Parents to be consulted over plans to change sibling rule Post Reply

[simonh]

@Esille - I'm not sure that Sweden does do this. I'm pretty sure that almost all schools in Sweden are state-funded.[/quote]

Wikipedia says:

"In Sweden, a system of school vouchers (called skolpeng) were introduced in 1992 at primary and secondary school level, enabling free choice among publicly run schools and privately run friskolor ("free schools"). The voucher is paid with public funds from the local municipality (kommun) directly to a school based solely on its number of students. Both public schools and free schools are funded the same way. Free schools can be run by not-for-profit groups as well as by for-profit companies, but may not charge top-up fees or select students other than on a first-come-first-serve basis.[64] Over 10% of Swedish pupils were enrolled in free schools in 2008 and the number is growing fast, leading the country to be viewed as a pioneer of the model."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_voucher#Sweden

[gruffalo's dad]

simonh and Esille: I am sure that it is unintentional, but you are conflating two totally separate concepts:

(1) That the state funding follow the pupil, so that pupils have a choice of schools and the state funding goes directly to the school if that pupil attends, as in Sweden.

(2) That the state contribute funding towards places for pupils at fee-paying independent schools based on a rebate of the tax paid by their parents.

The first difference between (1) and (2) is that under (1) there are no top-up fees and getting a place at a free school is not dependent on paying anything, whereas under (2) based on day school fees of at least £10k per annum (often up to £15k) and state-funded schools getting about £5-7k per annum per pupil only those whose parents pay £3-5k a year can attend.

The cut-and-paste from wikipedia re Swedish free schools in simonh's own post says that Swedish free schools "may not charge top-up fees".

The second difference between (1) and (2) is that under (1) the state funds the place at the free school irrespective of how much tax the pupil's parents have paid whereas under (2) (as proposed by scientist) only "high taxpayers" would have the state contribute funding towards the independent school fees of their child.

AbbevilleMummy: Re your "opt-in / opt-out" proposal for state services:

(a) How do you envisage it working for those who don't have any children? Shouldn't they benefit from lower tax as much as those who have children but don't use state schools? What about if people chose to opt-out thinking they won't have children (or will have the fees for independent school) but then they have children or find their finances have deteriorated? In the case that they don't have the money are we to bar their children from the education system.

(b) Re private medical care, I have private medical insurance and really in this country all policies are just a top-up of NHS care. Some policies represent a bigger top-up than others, but there simply isn't the system of private hospitals in this country to provide anything like full cover - treatment for some facilities/conditions is only available via the NHS. Incidentally, this is why I find the comments of some re recent immigrants not being able to avail of NHS care for five years after they arrive in UK so ridiculous - it simply isn't possible to go private on a 100% basis in this country because the facilities aren't there and the reason the facilities aren't there is because the NHS means that there is only minimal demand for them.

[AbbevilleMummy]

Gruffalos Dad, my post was conceptual only. I find the idea quite interesting, but obviously not very practical right now as it would require a complete overhaul of the tax system, NHS and education policies!

You make a good point regarding people who don't have children. Or those who no longer have school aged children. Or those who were never planning to have children and then oops! But I wasn't envisaging the tax saving being all that large and therefore majority of people would opt-in in order to reserve the right to benefit.

As for the healthcare system, the ability to opt-out is long-standing in Germany and works very well. In fact it is the oldest state healthcare system in Europe so would suggest following the same model.

[schoolgatesmum]

@AbbhevilleMummy. I'm not sure who the German system works well for. The NHS is ranked as the top healthcare system out of 11 of the world's wealthiest countries (see article below), with Germany 5th. One of the main reasons for this is funding. As soon as you start adding in private health insurance and private health services, it's amazing how much more expensive things get.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/uk ... 42833.html

[pie81]

I have to say I don't buy the arguments that "we had to move because we'd been in our flat 5 years" or "we had to move because bedroom sharing wasn't working".

The only people who truly HAVE to move are people whose landlords terminate their lease (and can't find something else they can afford within catchment) or who can no longer afford the rent/mortgage payments for some reason outside their control and have to downsize.

Upsizers do not "have" to move. They choose to move, balancing the conveniences of more space against the various downsides of moving.

I don't see why one of those downsides shouldn't be: my second+ child won't be able to get into the school my firstborn is at, because we will no longer be close enough to the school.

I accept this is a little harsh on people who have already moved after child 1, relying on the current policy to get their subsequent children in. However the change has to start sometime and it has to apply to all children joining in a particular year. If the change in policy did not apply to those with one child in the school already, that would effectively give those people the ability to go on and get 1, 2, 3+ more children into the school.

Personally I'd say the sibling priority rule should not apply to anyone who has moved between child 1 and their next children, unless their new address is still within catchment. I'm not sure why there is a separate 800m rule for those who already have one child in? Why not the same catchment as everyone else?

Exceptions for those forced to move (accept it might be hard to work out who has genuinely been forced to move).

[mgb]

I don't see why one of those downsides shouldn't be: my second+ child won't be able to get into the school my firstborn is at, because we will no longer be close enough to the school.

I accept this is a little harsh on people who have already moved after child 1, relying on the current policy to get their subsequent children in. However the change has to start sometime and it has to apply to all children joining in a particular year. If the change in policy did not apply to those with one child in the school already, that would effectively give those people the ability to go on and get 1, 2, 3+ more children into the school.

Personally I'd say the sibling priority rule should not apply to anyone who has moved between child 1 and their next children, unless their new address is still within catchment. I'm not sure why there is a separate 800m rule for those who already have one child in? Why not the same catchment as everyone else?

Exceptions for those forced to move (accept it might be hard to work out who has genuinely been forced to move).

I agree with this option. Well articulated.

[Goldhawk]

So if this change won't affect...
CofE schools
Catholic schools
Honeywell
Belleville
The free schools?
Those with priority areas already - Beatrix Potter, any others?

[pie81]

Goldhawk, although those schools don't HAVE to implement any wandsworth council changes, I suspect the likelihood is that they will do so. For example the "crow flies" change was a wandsworth change but Honeywell and Belleville still implemented it anyway.

[KatherineHepburn]

In all honesty it just sounds like Wandsworth Council paying lip-service to a group of hacked off parents and the rest of us who have been shouting about the distinct lack of primary school places in certain areas in SW London for a while now.
Interestingly enough though it seems that the head of Belleville wants to actually DO something about this. The oldest daughter came home with a letter from school today with the news that Belleville are considering setting up a second academy school in the area to address the lack of school places.
I don't have a scanner or I'd attach it - perhaps another Belleville parent can? It's definitely very, very interesting & proactive.

[runningmummy]

It would be really unfair to change the rules on parents who have moved away for whatever reason and who already have children in the school. Patents who move with siblings were operating within the given framework. I renovated a property and whilst doing so I rented another property. When I applied for my child's' school place I spoke at length with the council. I was unsure at this point if I would sell the house I was renovating, rent it out and buy or several other options. The council clearly told me that I had to use the house I was renting as the address on my application. If I applied from the house I owned that I was renovating I would be committing fraud! My point is this..for a Wandsworth councillor to claim they have tightened up on people who rent whilst refurbishing and will have to use the home they own as the address on application form (as they do for this years applicants) is complete and utter bulls**t!! I am completely fine with them saying you can't do that but that is a 100% u turn on the information they have given out previously. For the councillor to imply these are cheater parents is basically slander.

[gruffalo's dad]

runningmummy: Your post seems to have two separate points within it:

(1) That Wandsworth Council is now changing its approach to which address persons renting away from a house that has previously been their home should apply from. I am a bit surprised at the advice that Wandsworth Council gave you, but I don't see how Wandsworth Council stating/changing its position now is any implied criticism of you. Your child obviously has got his/her place by now (great!) and so isn't going to be affected by any change. I have to say that I think that if someone owns only one property in the borough and has lived in it at any time during the three years preceding the date of applicable that should be the default address for school applications.

(2) That it is unfair for the rule change re siblings to apply to parents who already have a sibling at a school for which they want sibling preference. I don't agree with you. Nobody has a guarantee of a place at a school. When straight line distance was introduced a couple of years ago it advantaged some and disadvantaged others. The change to the admission rules are not to come into effect until the 2016/7 academic year so there is plenty of time for people to react.

[Vhopeful]

Something needs to change and I for one am glad the council are finally looking at the situation. Trying to leave our house BTW at school pickup or drop-off time is a nightmare with all the cars so really as their are enough kids who could "walk" to their local school I for one welcome any change

[KatherineHepburn]

Hello! Another school between the Commons!!
Slightly more interesting than the freeing up of 4-5 spaces at 'some ' schools across Wandsworth.
Or is that just me?...

[Vhopeful]

Petal I think you need to relax, there are more important things to stress about in life. What will be will be and its not a big deal either way really either a few siblings get displaced or a few local kids don't get in.

[supermummy]

Wandsworth don't seem to have mentioned what would happen to siblings of children who got in on the admissions criteria other than distance eg special needs/circumstances. Those families may or may not be within 800m as distance was not relevant for their initial application. Would they therefore lose all sibling priority?