©2020 by Fair Admissions for Langley Schools. Proudly created with Wix.com

The LPLT consultation ended on 

24th January 2020.

We are a group of like-minded individuals campaigning within our community to oppose plans by the Langley Park Learning Trust to create a feeder schools admissions system to both Langley Park School for Girls and Langley Park School for Boys in the London Borough of Bromley, Kent.

 

Browse through our site to understand our views, and see what we have been doing to raise awareness in Bromley and beyond.

81479615_10156391542071841_7183038751919
 

Since we launched the website we have been asked many times about the topic of catchment areas,

and how feeder schools are likely to have an impact on current proximities.


Take a look at our supporter Rob's YouTube videos below - they explain everything so well. 

 
 

HOW WE HAVE RESPONDED

The Langley Park Learning Trust (LPLT, “the Trust”) are consulting on a change to the way they admit pupils to their two secondary schools: Langley Park School for Boys (LPSB) and Langley Park School for Girls (LPSG).

There are two main proposals.

The first is to name Langley Park Primary School (LPP) as a feeder school to the secondary schools. The second proposal is to name all three primary schools in the Trust (LPP, Clare House and Hawes Down) as ‘feeder’ schools. Children attending feeder schools will receive priority over children attending other primary schools. The remaining places will be allocated to children from the other primary schools, based on the normal ‘proximity’ criteria.

The consultation also seeks views on other aspects of the admissions policy, regarding children of teachers in the Trust, and defintions of ‘sibling’ and ‘home address'. 


Below we have set out the questions one by one and noted how those opposed to shrinking ‘catchment’ areas (and the associated negative effects) in this group have responded.


Please note if you do want to use this to guide your responses, that its

always better to respond in your own words, giving priority to those issues that matter most to you.



OVERSUBSCRIPTION CRITERIA


Children of staff (Primary Schools)

What is your view of the proposal to give priority to the children of staff employed at the primary schools in the school's admission arrangements?

Disagree.

With children of teachers from five schools gaining automatic access, this will significantly decrease the availability of places available to the rest of the community and shrink the ‘catchment’ areas, with significant negative effects on the community. 


Children of staff (Secondary Schools)

What is your view of the proposal to give priority to the children of staff employed at the secondary schools in the school's admission arrangements?

Agree.

The policy of not discriminating against children of the opposite sex to the school at which the parent teaches does not seem unfair.

Feeder Schools (Secondary Schools)

What is your view of the proposal to give priority to the children attending Clare House Primary School priority in the admission arrangements for both secondary schools?

Disagree.


What is your view of the proposal to give priority to the children attending Hawes

Down Primary School priority in the admission arrangements for both secondary schools?

Disagree.

What is your view of the proposal to give priority to the children attending Langley

Park Primary School priority in the admission arrangements for both secondary schools?

Disagree.


Either version of this policy (option A - LPP alone, or option B - all three schools) would significantly impact on places available to children attending non-Trust primary schools, with many negative effects on those children, the wider community, and the environment.


Option A might seem to have less impact on the community, but it has unique problems. First, once the principle of feeder schools is established within the trust, it will be easy to implement the policy for other trust schools next year.  Second, Option A discriminates against other pupils within the trust.



OTHER KEY CHANGES

Definition of Sibling.

What is your view of the proposed new definition of a sibling in the admission arrangements for all schools in the Trust?

Neutral.


Definition of Child's Home Address.

What is your view of the proposed new definition of the child's home address in the admission arrangements for all schools in the Trust?

Neutral.


Tie Braker.

What is your view of the proposed new tie breaker in the admission arrangements for all schools in the Trust?

Positive.

Where two children live the same distance from school, a random draw is more appropriate than either ‘surname’ or ‘door number’ (in a block of flats).

Year 12 Published Admission Numbers (PANs).

What is your view of the proposed new published admission number (PAN) for external candidates for Year 12 in the

admission arrangements for Langley Park School for Boys?

Neutral.

What is your view of the proposed new published admission number (PAN) for

external candidates for Year 12 in the admission arrangements for Langley Park

School for Girls?

Neutral.



OTHER COMMENTS OR OBSERVATIONS

The final section of the form is an opportunity to set out the negative consequences of the policy.

We have mentioned:

● Shrinking catchments will deprive many local parents of any choice

● The knock-on effect of small catchments at other schools will mean that many

non-Trust children will find themselves unable to attend any local school

● The policy discriminates against poorer children, which is directly against the

Department for Education policy to tackle social mobility

● The environmental damage due to more children travelling by car to school

● The safety issue due to more children travelling further distances

● The negative effect on non-Trust primary schools, who may see applications drop

due to no fault of their own.

● The divisive nature of the policy, which contrasts with the Trust’s aim of playing a

positive role in the community.

● The fact that so many people oppose the plans: the local MP, local councillors, the London Borough of Bromley, the other local Multi Academy Trusts (MATs), teachers’ unions, Park Langley Residents Association, and local environmentalist groups.

● The misleading and incomplete nature of the consultation document itself, which

does not take into account sibling admissions when presenting the new combined figure of 280 places available to non-trust primary school children.

● None of the reasons given in the consultation document are persuasive of the need to change policy. The reason for naming of ‘feeder’ schools is therefore neither transparent or reasonable.

 
This site was designed with the
.com
website builder. Create your website today.
Start Now