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

[rooting4tooting]

Fiddling around with which child 'wins' a local school place and who has to go to a school either miles away from their home or separated from their siblings completely misses the point.

More schools are urgently needed in the areas where families live. Not where it's cheapest to add portacabins in playgrounds. Families have every right to expect their children to be educated within their local community and the council is responsible for meeting the needs of the communities they represent. Communities with an increase in the number of children need an increase in the number of school places. Please stop playing politics with childrens' education. Stop pitting family against family in the battle for places. Provide the places that are needed where they are needed.

Having lived in the area since the early '90s I remember WBC closing and selling victorian primary School buildings because they wearn't needed as the birth rate was low. of course, who bought the apartments in the converted schools... young singles and couples......

[cheshirecat]

Most schools start at 9am and finish between 3.15-3.30, I sincerely hope they are also planning to improve breakfast/after school clubs if some parents will then be forced to be in two or more places at the same time, just because their personal circumstances have changed. I have moved twice since my first child got into an over subscribed Lambeth primary, it's now a 15 minute walk, not too bad, but well out of the catchment. It's hard enough keeping up with the three children in the one school, with this policy I could potentially be getting three children to three different schools at 9am in the morning! That's just ridiculous.

I think they need to focus less on parents gripes about others getting things they want and focus more on improving those schools with places that parents aren't scraping over.

[Goldhawk]

One issue is the assumption that those living over 800m away will be able to move all their children to the nearest school

[hellokittyerw]

There is no denying that several school drops is difficult.
But it's mainly the parents responsibility to do the best they can so this doesn't happen, i.e. when deciding to move house parents need to take into account the new siblings priority rules, look at the schools in the new area, find out if they have places available for the older sibling, etc. Or, if they are keen on a particular school, do not move until after all children have gotten in.
Sibling priority shouldn't be a right set in stone, because the council just doesn't have enough resources to be able to guarantee this without negatively packing others (I.e families living very close to a school).

[Goldhawk]

So any word from the council regarding Honeywell & Belleville's stance on this? Will they change their admissions too? (if this change goes ahead in other schools)

[Flowermummy]

The council is closing out loopholes that allow people to gain unfair priority over others - this has to be a good thing!
It may be painful for some in the immediate term, but in the medium term I think it will be great because parents will know how they stand, it will hopefully lead to other local schools improving (as it will stop the rush to get one's kids into bv/hw), it will highlight the school black holes where new schools are needed.
Given the increase if children in the borough, it's right that the council tackle this problem, otherwise in 5-10 yrs time the situation will become unbearable.

[Honeybee]

I am all for stopping people who try to play the system to get their kids into a good school and then move away, with a guarantee of a place for siblings. So I'm fine with the proposals in principle, but I have looked at what the Council is proposing (the detailed proposals they have recently posted) and they don't mention allowing people who fall outside of the 800m but haven't moved since they got their first child in, to keep their sibling priority. That is unfair and I hope they will address that.

As for other posters saying that people should get a grip about multiple pick-ups and drop-offs - that seems to assume that there is one stay at home parent who can do this. Also, if you haven't moved, haven't tried to play the system but unfortunately live over 800m from the school, why on earth should you be forced to move your children to the second school? That is completely unfair.

[Flowermummy]

Honeybee - the point you make re families who have not moved but are outside of 800m is very fair, I hope the council look into it, I am sure they would have figures to show how many people are in this situation.

Multiple drop offs- I can't see why this should be easier for stay at home parents? It's hard no matter if you work it not. But it will make parents find the most effective way if keeping siblings in the same school.

Petal - alderbrook is too far for btc families and I think it's right that btc families do not get sibling priority there!

[AbbevilleMummy]

Flowermummy, you are missing the point re Alderbrook. Many btc families are given Alderbrook as they don't live within 200 odd meters of BV or HW. Therefore a lot of families potentially wont get in to HW, BV or Alderbrook so where will their children then have to go? Who knows!

This is my main problem with the proposals. It assumes that people are taking school places, then moving to a big house on the doorstep of a different school that they could easily have gone to if they wanted and I'm just not sure this is the case.

Let's say someone lives on Grandison Road, btc. I'm not definite, but I'm pretty sure that if you applied from Grandison Road this year you would not have gotten into HW or BV. You may have been offered Alderbrook despite being quite a distance away. You then apply in 2016 for your second child. Under the new proposals, you don't get sibling priority for Alderbrook, in all likelihood you still cant get into BV or HW, so what would you do? It's not like there's a closer school you can get into.

The same goes for if you got a child into a school and then moved to Grandison Road.

(I pick Grandison Road as an example as it is surrounded by excellent schools, yet under the new proposals would be a tricky place to apply for a school place from.)

[Honeybee]

Flowermummy, agreed that multiple drop offs are a nightmare for anyone (whether working or not) but there were comments made on the thread that it shouldn't be so difficult to manage. You might be able to spend a little more time on pick ups and drop offs if you are not coming straight from work, that's all I was thinking. Maybe I'm wrong. Certainly no offence intended, I just don't think it would be easy to manage.

AbbevilleMummy - I don't think it's that relevant how many people living outside the 800m that haven't moved would be affected - it is just simply unfair and shouldn't be part of the proposal. Also, the figures the council are quoting don't take into account faith schools or schools with different admissions rules but they do suggest that these other schools should consider adopting the new rules. I don't want to start a new debate about faith schools, but I'm pretty sure that most of them have larger catchments because of the additional rules (regarding church/mosque/synagogue attendance, etc).

[Flowermummy]

AbbevilleMummy - i don't see the issue of Alderbrook the same way at all.
IMO the fact that BTC families have to take Alderbrook is because there are problems with getting into the local schools (HW and BV). Once these problems are sorted (by 1. changing rule on renters 2. changing rule on siblings policy and 3. the opening of a new school that Belleville are looking into), then the Grandison family should not need to go all the way to Alderbrook.
Alderbrook should be for the local people, as things are going (more children, improving school) it will be probably oversubscribed in a few years time, so it will no longer be available to BTC families at some point anyways.
I agree the changing of the rules may mess up some families who didn't try to game the system and who have the elder sibling in school and the youngest due to start in the next 2 years . But this is not an argument that the changes shouldn't be done. Perhaps the council can consider these cases individually, and if they decide there is a genuine claim they could put the younger sibling on a priority waiting list.

[Honeybee]

Flowermummy, I agree that this isn't an argument that there should be no change. However I just think that this needs to be worked into the proposals - so this category of people won't be affected. Easy to do and easy to monitor.

[AbbevilleMummy]

I also agree that there should be change, I just really don't like the current proposals.

[Goldhawk]

Remember these proposals will not affect Honeywell or Belleville as they control their own admissions policies

[Sagittarius]

Will this rule apply to secondary schools too?