​As parents across Gloucestershire wrestle with the allocation given to their children for secondary school places this week, headteacher of St Peter's High School Lawrence Montagu, gives his view of the placement process.

It is always a stressful time when Year 6 pupils receive confirmation of their secondary school places.

It is a difficult time for students, parents and, certainly in our case, the school.

On an annual basis we are always significantly oversubscribed, but the present system of admissions is infuriating for me.

It may be because we are a Roman Catholic school, but I resent the fact that the parents’ religious belief can give them what amounts to two first choices.

Under the previous admissions system St Peter’s had to be chosen as the first choice school by Roman Catholics.

If they did not want St Peter’s as their first choice school, I respected that decision and would wish them well at whichever school they wanted their children to attend.

The new admission arrangements, however, enable people to use their religion as a “fail safe”.

That is apply to the grammar schools and if not accepted, St Peter’s then becomes their first choice.

This is totally contrary to what the new admission arrangements were supposed to promote and, despite our warning the Government at the consultation stage of such unfairness, our case was not taken into account when the new arrangements were introduced.

It is totally unfair on parents who want St Peter’s for the education and ethos we offer, in keeping with Christian traditions, but who cannot attain that place; while a small number of Roman Catholics can have a grammar school as their first preference and then, if they do not succeed, they get St Peter’s as their next choice.

The system should allow schools to state that if they are oversubscribed they will only take first preferences.

Parents would then, quite rightly, have to decide what they really wanted for their children. If that is a grammar school: fine, a natural first choice. But if you accept that there are other schools which can offer as good an education as a grammar school, and where the religious aspect is important to you, then such a school should be your first choice.

I emphasise I would not expect any parent to accept a second class education for their child, but I think it very unfair that a small number of parents have a choice between two first class schools while other parents have no such choice. It is yet another example of how the grammar school situation in Gloucestershire distorts parental choice and the quality of schools.

It is an absolute delight to be able to accept at our school young people who really want to be here and who want to benefit from the whole education we offer.

One of the great joys of being head of a faith school is the total socio-economic mix of the student body.

This enables us to underpin everything we do with respect for each and every individual regardless of ability and aptitude.

However, it is very frustrating when we are instructed by the local authority to take a student for whom we cannot adequately provide because that student has a statement of special needs.

 That is not stating we do not want students with statements. St Peter’s has an excellent record of dealing with special needs young people.

There are certain young people we simply cannot deal with in a mainstream setting. To be then instructed to take them is not only insulting to our professional integrity but undermines the equality of the admissions system.

 I find it bizarre in an environment where we are being constantly told our schools must cater for the gifted and talented young person, wherever that gift or talent lies, that although you can bypass the admissions criteria for a school if you have a statement indicating learning or behaviour difficulties, there is no such provision for gifted and talented young people.

 Hence, if there is an outstanding musician who by right should go to a specific school because of the quality of their music provision, that young person has no right in law for a place at that school.

If, however, that young person had a learning difficulty and a statement to go with it, they would get into the school as a priority and thus benefit not only from the general teaching but from the expertise in music.

It is yet another example of where the system is seriously flawed and, in our case, once you take away from our governors the right to decide who should come and who should not come to our school, you do not actually increase parental choice: you actually deny equal opportunity and increase discrimination.