did you think to read before you write? What your saying has no relevance to this story really. THey would of got priority if they done their forms, simples. They didn't so tough. If the council start making allowances for these two then they will have to make allowances for every idiot that can't be bothered to do things on time.

You are correct up to a point but what I say about a local child must be offered their nearest school or made to use their local school. If all mums do this then there wont be loads of cars on the road between 8.30 and 9.15 and from 2.45 to 3.15 causing road chaos, road rage etc etc. Ive seen these mums late for collecting their kids and drive without care and attention after a hectic day watching Jeremy Kyle, this morning, and loose woman and lying on the sofa. If there husbands saw the way they drive they would take their keys off them. If there kids went to a near local school if possible then they wouldn't be clogging up the roads and i wont mention the way they park their cars and reversing. Carol

meldrew84 wrote:

richcarol wrote:
All parents of children should be offered the chance of their nearest school. If they don't want their child to go to that school then fine. You don't offer someone a school 3 miles away and let people from 3 miles away take a local kids place. Twins in Ramsden had this problem and found out there was kids from over 3 miles away had been offered there local school which was under 80 yards from their front door to the school entrance. They put legal papers in to the council and authorities soon found the twins a place. Why should a kid living next to a school have to travel over 3 miles and a kid 3 mile away travel to another area to take a local kids place. DISGUSTING... The council and authorities should look at where all the accepted kids are coming from and the furthest away must drop out and that's how is should be. Not every parent wants their kids in their nearest school and that fine and must wait for another offer but if a child is under 80 yards from his school gates and wants that school then they must have a place and they must be prioritised.

But the child hasn't lost her place because it was given to a child further away, she lost her place because the parents didn't make an application in time! It's not the council's responsibility to make sure every child gets a place in the school of their choice, it's the parents!
They should know by now how the system works and f they hadn't received their letter then they should have been contacting the council to find out why, not ignoring it then moaning when it all goes wrong.
All children in the local area have an allocated place at their nearest school, and so do the siblings of pupils already attending, then the next priorities are children with special circumstances, then lastly come the children who just prefer that school. So the fact their child didn't get a place if entirely their own fault, or was the council supposed to guess that they wanted their child to go to school even though legally the child doesn't have to start until the age of 5?!
Not to mention the fact that nursery/pre school WOULD or SHOULD have reminded parents when it was school application time!
Then there's the fact that the council have tried to accommodate their needs by offering her free transport, which she turned down! Personally, I have my suspicions that they turned it down because they are too snobby to send their to a shoebury school, if that's the case then they should have done better at getting their child into the preferred school.

I get the feeling you haven't actually read this story properly before commenting, or surely you would see that the parents haven't been "victimised" or lost out to someone else, they have been silly and lost their place due to their own apathy.

it is pointless to argue with an idiot, they tend to drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience

What has happened to the best interest of the child?

It seems the majority of posters here are saying that this illogical situation (which is to the detriment of the child and not in her best interest), is ok - because her parents screwed up.

Great, so how far do we take this? Shall we create a society where we ignore the best interest of children if their parents are not up to scratch? "Sorry little Johnny, your parent's aren't very bright/is depressed/is a junkie/a drunk/in hospital/has no extended family back up etc. so you go to the back of the queue..."

Btw. My comments are by no way a reflection on the parents of Lola. :)

Quote: “The council kindly offered us transport to get her to and from school, but there is no way we would let our four year-old travel in a taxi with a stranger on her own."
-
Why not? Once the child gets to know the drivers they will no longer be stangers.
Besides all drivers will be fully CRB checked and only allowed to drive the child to school once all "safety" conditions have been met.

benfleet101 wrote:
What has happened to the best interest of the child?

It seems the majority of posters here are saying that this illogical situation (which is to the detriment of the child and not in her best interest), is ok - because her parents screwed up.

Great, so how far do we take this? Shall we create a society where we ignore the best interest of children if their parents are not up to scratch? "Sorry little Johnny, your parent's aren't very bright/is depressed/is a junkie/a drunk/in hospital/has no extended family back up etc. so you go to the back of the queue..."

The only illogical thing about this story is that after already having two children in the school system that parents have played the "we didn't know any better" card. They are expecting preferential treatment and it's not acceptable. As long as the child is being offered a school placement then her best interests have been met, it doesn't matter which school, so long as it's a school.
The point people are making is don't mess up then expect to pass responsibility and get let off. So let's not turn this into some NSPCC debate, because that is not what this story is about. Your comment is about as irrelevant as the person banging on about parking and school run traffic!

It always used to be, that children went to the nearest school, which meant that the majority could walk.

Then parents were given the choice. which often led to them choosing what they thought was the best school for their offspring, or one where their friends went. Often meaning a long drive to get there.

The result being that local children were sometimes excluded.

I know one family who actually moved house, so they came into the catchment area of a school they believed to be the best in the area.

How desperate can you get ?

Don't worry. I'm sure the council will sort it out once they get a bit of free grub in their bellies.

meldrew84 wrote:

benfleet101 wrote:
What has happened to the best interest of the child?

It seems the majority of posters here are saying that this illogical situation (which is to the detriment of the child and not in her best interest), is ok - because her parents screwed up.

Great, so how far do we take this? Shall we create a society where we ignore the best interest of children if their parents are not up to scratch? "Sorry little Johnny, your parent's aren't very bright/is depressed/is a junkie/a drunk/in hospital/has no extended family back up etc. so you go to the back of the queue..."

The only illogical thing about this story is that after already having two children in the school system that parents have played the "we didn't know any better" card. They are expecting preferential treatment and it's not acceptable. As long as the child is being offered a school placement then her best interests have been met, it doesn't matter which school, so long as it's a school.
The point people are making is don't mess up then expect to pass responsibility and get let off. So let's not turn this into some NSPCC debate, because that is not what this story is about. Your comment is about as irrelevant as the person banging on about parking and school run traffic!

My comments have nothing to do with turning it into a NSPCC debate, so please don't try and introduce one. You do seem blind to the bigger picture however. This child has two siblings already at her local school which is in walking distance from her home. She is a quiet child who does not make friends easily. She is only four years old and should be going to school in the community she is growing up in, that is what will help her overall well being and consequently her education. She should not segregated from the rest of her family and neighbourhood friends and shipped out, on her own, at a huge cost per week to the education budget. (Just how much will a taxi x 2 per day cost?) There is more to producing a well balanced, productive adult than just the provision of a classroom. Regardless of her parents not doing things in the prescribed manner, for whatever reason, if the system is too rigid and relies on parents keeping informed and acting when necessary, then some children will lose out, through no fault of their own.

All 9 of me wrote:

meldrew84 wrote:

richcarol wrote:
All parents of children should be offered the chance of their nearest school. If they don't want their child to go to that school then fine. You don't offer someone a school 3 miles away and let people from 3 miles away take a local kids place. Twins in Ramsden had this problem and found out there was kids from over 3 miles away had been offered there local school which was under 80 yards from their front door to the school entrance. They put legal papers in to the council and authorities soon found the twins a place. Why should a kid living next to a school have to travel over 3 miles and a kid 3 mile away travel to another area to take a local kids place. DISGUSTING... The council and authorities should look at where all the accepted kids are coming from and the furthest away must drop out and that's how is should be. Not every parent wants their kids in their nearest school and that fine and must wait for another offer but if a child is under 80 yards from his school gates and wants that school then they must have a place and they must be prioritised.

But the child hasn't lost her place because it was given to a child further away, she lost her place because the parents didn't make an application in time! It's not the council's responsibility to make sure every child gets a place in the school of their choice, it's the parents!
They should know by now how the system works and f they hadn't received their letter then they should have been contacting the council to find out why, not ignoring it then moaning when it all goes wrong.
All children in the local area have an allocated place at their nearest school, and so do the siblings of pupils already attending, then the next priorities are children with special circumstances, then lastly come the children who just prefer that school. So the fact their child didn't get a place if entirely their own fault, or was the council supposed to guess that they wanted their child to go to school even though legally the child doesn't have to start until the age of 5?!
Not to mention the fact that nursery/pre school WOULD or SHOULD have reminded parents when it was school application time!
Then there's the fact that the council have tried to accommodate their needs by offering her free transport, which she turned down! Personally, I have my suspicions that they turned it down because they are too snobby to send their to a shoebury school, if that's the case then they should have done better at getting their child into the preferred school.

I get the feeling you haven't actually read this story properly before commenting, or surely you would see that the parents haven't been "victimised" or lost out to someone else, they have been silly and lost their place due to their own apathy.

it is pointless to argue with an idiot, they tend to drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience

What was the point of that? There is really no need to be rude, even if you don't agree with the opinions of the poster. It makes you appear unkind and insensitive.

benfleet101 wrote:

meldrew84 wrote:

benfleet101 wrote:
What has happened to the best interest of the child?

It seems the majority of posters here are saying that this illogical situation (which is to the detriment of the child and not in her best interest), is ok - because her parents screwed up.

Great, so how far do we take this? Shall we create a society where we ignore the best interest of children if their parents are not up to scratch? "Sorry little Johnny, your parent's aren't very bright/is depressed/is a junkie/a drunk/in hospital/has no extended family back up etc. so you go to the back of the queue..."

The only illogical thing about this story is that after already having two children in the school system that parents have played the "we didn't know any better" card. They are expecting preferential treatment and it's not acceptable. As long as the child is being offered a school placement then her best interests have been met, it doesn't matter which school, so long as it's a school.
The point people are making is don't mess up then expect to pass responsibility and get let off. So let's not turn this into some NSPCC debate, because that is not what this story is about. Your comment is about as irrelevant as the person banging on about parking and school run traffic!

My comments have nothing to do with turning it into a NSPCC debate, so please don't try and introduce one. You do seem blind to the bigger picture however. This child has two siblings already at her local school which is in walking distance from her home. She is a quiet child who does not make friends easily. She is only four years old and should be going to school in the community she is growing up in, that is what will help her overall well being and consequently her education. She should not segregated from the rest of her family and neighbourhood friends and shipped out, on her own, at a huge cost per week to the education budget. (Just how much will a taxi x 2 per day cost?) There is more to producing a well balanced, productive adult than just the provision of a classroom. Regardless of her parents not doing things in the prescribed manner, for whatever reason, if the system is too rigid and relies on parents keeping informed and acting when necessary, then some children will lose out, through no fault of their own.

But if the place has been given to another child (because in the councils mind these parents do not wish to apply for a place at this time) and there are no other places left are you suggesting the school should pick an unlucky name out of the hat and say "sorry your child can't come to our school now even though they have attended our induction and you have been planning on them coming to this school for months because we have to give this place to a child whose parents didn't even bother to apply for it at the correct time" ?? Ludicrous.
Also, it's a parents responsibility to bring their child up, not the councils. To even suggest someone who thinks the authorities shouldn't clean up other peoples messes all the time is "blind to the bigger picture" astounds me. The bigger picture is that people in this country need to man the hell up and take responsibility for their own lives, and their children! Not keep relying on other people wiping their arses for them! The parents have made a joke of themselves even coming to the papers, I certainly wouldn't be broadcasting the fact I was too stupid or aloof to remember my THIRD child needs an application made at their prospective school!! Jeeeez.

I dont care if they missed the post, the deadline as people pointed out it was their dumb fault and I dont really care. But my opinion is that kids should be offered their nearest school automatically and if they don't want to accept it then they must wait until everyone has decided and then sort out the kids out the area who want different schools miles away. See what and how many spaces are left and if there is too many kids applying for the spaces, take it on next nearest and then the next nearest etc etc. I am against kids going to schools out of the area example 2 / 3 mile journeys. I know some schools are ssshit and we all want better for our kids, but in my opinion to take a kids place by people out of the area is not acceptable to me. I expect some of you to disagree and i expect the same abusive from the idiots that are abusive

benfleet101 wrote:

All 9 of me wrote:

meldrew84 wrote:

richcarol wrote:
All parents of children should be offered the chance of their nearest school. If they don't want their child to go to that school then fine. You don't offer someone a school 3 miles away and let people from 3 miles away take a local kids place. Twins in Ramsden had this problem and found out there was kids from over 3 miles away had been offered there local school which was under 80 yards from their front door to the school entrance. They put legal papers in to the council and authorities soon found the twins a place. Why should a kid living next to a school have to travel over 3 miles and a kid 3 mile away travel to another area to take a local kids place. DISGUSTING... The council and authorities should look at where all the accepted kids are coming from and the furthest away must drop out and that's how is should be. Not every parent wants their kids in their nearest school and that fine and must wait for another offer but if a child is under 80 yards from his school gates and wants that school then they must have a place and they must be prioritised.

But the child hasn't lost her place because it was given to a child further away, she lost her place because the parents didn't make an application in time! It's not the council's responsibility to make sure every child gets a place in the school of their choice, it's the parents!
They should know by now how the system works and f they hadn't received their letter then they should have been contacting the council to find out why, not ignoring it then moaning when it all goes wrong.
All children in the local area have an allocated place at their nearest school, and so do the siblings of pupils already attending, then the next priorities are children with special circumstances, then lastly come the children who just prefer that school. So the fact their child didn't get a place if entirely their own fault, or was the council supposed to guess that they wanted their child to go to school even though legally the child doesn't have to start until the age of 5?!
Not to mention the fact that nursery/pre school WOULD or SHOULD have reminded parents when it was school application time!
Then there's the fact that the council have tried to accommodate their needs by offering her free transport, which she turned down! Personally, I have my suspicions that they turned it down because they are too snobby to send their to a shoebury school, if that's the case then they should have done better at getting their child into the preferred school.

I get the feeling you haven't actually read this story properly before commenting, or surely you would see that the parents haven't been "victimised" or lost out to someone else, they have been silly and lost their place due to their own apathy.

it is pointless to argue with an idiot, they tend to drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience

What was the point of that? There is really no need to be rude, even if you don't agree with the opinions of the poster. It makes you appear unkind and insensitive.

so sue me, you obviously havent read most of the drivel and inanity that this idiot posts on a regular basis.............

they do look like wrong 'uns. borstal might be more appropriate. asbo's the farkin daddy

APR wrote:
It always used to be, that children went to the nearest school, which meant that the majority could walk.

Then parents were given the choice. which often led to them choosing what they thought was the best school for their offspring, or one where their friends went. Often meaning a long drive to get there.

The result being that local children were sometimes excluded.

I know one family who actually moved house, so they came into the catchment area of a school they believed to be the best in the area.

How desperate can you get ?

That is not desperation, it is called trying to give your child the best start (you believe) possible.
Infant School choice is a MAJOR thing as it can have positive/negative results on the rest of a childs life, with education of course, but more importantly with life skills such as confidence, ability to make friends, trusting of adults (apart from family) and to gain much needed independence.
"Going to the nearest school" is not the answer, parents making informed decisions based on suitability for a particular child is important, and if it means moving house then surely this is a huge sacrifice for the sake of your child. Just as it should be.
I bet if your nearest school was infamous for poor results, poor disciplined children etc your view would not be the same.

huedash wrote:

APR wrote:
It always used to be, that children went to the nearest school, which meant that the majority could walk.

Then parents were given the choice. which often led to them choosing what they thought was the best school for their offspring, or one where their friends went. Often meaning a long drive to get there.

The result being that local children were sometimes excluded.

I know one family who actually moved house, so they came into the catchment area of a school they believed to be the best in the area.

How desperate can you get ?

That is not desperation, it is called trying to give your child the best start (you believe) possible.
Infant School choice is a MAJOR thing as it can have positive/negative results on the rest of a childs life, with education of course, but more importantly with life skills such as confidence, ability to make friends, trusting of adults (apart from family) and to gain much needed independence.
"Going to the nearest school" is not the answer, parents making informed decisions based on suitability for a particular child is important, and if it means moving house then surely this is a huge sacrifice for the sake of your child. Just as it should be.
I bet if your nearest school was infamous for poor results, poor disciplined children etc your view would not be the same.

If it's that important then perhaps the parents in the article should've made sure they knew and understood the admissions procedure fully.

Steve H wrote:

huedash wrote:

APR wrote:
It always used to be, that children went to the nearest school, which meant that the majority could walk.

Then parents were given the choice. which often led to them choosing what they thought was the best school for their offspring, or one where their friends went. Often meaning a long drive to get there.

The result being that local children were sometimes excluded.

I know one family who actually moved house, so they came into the catchment area of a school they believed to be the best in the area.

How desperate can you get ?

That is not desperation, it is called trying to give your child the best start (you believe) possible.
Infant School choice is a MAJOR thing as it can have positive/negative results on the rest of a childs life, with education of course, but more importantly with life skills such as confidence, ability to make friends, trusting of adults (apart from family) and to gain much needed independence.
"Going to the nearest school" is not the answer, parents making informed decisions based on suitability for a particular child is important, and if it means moving house then surely this is a huge sacrifice for the sake of your child. Just as it should be.
I bet if your nearest school was infamous for poor results, poor disciplined children etc your view would not be the same.

If it's that important then perhaps the parents in the article should've made sure they knew and understood the admissions procedure fully.

You are spot on! It is that important and the parents have the ultimate responsibility. They should have been much more aware if it WAS that important to them.

I think the needs of the child should come first, it is not her fault that her parents got it wrong or the system hasn't work properly for years. Maybe some of you can remember how the first year at school was for you and did you have your siblings already there it can make a big difference to a child.
They are young people not a number on an application form.

huedash wrote:

Steve H wrote:

huedash wrote:

APR wrote:
It always used to be, that children went to the nearest school, which meant that the majority could walk.

Then parents were given the choice. which often led to them choosing what they thought was the best school for their offspring, or one where their friends went. Often meaning a long drive to get there.

The result being that local children were sometimes excluded.

I know one family who actually moved house, so they came into the catchment area of a school they believed to be the best in the area.

How desperate can you get ?

That is not desperation, it is called trying to give your child the best start (you believe) possible.
Infant School choice is a MAJOR thing as it can have positive/negative results on the rest of a childs life, with education of course, but more importantly with life skills such as confidence, ability to make friends, trusting of adults (apart from family) and to gain much needed independence.
"Going to the nearest school" is not the answer, parents making informed decisions based on suitability for a particular child is important, and if it means moving house then surely this is a huge sacrifice for the sake of your child. Just as it should be.
I bet if your nearest school was infamous for poor results, poor disciplined children etc your view would not be the same.

If it's that important then perhaps the parents in the article should've made sure they knew and understood the admissions procedure fully.

You are spot on! It is that important and the parents have the ultimate responsibility. They should have been much more aware if it WAS that important to them.

Obviously it WAS that important, why else run bleating to The Echo?

Is this newsworthy?

No, didn't think so.

this story offers a perfect insight into the lives of the younger generation of today . . . always looking for someone else to blame.

To the parents of this child - look at your own shortcomings and stop looking for others to wipe your bums for you

Steve H wrote:

huedash wrote:

Steve H wrote:

huedash wrote:

APR wrote:
It always used to be, that children went to the nearest school, which meant that the majority could walk.

Then parents were given the choice. which often led to them choosing what they thought was the best school for their offspring, or one where their friends went. Often meaning a long drive to get there.

The result being that local children were sometimes excluded.

I know one family who actually moved house, so they came into the catchment area of a school they believed to be the best in the area.

How desperate can you get ?

That is not desperation, it is called trying to give your child the best start (you believe) possible.
Infant School choice is a MAJOR thing as it can have positive/negative results on the rest of a childs life, with education of course, but more importantly with life skills such as confidence, ability to make friends, trusting of adults (apart from family) and to gain much needed independence.
"Going to the nearest school" is not the answer, parents making informed decisions based on suitability for a particular child is important, and if it means moving house then surely this is a huge sacrifice for the sake of your child. Just as it should be.
I bet if your nearest school was infamous for poor results, poor disciplined children etc your view would not be the same.

If it's that important then perhaps the parents in the article should've made sure they knew and understood the admissions procedure fully.

You are spot on! It is that important and the parents have the ultimate responsibility. They should have been much more aware if it WAS that important to them.

Obviously it WAS that important, why else run bleating to The Echo?

Because they feel that is everyone else's fault/responsibility but their own and in bleating to the Echo they are looking for the sympathy vote (note the embedded text about a difficult pregnancy) as justification that they are not to blame for the situation.

Quote " ....I bet if your nearest school was infamous for poor results, poor disciplined children etc your view would not be the same....."

Of course everyone wants the best for their kids, but harking back to when I went to Junior school, in the dim and distant past, children went to their nearest school as a matter of course.
That was when all children walked to school, so they had little choice.