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

[Ballymanu]

Honeybee - agree. I was thinking of those parents that move 'a couple of miles' rather than a kilometre. A 1500m priority zone would be a good start at least.

It doesn't help that most schools don't have fixed catchments (or priority zones) so parents are left trying to guess what the furthest distance might be in a couple of years.

[Scientist]

Here is my possibly controversial view, which will solve nothing in the short term but I believe is worthy of consideration:

We moved, legitimately, in order to get our children out of a private school into a "good" state school and it worked. We have stayed within the catchment area and have benefited from the sibling policy. One of the things we like most about the state school is the sense of community which a tight catchment area bestows. Although it doesn't affect us, we do sympathise with parents who can't get their children into good state schools even though they live locally, yet who witness parents coming from far away to drop their children off. It doesn't seem fair. Now for the controversial suggestion..........

It also doesn't seem fair to me that parents who pay a lot of tax and send their children to private schools subsidise more state school places than anyone else. Ditto healthcare etc. It would seem logical that high taxpayers who do not represent a burden on state services should receive some sort of rebate against the notional value of their children's unused places at state schools - or perhaps more appropriately, that the rebate could be paid directly to private schools so as to bring down the cost of private education - and therefore to encourage more people into the private sector. Because, until there are a greater number of excellent state schools, or private schools become more affordable & numerous, the majority will have to accept a standard of education which is, frankly, below par. The money is there somewhere, but it is neither fairly nor efficiently utilised.

[lanmum]

It is a tricky issue and I agree, that the council should invest more time in checking out the information of people applying via the sibling policy. My daughter started a not very popular school 3 years ago, it has since gained popularity massively and the catchment area has substantially shrunk. In the meantime, we had another child and both of them sharing a bedroom was failing miserably. We had to move, but because of crazy Wandsworth prices had to move well out of the catchment area to be able to afford another bedroom and we are ONE house out of Wandsworth (which we didn't know when we moved as it has Wandsworth postcode). My son got into the same school via the sibling policy of which I am massively grateful - I couldn't do 2 drop offs at different schools and feel so grateful that I don't have to take my daughter out of her school that she is very settled in and I have my entire support network at, because we couldn't afford a house locally - we would've stayed if we could!
The upshot is that I would be very happy to be asked to demonstrate this to the council via pay details, rent detail etc and I would imagine people who genuinely have had to move, would do to.
Another thought is, if there is no sibling priority and my son got a place at our new nearest school, what would happen if they had no spaces in year 3 for my daughter?

It's a complicated issue....

[hellokittyerw]

Scientist - i find you suggestion very sensible actually. I don't think it's very likely for something like this to be implemented though....

But it would solve the "state till eight" issue that many mums complain about, by giving parents a financial incentive to put their kids in private schools from the very start.

And it would be quite fair not to pay for something you won't be using.

[Seriously?]

Obviously a hot topic.

My personal view is that you can't qualify individual circumstances in any particularly fair way, so distance is really the only tangible metric of any use. Yes, it is very annoying for those parents who have to do a school run to more than one school, but are they more deserving than the local resident who cant even get first child into the closest school and is forced to do a long commute to get their child to school further away? Either way, for every sibling who still gains entry after any move outside the catchment, there will be shrinking of the catchment for non-siblings. Someone always has to miss out when a school is over subscribed.

I don't think siblings should gain any advantage over non-siblings full stop. If the parents chose to move, then they can take that risk. Perhaps the radical concept of kids sharing a room might dawn on them, rather than expecting the extra square footage of house in a less desirable area coming at no cost to their children's education. At the end of the day, the outstanding schools are so because they have a critical mass of middle class children from educated households. You move to an area which is a bit more patchwork, then the critical mass is diluted and the school less desirable. If you dont want to have your middle class children diluted down, then send them to a private school or stay put and dig out your basement.

There are an awful lot of self entitled moaners out there completely unable to appreciate that the world does not entirely revolve around themselves.

[Esille]

@Scientist
Not really controversial, as a similar model is used in Scandinavian countries and it seems to work there

[schoolgatesmum]

@Scientist. I have been avoiding posting on this thread but I am absolutely astounded at your suggestions of tax rebates for people who use private education. Most private schools have charitable status and are therefore already funded by the state. Also there are many ways which rich people reduce their tax burden through various schemes (e.g. fees in advance schemes) as shown in this article:
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bill ... -fees.html
The state funds teachers to be trained but they can go straight into private education. Ditto for doctors and nurses.
People who pay a lot of tax do so for a reason - because they earn a lot of money! There is no way that we could afford to send our children to private school and I would say that we are a pretty well off family. So to be able to fund a child through private education, you have to be pretty wealthy in the first place.
@Esille - I'm not sure that Sweden does do this. I'm pretty sure that almost all schools in Sweden are state-funded.

[supergirl]

@scientist: although your suggestion is sensible i just cant agree with it. I am very lucky to live in a country that has a tax system and i am very lucky that i pay taxes. For me it means (i) i live in a country that can collect the taxes fairly, use them for roads, healthcare, rubbish collection, efucation, etc. And (ii) by being taxed it means i m not claiming anything to survive.

I think want to pay throughmy taxes to the nhs and for all services. If the richest get rebates on some things then the country wont have enough money for those who needs it the most and we will all be generally worst off.

A situation like is incompatible with my values and tge world i want to live in.

[AbbevilleMummy]

@scientist. I also like your idea and I don't see it as tax rebates for the rich either as some of the other posters do.

I like the idea of an 'opt-in' tax system for certain public services eg health and education. I like the idea that you could opt-in and pay tax and then have the benefit of the NHS or state-schooling etc. But if you opted-out, then you would have a slightly lower tax bill but couldn't access the NHS or send your child to a state school.

I think that would perhaps encourage more people to pay for private medical care and private education which in turn reduces the burden on these public services and thus improves them due to the reduced burden.

[livegreen]

@scientist and those who think that it's ok to opt out of tax for things you don't use. Why do you think no civilised country does this and no sensible political party suggests it ? It is clearly a bonkers way to fund anything and only needs a moments brain power to realise the uninteded consequence of any such policy.

On sibling policy I am not aware of anywhere that implements a policy which excludes the entry of siblings at primary school level - it is simply unworkable for most parents/ carers. Once children are at secondary and able to take themselves to school sibling policy no longer needed.
That said I agree that children should attend their local school and if people move house more than 2 miles from their primary school they should switch to their new local schools. Unfortunately I cannot think of a way that this could be "policed" in a cost effective way.

[Astolat]

The council suggestion makes sense to me.

If you choose to move outside the catchment then you should do so knowing that it impacts your school choice.

If that means two separate school runs or moving elder children then it's part of the decision

[Allset]

What would the parents of the 174 children leaving beyond the 800 meters perimeter have done if the council's plan was in place?

It can be expected that:

1. Most of these parents - those who could afford it - would have squeezed or downsized to be able to stay within the zone and keep the school place for their younger offspring(s)

2. Some of these parents - those who really count not afford the area - would have moved regardless and would given away their school places to families living closer to school

In effect this rule would be a transfer of a few places in the best schools from lower income families to higher income families. All this in the name of fairness???

I am all in favour of putting controls in place so people play by the rules, but this priority zone seems both unfair and un-practical.

[Thatsnotmymonkey]

BUT what about the families, such as mine, who have not moved but due to a shrinking catchment siblings would not get in. Will the council be making this ruling just for new applicants? Does anyone know how we would stand legally if we were given a place under the old criteria? Do the LEA have to legally stand by that? I've done some research but can't find anything / don't quite understand the legalities.

[Mamamoss]

Gruffalo’s dad I think that your suggestion is a good one, though perhaps more than 400m meters as the threshold? Certainly the status quo with siblings getting in from the other side of the borough and yet people living a stone throw’s away not getting in seems unfair, and yet I think most people would agree that in an ideal world siblings should be able to be at the same school.

[Strollers]

Great Idea Wandsworth Council! I'm sick of hearing about the few that spoil it for the many - those families who rent out their home to rent in the area just to get in to BV and HW and then disappear back (then clog up the roads on the school run from the other side of the Common or wherever!). Sibling access woundn't be a problem for most families if they truly are in catchment - it seems a no-brainer to me, and I'm relieved that someone is looking at doing something about it finally!