Wandsworth Schools Consultation - Question Post Reply

[kiwimummy]

Hi all

I have a question for Wandsworth Council:

The post from Wandsworth stated that: "Under the proposed new system, only those siblings who live within 800m of the school they are applying to would continue to get automatic preference over other children.

But siblings living further away will still continue to receive priority if they haven’t moved home since their older brother or sister was first admitted to the school.

Parents whose children have already been admitted to a school after the changes come into effect will not be affected. If approved, the new admission rules would apply from the start of the 2016/7 academic year – but not retrospectively."

I'm not clear what the last paragraph above means about the new rules not applying retrospectively.

Does this mean that if a family have moved home since the first child was admitted, AND they moved home before the new rules came into effect, then their child retains sibling priority?

Or does it mean that if a family relied on the old rules to move away from the school before the rules changed, siblings will no longer have the priority?

[Honeybee]

I agree, it would be useful if Wandsworth Council could clarify this one point. It seems like the intention is that anyone who has children admitted to primary school before the new rules come into force should not be penalised for having made a decision based on the rules in force at the time they applied. In other words, anyone whose eldest child gained a primary school place in the academic year 2015-2016 or any academic year prior to that, and who either lives outside the 800m radius or moved house to a home outside the 800m radius since their eldest child was admitted into their current primary school, will be able to keep sibling priority. I assume, though, that if they move after 2016 when the new rules come into force, they will lose priority.

Grateful if the Council could clarify this point as it isn't crystal clear from the post earlier or the announcement on their website. Thank you.

[Annabel (admin)]

Thanks for using NVN.

I've tweeted it to them and I'll also mention it to our contact in the press department.

Thanks again for posting...

A

[Honeybee]

Thanks Annabel - will you post any replies on this thread if received?

Many thanks!

[Annabel (admin)]

of course

[kiwimummy]

Thanks Annabel!

[AbbevilleMummy]

The consultation results paper on the councils website explains it in a lot of detail. The proposals have been changed to exclude siblings of children who entered the school prior to 2016 and also excludes siblings of children who have not moved since last child was give a place.

I think that's 2 very sensible changes.

[Honeybee]

Having now read the paper I think that it is clearer. The new admissions criteria would now read:

"Brothers and sisters of children on the roll of the school on the date of admission living up to a distance of 800 metres from the school. Children with a brother or sister at the school on the date of admission living over 800 metres from the school will also receive priority under this criterion where the family have not moved since last sibling was offered a place or the last sibling was admitted prior to September 2016."

So I think that this means that any family who moved away from the school prior to September 2006 and already had a child at the school will retain sibling priority.

Obviously I leave it to the council to confirm but that's how I read it. They do have to go through a new consultation about this though, so there's no guarantee that the proposal won't change further I guess.

[kiwimummy]

I think the better view of the release and the consultation wording is that it doesn't apply to siblings of children admitted before 2016 - otherwise what does "not retrospective" mean? And it really depends on where you read the "or" applying to.

However, we don't need a debate, we need clarification.

Over to you, Wandsworth. We await your reply with bated breath.

[kiwimummy]

Bump. Annabel, any news?

[Annabel (admin)]

I'll chase again.

It's going out in the weekly on Monday as well so I hope we can get some response soon...

thanks for using NVN!

[Wandsworth Council]

Just to confirm - if a family has not moved house or the sibling has started school prior to September 2016 - they will not be affected by this proposal.

[Wandsworth Council]

Petal - Yes, as long as the older sibling was attending the school prior to September 2016 the young brother or sister would still get priority.

Obviously if the older child had left the school by the time their younger brother or sister wanted to start attending, then in those circumstances, priority would not be given to the younger sibling.

Hope that clarifies things

[Thatsnotmymonkey]

I think that this is a very fair solution to the new proposals and for my family, a great relief if it is implemented.

[Nosybusy]

I think the council's proposition is better than the current situation however 800m is an arbitrary number which may have an effect for some schools but not for others with tiny catchments.

I wonder what people think about the following rule:
1. if you stayed in the same address your first child got in from or moved closer to the school then siblings automatically get in.
2. if however you moved further away then siblings would have to get in on distance like everybody else.

This stops people from playing the system by moving close to the school for a short period of time and then moving away. But it also avoids people “dropping out of the catchment” after their first child got in if the catchment becomes smaller and they have not moved home. And if they want to move or are “forced to move” they still a relatively large area they can move to and still retain their sibling priority.

It also adapts the rule to the school’s situation rather than choosing a relatively random number like 800m. Schools with larger catchments will have larger areas to move to, schools with smaller catchments smaller ones.

On the other hand the 800m proposed will not stop people moving in close to Belleville (if the school adopts the rule) and to move 700m away straight after their child gets in. The 800m radius includes pretty much the whole of between the commons, a huge area compared to the catchment.

I proposed this in the current consultation, guess the council did not like it (is it a problem of record keeping? maybe they can explain why). I wonder what people think about it as it seems to answer all the commonly voiced objections I have seen and would definitely make the catchments bigger.