Schools Adjudicator's decision - Nigel Martin

DETERMINATION
Case reference:
Objectors:
Admission Authority:
ADA/001574 and ADA/001624
Parents & Durham County Admissions Forum
Durham County Council
Date of decision: 15 July 2009
Determination
In accordance with section 88H(4) of the School Standards and
Framework Act 1998, I uphold the objections lodged by parents and the
Admissions Forum.
I determine that for September 2010, 2011 and 2012 admissions, the
oversubscription criteria for Community and Voluntary Controlled
Schools maintained by Durham County Council, including Durham
Johnston School, should be as set out in annex 2 to this determination.
The Referral
1. The parents referred an objection to the Adjudicator about the admission
arrangements (“the arrangements”) for Durham Johnston (“the School”), a
community secondary, for September 2010. Shortly afterwards the County
Durham Admissions Forum referred a similar objection to the
arrangements for the same school. The oversubscription criteria as
determined by the admission authority are set out in annex 1. The
objection is to the decision to give priority to children attending certain
feeder schools to the disadvantage of children for whom the school is
nearer.
Jurisdiction
2. These arrangements were determined under section 88C of the School
Standards and Framework Act 1998 (“the Act”) by Durham County Council
(“the LEA”), which is the admission authority for the school. The first
parental objection was submitted on 28 th April 2009; other parents
subsequently associated themselves with it citing similar grounds. The
Admissions Forum’s decision to make a formal objection was made at its
meeting on 2 nd June and communicated to me by letter from the Chair on
9 th June. I am satisfied that these objections have been properly referred
to me in accordance with section 88J(2) of the Act, and that they fall within
my jurisdiction.

Procedure
3. In coming to my conclusions, I have had full regard to the Act and
Regulations made thereunder, the Schools Admissions Code (“the Code”)
and all the evidence presented so far as it is relevant to the objection. I
have also had regard to the relevant provisions of the Sex Discrimination
Act 1975; the Race Relations Act 1976; the Disability Discrimination Act
1995; and the Human Rights Act 1998.
4. The documents I have considered in reaching my decision include:
• the Parents’ letters of objection of 28 th April and 12 th May;
• the Admissions Forum’s letter of objection and supporting
documents;
• the response from the Local Authority to the objection and
supporting documentation;
• Further representations from parents and members of the
community (including Durham County Councillors) in response
to my invitation to comment;
• the Council’s booklet for parents seeking admission to schools in
the area in September 2009;
• Maps of the area identifying relevant schools;
• The determination made by the then Chief Adjudicator following
previous objections to the admissions arrangements of the same
school (ADA/001246 -1249, 1267 & 1279; 9 th July 2008).
• Notes of a public meeting held by the former Chief Adjudicator
and other papers relating to those cases.
5. I have also taken account of information received during a meeting I
convened on 19 th June at Durham County Hall and a tour of the areas
serving the School and its proposed feeder primary schools. The meeting
was attended by the objectors (a parent and the Admissions Forum) and
representatives of the County Council and the School.
6. I became aware that, whilst this objection had been initiated by some
parents, on the evidence of the previous adjudication, there were likely to
be other parents who took a contrary view. I therefore sent a letter via
‘pupil post’ in the named feeder primary schools inviting comments on the
objection.
7. By the closing date I specified there had been 59 responses. Of these:
• 46 were clearly in favour of the feeder primary criterion, giving
reasons which have been repeated many times (e.g. historical
promises, being misled by the council, majority of consultation
responses in favour of feeders, community cohesion, disadvantage
to rural areas, keeping friends together through the traumatic
transfer, etc).
• 2 were against the feeder primary criterion, for reasons similar to
the parental objectors.

• 3 were framed in such a way that it was not clear whether they
supported the feeder primaries or not although they alluded to
some of the issues mentioned by many of the other respondents.
• 3 were replies on behalf of the organised groups which had
participated in the previous adjudication (all in favour of feeder
primaries).
• 1 was from the local MP (in favour of feeder primaries).
• 4 made comments about other aspects of the arrangements (1
objected to the sibling link criterion, 3 objected to the fact that the
distance tie break measured distance from the feeder primariy
rather than from Durham Johnston School).
8. I have taken these comments into account. Some further responses
arrived after the closing date including a letter from Shincliffe Parish
Council and I have also taken these into account.
9. In addition to investigating the matters raised by the objector(s) I have also
reviewed the admissions arrangements as a whole and considered
whether I should use my power, under section 88J(2) of the Act. I am
using my powers under the Act to make further changes to the
arrangements.
Context
Background
10. Durham Johnston School is a large, popular secondary school on the
outskirts of Durham. It serves an area within the City and a number of
villages to the South. The school is (until the end of the current school
year) based on two sites: a main site at Crossgate Moor and an annex at
Whinney Hill. In 2005, it was agreed to close the Whinney Hill site and
embark on a major building project to allow all the teaching to be
consolidated on the Crossgate Moor site. The building work is now
complete and the school will vacate the Whinney Hill site before
September 2009.
11. Up to the current year (for admission in September 2009), with the
exception of Durham Johnston, secondary schools in the County have had
admission arrangements that, after children in public care, were mainly
based on giving priority to children living in ‘associated transport areas’.
These are defined as ‘an area which is over two miles from the nearest
school and from which the Authority provides designated transport to the
preferred school in order to limit travel costs.’ The tie-breaker was ‘Pupils
who live nearest to the preferred school’. Distance is assessed using a
Geographic Information System to measure the shortest walking route.
Routes are measured from the nearest entrance of a house or flat to the
nearest school entrance.
12. Since the early 1990s, the admission arrangements for Durham Johnston

have been different. Durham Johnston did not give priority to children in
associated transport areas but (after children in public care) gave priority
to ‘children for whom Durham Johnston is the nearest suitable school’.
The public notice in 2005 announcing the consolidation onto a single site
said that the admission arrangements would ‘remain the same’. However,
in the autumn of 2006, the governing body asked that the arrangements
should be changed because it realised that the closure of Whinney Hill
would mean that the school would no longer be the nearest for children
living in certain villages that had historically sent children to the School.
They asked that these areas be designated ‘associated transport areas’.
13. In April 2007, the County Council decided that a review should be
conducted and in April 2008 the Cabinet considered a paper from the
Director of Children’s services, which supported the view of the Admission
Forum. It said that the arrangements for Durham Johnston should be
brought into line with other County schools but no new areas of associated
transport be created. The practical effect of the absence of associated
transport areas would be that the tie breaker of distance would become the
operative criterion for most children. On 14 April 2008 the County Council
Cabinet decided that there should be areas of associated transport for the
school and that those areas should include Brandon, Bowburn, Langley
Moor, Park Hill Estate, Haugh Hall, Meadowfield, Browney, Shincliffe and
High Shincliffe. The determined arrangements reflected that decision.
The 2008 Objections and Determination
14. Objections were lodged by parents who lived closer to the school than
those who lived in the associated transport areas. They said that Durham
Johnston was the closest school to their homes but not the closest school
to the associated transport areas. They said that there was no logic in the
County Council’s position. Transport costs would be increased by having
to take children from the associated transport areas to Durham Johnston
and that it was not fair that the views of parents who live in those areas
should be regarded as more important than those of parents who live
closer to the school.
15. The County Council’s response was that the communities in the
associated transport areas have a traditional association with the school.
The Whinney Hill site is their closest school. Undertakings have been
given that children from the associated transport areas would still have
access. There was no reason why the school should not come into line
with other schools in the County, most of which have associated transport
areas as part of their arrangements.
16. In his consideration of the case, the former Chief Adjudicator noted that a
number of objectors had been highly critical of the consultation process. It
was apparent that the process had been bedevilled by terms being used
without definition in contexts where different groups of parents could easily
be misled. For example: it was not clear that, although it had been said
that the admission arrangements would ‘remain the same’, closure of the
Whinney Hill site would alter the effective catchment of the School. He
also noted that whilst there had been a proposal that “the arrangements for

Durham Johnston conform to the arrangements of other Durham schools”;
there was, in fact, no commonality between the arrangements of Durham
schools. Whilst they all (apart from Durham Johnston) referred to “areas
of associated transport” the practical effect on applications for particular
schools was not determined by whether or not that criterion exists. It was
determined by how many areas of associated transport there were, their
size and location. Terms such as ‘live closest to the school’, ‘for whom the
school is nearest’, ‘appropriate school’, ‘suitable school’ and ‘preferred
school’ had all been freely used by different parties during the consultation
process but without clarity or consistency as to what those terms actually
meant.
17. Having read all the papers and listened to parents and others during his
meeting, the former Chief Adjudicator concluded that it would be
reasonable to make school place allocations for one more year on the
assumption that the Whinney Hill site was still part of the school. He
therefore decided to uphold the objection and determined that the
admission arrangements for 2009 should remain as they were for 2008,
(i.e. the main priority being defined as “Pupils for whom Durham Johnston
is the nearest suitable school”) with the tiebreaker distance being
measured to either the Crossgate Moor site or the Whinney Hill site.
18. However he noted that it was evident that these arrangements could not
be extended beyond 2009 and that the County Council would have to
embark on a new round of consultations. In doing so he hoped that the
Council would take note of his remarks about the shortcomings of the
previous arrangements.
The 2008/9 Consultation and Determination
19. Following the 2008 determination, which had included adverse comment
on criteria that applied to the admission arrangements for every community
secondary school in the County (both the use of associated transport
areas and the distance tie breaker) LEA officers decided that it was
necessary to consult on revised criteria for all such schools. In the autumn
and winter of 2008/09 the County Council therefore undertook substantial
consultation exercises on potential, and then proposed, admission
arrangements for September 2010.
20. Following these consultations, the matters were considered by the County
Council’s Cabinet on 16 March 2009. Recommendations by the Director
of Children’s Services were informed by:
• consideration of the outcomes of the statutory consultations;
• discussions with various parent groups and Headteachers which had
taken place during the consultation period;
• the comments of the Adjudicator in his determination of 2008; and,
• the County Admissions Forum’s wish to see the same admission
criteria for Durham Johnston School as all other schools.
The report to this Cabinet meeting proposed changes to the arrangements
for all community and voluntary controlled secondary schools for
September 2010.

21. Following representations by some members of the public and back-bench
councillors during the course of the meeting, about the impact on
admissions to Durham Johnston Secondary School, a decision was
deferred and the matter came back to Cabinet on 15 April 2009. At this
meeting elected members agreed and set the arrangements for
admissions to community and voluntary controlled primary and secondary
schools for September 2010. The Cabinet accepted the proposals in the
report for general application but exercised its right not to accept its
officers’ recommendation as it related to Durham Johnston School.
Instead a different set of oversubscription criteria for this school were
tabled by an elected member and these were agreed by Cabinet. A copy
of these arrangements, as determined, is attached at Annex 1.
The Objections
22. The parents’ view that the determined arrangements were in breach of
mandatory aspects of the School Admissions Code, by reference to
various paragraphs which require arrangements to be fair, can be
summarised in the following terms:
• It is unfair for a child to be discriminated against because the primary
school he attends has not been designated a "feeder school". Parents
should be free to seek entry to their preferred primary school for their
own reasons. That decision should not be distorted by having to
consider the consequences of the choice of primary for secondary
transfer some seven years later.
• It is particularly unfair when new feeder arrangements are introduced
without warning as they could not possibly have been taken into
account when a primary place was being sought.
• It is self evidently unfair to be deprived of a place at the nearest
comprehensive school (in one case where the School is some 150
meters from the family home) by the arbitrary designation of feeder
schools.
• A policy to give preference to some children who attend certain feeder
schools from more socially deprived areas located miles from Durham
Johnston is unfair when some of those 'feeder schools' already have
other comprehensive schools located on their doorstep.
• The consequence of being denied a place at Durham Johnston will
almost certainly result in some applicants having to make a much
longer journey to a less suitable school, miles from the family home.
• A policy which results in pupils having to travel longer distances to
school does not promote children being active and walking to school;
and undermines 'green transport’ policies in a city already blighted by
traffic problems.
23. The Admissions Forum stated that it was mindful of its responsibilities to
promote fair and equitable admission arrangements; including seeking to
ensure that neither those living in rural areas, nor those living closest to
schools would be disadvantaged. The Forum welcomed the criteria which
were determined for all other community secondary schools, as it believed

they did satisfactorily address the problems identified by the Adjudicator in
2008. The Forum was therefore making a formal objection to the criteria
determined for Durham Johnston on the following grounds:
• Inadequate Consultation: the criteria for Durham Johnston School,
determined by Durham County Council’s Cabinet, had not been subject
to the statutory consultation process. Neither the objectors nor the
other statutory consultees, had been given an opportunity to comment.
The Forum was concerned that those adversely affected may not be
aware of the implications for them until they had applied for, and been
refused, places - by which time it would be too late to object.
• Consistency: the Forum has consistently agreed that it wishes to see
the same admission criteria for all community secondary schools as the
best way of ensuring fairness and equity. The consequences of
adopting different arrangements for one school would give some
children attending the feeder schools a high priority for admission to
more than one school which would be inequitable.
• Inappropriate Criteria: the forum questioned the appropriateness of
distance from feeder primary school to pupil’s home address, rather
than from the secondary school applied for to be used as a criterion
• Misleading Effect: the Durham Johnston criteria will be misleading to
parents who may assume that their child will be guaranteed a place if
they attend one of the feeder schools when it is very unlikely, given the
numbers, that all will be allocated places.
The Position of the County Council
24. This sequence of events placed the elected portfolio holder and the
Director of Children’s Services in an unusual position. They had both been
publicly associated with recommendations, which were supported by the
Admissions Forum and which would have satisfied the parent objector;
but which had been rejected by the Cabinet. They nevertheless gave me
a full and careful account of the reasons for that decision. I also invited
other County Councilors (both other members of the Cabinet and those
representing affected divisions) to make direct representations to me and a
number took the opportunity to do so.
25. In summary the reasons for the cabinet decision were as follows:
• Recognition of strong representations from the parents in the villages
served by the feeder schools that they wished to maintain the historic
connection with Durham Johnston.
• Honoring promises to those people that there would be ‘no change’ in
the arrangements following closure of the Whinney Hill site.
• Concerns (picking up remarks from the previous adjudication) that the
outlying villages are generally poorer than Durham City and Code is
clear that poorer families should not be further disadvantaged by
admissions arrangements.

Consideration of Factors
26. As will be seen from the background set out above, there are different
groups of parents, some living within the City and others living further out
(notably in the villages of Shincliffe and Bowburn) whose desire for a place
at the School is more or less likely to be fulfilled according to which
approach to oversubscription criteria is adopted. Given that the school is
oversubscribed no solution can please everybody and “fairness” can only
be established if a reasonable person would judge that decisions are made
on a rational basis and that those who are offered places have a stronger
claim than those who are refused. It also has to be accepted that those
who are disappointed at the end of the day are likely to regard the
outcome as “unfair” to them.
27. The Code does, however, impose additional requirements on admissions
authorities that the arrangements they adopt must be clear, objective and
capable of being consistently applied. They must also allow parents to
understand whether they have a realistic chance of being offered a place
at their preferred school (paragraph 1.71). Admissions Forums are also
given an important role in making judgments about these matters and
admissions authorities are expected to ‘have regard’ to their advice
(paragraph 1.27). The formulation to “have regard” means the views of the
forum must be considered and taken seriously; and if the admissions
authority decides not to follow its advice they must have good reasons. It
is therefore significant that the local forum is one of the objectors.
28. All parties have taken note of the outcome of last year’s adjudication
where the former Chief Adjudicator criticized the former “associated travel
area approach” but indicated that a straightforward distance approach
could have the effect of disadvantaging deprived rural communities who
lived some distance from any school.
29. Following the consultation exercise county officers developed the
formulation: “For those children who have applied for a place at the
nearest school to their home address, priority will be given to those who
would otherwise have to travel the furthest distance to the next nearest
school.” It should be noted that this has the effect of defining a de-facto
catchment area, as it is possible to identify the nearest school for any
given address. But, unlike a conventional catchment area, it has a built-in
tie-breaker which gives a balance of advantage to those living in rural
areas as, notwithstanding being relatively remote from their nearest
school, they are likely to live even further away from any alternative.
30. Similarly the use of feeder primaries, the approach determined by the
Cabinet, creates some element of catchment by virtue of the areas from
which the chosen primaries draw their intake. In selecting primary schools
in the areas that formerly were able to gain access to the School this could
be understood as an attempt to replicate the previous arrangements by
other means.
31. However the feeder primary approach, whilst not forbidden by the Code,
does tend to have side effects which can be inconsistent with its more

general requirements.
• Naming a primary as a feeder tends to create the impression that all
children in it are guaranteed a place at the secondary. This may be the
case if the feeder criterion is a high priority and the total number of
children in year 6 at all feeders is less than the secondary PAN. But it
will not be so if those conditions do not hold.
• It distorts parental choice of schools at age 5; providing a ‘halo’ effect
for primaries which are associated with popular and successful
secondary schools; and “blighting” those that are not.
• It can destabilize year 5 and year 6 groups in both categories of school
as parents seek to move their children in the light of secondary
admissions criteria.
32. The arrangements adopted by the Cabinet are technically flawed in a
number of respects:
• they do not provide for the allocation of places in a situation in which
the School was not oversubscribed from the named feeders;
• the tie-breaker does not provide a satisfactory resolution to
oversubscription within categories 1, 2 or 3 (which is unlikely at the
normal age of transfer but could well happen in respect of casual
admissions);
• The tie-breaker requires measurement to 7 different locations none of
which is the school itself. This multiplies the possibility that two or
more applicants for the last available place live an equal distance from
their reference point – but there is no mechanism for resolving the
situation if that were to happen.
• The 7 point tiebreaker will also tend to produce an idiosyncratic scatter
of successful and unsuccessful applicants depending on where they
live and which feeder they attend.
• The published “arrangements” for Durham Johnston, as set out in the
determination agreed by Cabinet are in fact only a set of
“oversubscription criteria”. Paragraph 1.30 of the Code sets out a
fuller list of matters that must be consulted on and determined by the
admissions authority.
33. Paragraph 1.73 of the Code requires governing bodies to avoid “polices
and practices that disadvantage certain social groups”. Paragraph 2.40
says that in drawing up catchment areas “admissions authorities should
ensure that they reflect the diversity of the community served by the school
and must not exclude particular housing estates or addresses in a way
that might disadvantage particular social groups.” So the authority is
correct to be mindful of the potential impact of any decision on deprived
communities. However paragraph 2.11 says that “Local Authorities and

Admission forums must encourage all schools in their area to have
arrangements that extend choice to parents whatever their social group.”
Similar points are made in paragraphs 1.72 and 1.73. So polices designed
to help the deprived should not go so far as to seriously undermine the
legitimate expectations of fair access for other parents.
34. An important aspect of the Code is about achieving clarity and making
sure parents understand the admissions processes and oversubscription
criteria so that the preferences they express can be supported by a
realistic assessment of their chances of success. Whilst I understand the
“distance from next nearest school” criterion and accept the rationale for it;
I had some concern that some parents, particularly those who live a similar
distance from two or more schools could have difficulty working out how it
would operate in their particular case. I asked, since the criterion creates
a de facto catchment area, would it not be clearer to do the necessary
calculations and publish maps showing what those areas were?
35. However the use of ‘walking distance’, rather than ‘straight line’ would
make those boundaries appear irregular on a map. County officers also
felt that the existence of formal “catchment maps” might encourage the
erroneous belief that residence within it would be guaranteed admission.
More persuasive still was the information that the County admissions team
had a policy of providing every parent with a statement naming their
nearest school at the same time as the secondary transfer forms and
booklet were distributed. If it is made clear that this is the case it will
provide even greater certainty that parents will have a full understanding of
the policy.
Findings
36. I find that the approach to secondary admissions developed by Durham
County Council officers, which was subject to detailed modeling and
extensive consultation, is likely to produce a satisfactory resolution to the
anomalies identified by Sir Philip Hunter in his adjudication last year. It
would also appear that they have achieved a large degree of consent
across the County (with the exception of the parental groups that wish to
preserve their own historic access to Durham Johnston).
37. I further find that that the separate arrangements for Durham Johnson
adopted by the Cabinet are technically flawed and are thus not compliant
with the Code.
38. These technical shortcomings also mean that the determined
arrangements would not deliver the certainty of a place at the School that
many of their supporters expect. Conversely a high proportion of those
living in the communities historically associated with the School will still be
offered a place under the common arrangements that have been
determined for other secondary schools. Therefore, despite the weight of
opinion in favour of the feeder school approach (reported in paragraph 7) I
do not believe that the arguments advanced are cogent.
39. The Cabinet appears not to have given sufficient weight to the views of the

Admission Forum and, whilst they were correct to take heed of the
representations made from the communities with a historic connection with
Durham Johnston, they have not given sufficient consideration to other
groups with a legitimate expectation of securing a place at the school.
40. I find that the adoption of feeder primary schools with a combined capacity
of some 50 places more than Durham Johnston can accommodate could
destabilize a number of primary schools. Further it could cause significant
dissatisfaction amongst parents who might be led to the erroneous
conclusion that securing a place at one of the feeders will guarantee
admission to the secondary school.
41. I find that the approach to oversubscription for all other Community and
Voluntary Controlled secondary schools in County Durham would work
better for Durham Johnston. However I also find that some small changes
to the wording of those oversubscription criteria and a more explicit
articulation of the tie-breaker would aid parental understanding.
Protection of Decision
42. I have the power to decide whether any changes I make to these
arrangements should be ‘protected’ for up to two years beyond the year to
which they first apply. In the light of the length of time these
arrangements have already been in dispute I judge that a period of stability
would be highly desirable. My decision will therefore have effect for
admissions in 2010, 2011 and 2012.
Conclusion
43. For the reasons outlined above I agree with the objectors that the
admission arrangements adopted for Durham Johnston School were
determined with inadequate consultation. They are technically flawed,
could be misleading for parents and would be likely to result in outcomes
that are inconsistent and procedurally unfair.
44. I agree with the objectors that Durham Johnston should have
arrangements similar to the other Community and Voluntary Controlled
schools in the County. Having considered those arrangements as a whole
I have determined some minor drafting amendments which, without
altering their effect, should make the oversubscription criteria easier for
parents to understand.
45. I therefore uphold the objections and so determine.

Determination
In accordance with section 88H(4) of the School Standards and Framework
Act 1998, I uphold the objections lodged by parents and the Admissions
Forum.
I determine that for September 2010, 2011 and 2012 admissions, the
oversubscription criteria for Community and Voluntary Controlled Schools
maintained by Durham County Council, including Durham Johnston School,
should be as set out in annex 2 to this determination.
Dated: 15 July 2009
Signed:
Schools Adjudicator:
Alan Parker

Annex 1 (LA’s determined arrangements for 2010/11)
ADMISSION CRITERIA FOR COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY
CONTROLLED
SECONDARY SCHOOLS
When there are more requests for places than those available, the following
be used to allocate places strictly in order of priority:
Community and Voluntary Controlled Secondary Schools,
with the exception of Durham Johnston Comprehensive
School
1. Children in public care
2. Medical Reasons
Pupils with very exceptional medical factors directly related to school
placement.
3. Family Links
Pupils who have a brother or sister already attending the school and
expected to be on roll at the school at the time of admission.
4. Distance
(a)
(b)
For those children who have applied for a place at the nearest
school to their home address, priority will be given to those who
would otherwise have to travel the furthest distance to the next
nearest school 1 and then,
For other children, priority will be given to those children who live
nearest to the school applied for.
Footnote 1 : ‘School’ means any Local Authority maintained secondary
school or a DCSF maintained Academy. Distance will be measured by
the shortest walking route.
Admissions Criteria for Durham Johnston Comprehensive
School
A scheme of admission to Durham Johnston Comprehensive School based on
the schools named below* as feeder schools for the purposes of admission to
Durham Johnston Comprehensive School such scheme to give priority of
admission to:
1. Children in Public Care
2. Medical reasons

3. Sibling links, where the place of residence continues to be within seven
miles of Durham Johnston Comprehensive School
4. Admission by prior attendance at one of the feeder schools at the
time of application
5. Tie breaker: determined by distance from feeder school to pupil home
address.
This scheme of admission shall be introduced with effect from September
2010 for a trial period of not less than 3 years.
* Shincliffe CE (Controlled) Primary, Brandon Community Primary, Durham St.
Margaret’s CE (Controlled) Primary, Bowburn Junior, Langley Moor Primary,
Neville’s Cross Primary and Browney Primary.

Annex 2 (Adjudicator’s determined arrangements for 2010 2011 & 2012)
OVERSUBSCRIPTION CRITERIA FOR COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY
CONTROLLED SECONDARY SCHOOLS
When there are more requests for places than those available, the following
criteria will be used to allocate places strictly in order of priority:
1. Children in public care
2. Medical Reasons
Pupils with very exceptional medical factors directly related to school
placement
3. Family Links
Pupils who have a brother or sister already attending the school who is
expected to be on roll at the school at the time of admission
4. Applicants to their nearest School
Those children who have applied for a place at the nearest school to
their home address measured by the shortest walking route
5. All other applicants
Tie-breaker
Where the school is oversubscribed within any of the above categories
the following tiebreakers will be applied:
(a)
(b)
For those children who have applied for a place at the nearest
school to their home address (category 4), priority will be given
to those who would otherwise have to travel the furthest
distance to the next nearest school 1
For other children (category 5), priority will be given to those
children who live nearest to the school applied for
In the unlikely event of the school being oversubscribed within
categories 1, 2 or 3 tiebreaker (b) will apply.
Footnote 1 : ‘School’ means any Local Authority maintained secondary
school or a DCSF maintained Academy in County Durham. Distance
will be measured by the shortest walking route. Those parents who live
in County Durham and have children in year 6 in primary schools
maintained by Durham County Council will be told which school is
nearest to their home address according to the official measuring
system. The same information will be provided for any other applicant
on request.