Petition - school admission system Post Reply

[supergirl]

I wonder exitera whether you ll still be against sibling policy in the years to come????

I gather that you have either 1 child or a still v small 2nd one. I gather you are on the waiting for your first child, are fuming because you bought a house with a premium thinking you d be in (rightly so though).

But say your child ecentually gets in and then the school removes the sibling policy and your 2nd child cant go in? Or say your 2nd does get in (sibling priority) but other parents are petitionning for the system to change.

Will you support them then? How would you feel?

My suspicion is your petition is not about the greater good and the big picture. This is why you are wasting your time and you are looking at the wrong problem.

The team of parents who campaigned for the secondary school had the big picture in mind and the greater good for the community thus is why it worked. It was a long journey for them but it worked. Of course they also have their own interests (everybody has) but they were not blinded by them.

Good in your quest. But it is doomed if you go all guns blazing.

[excitera]

I have never relied on having a place in state school, we are going to send my kid to private, as we did with the nursery. But my point is - move out from the catchment area - lose your place at your 'not local any more' school.
If people knew that they can only have 2 siblings at school and have to pay private fees for others - that would also tackle high birth rates. Parents who send their kids private think twice whenever they can afford to have a third kid or forth....

[danijeanne]

I can understand everyone's frustrations, especially as people who own houses elsewhere rent them out and rent in catchment to get children in then move back. Not acceptable. However not all renters are to blame ( as some posters seem to have a problem with). We have are not in a position to buy a 2 bed flat let alone a home in the area as prices are so high and keep going up rapidly! The only choice we have is to rent, out last property was off Lavender Hill and tenancy came to an end 1st feb so we moved somewhere nearby the good schools - why wouldn't we? We have 2 children one about to start BV and another who would be due to start in 2015. If we can afford to stay around the area then we will be if we can't or if ll decides to sell house and we have to find something else with 3 bed that is in better condition and more rent so we physically can't should my daughter not be liable for a place? Does that seem fair?

I don't know what the solution is unless we petition for more local schools maybe.

[KatherineHepburn]

@ excitera Are you for real? Are you seriously now having a pop at families who have more than 2 kids??
I know the school situation sucks, it really does but this isn't the answer.

More school places are required where there are too many children for too few spaces. That's it really. Would Honeywell go to 4 forms? Or is this not feasible?

[juliantenniscoach]

"If people knew that they can only have 2 siblings at school and have to pay private fees for others - that would also tackle high birth rates."

You are a genius. You've solved birth rates in a stroke because only wealthy people have big families based on their financial status. Truly the more you write the more nonsensical your argument becomes.

What next eugenics for anyone outside your social demographic gene pool?

[twice_as_nice]

!!!

Absolutely agree with katherine hepbern and julian.

I think we all agree that those who do actively cheat the system by moving in, renting short term and then moving out again should not be given school places - the schools should (do?) investigate short term renters. This is what we should focus on. But I'm not really sure that this is much of an issue.....the school / authority need to be really careful that they aren't penalising genuine renters - and I guess its very difficult to distinguish.

Absolutely siblings should be given priority in all cases. Why should a family have to send their children to two (or more) different schools? And why should someone have to disrupt their child's school life by moving them out of a school if they move 'out' of the 'catchment' area to get a larger house for their expanding family. I know I shouldn't make assumptions but (I will) I suspect many people moaning about this issue are exactly those who only want state school til the magic age of 7/8 when suddenly their precious child needs to move to the private system, thereby causing issues for the school as they need to fill the places at that point ..appreciate this is different at honeywell where the infants are separate from the juniors but you get my point.

[excitera]

Juliantenniscoach - I like your one way thinking.
I am already being dictated on how many kids I can have - by not having free state school.
Not trying to solve anything. I just want all families to receive equal benefit, not just one lucky family...

[juliantenniscoach]

You are not limited to the number of children you have by school availability. You have chosen the make that your criteria. Presumably other families at state and faith schools have other criteria on which they base their personal decision. What about Holy Ghost which is a state school with the catchment area of a postal stamp? How do you think your sibling policy would go down there?

You make the repeated assumption that everyone will base their family both numerically and educationally, on your standards. The same goes with your opinion on what is "fair".

Furthermore I didn't write "If people knew that they can only have 2 siblings at school and have to pay private fees for others - that would also tackle high birth rates."

Judging by the posts here, that assumption would seem be to be false.

[excitera]

so you are implying there is absolutely no link between free education at Honeywell/Belleville and high birth rate between the commons? (judged by some to have the highest birth rate in Europe)

[B&BsMum]

Seriously??!!! You're now suggesting that all that determines people's decisions about family size is their access, or lack there of, to BV and HW. The endless obsession with those two schools is tiresome. As others have said, there are many other good primary schools in the borough with outstanding assessments, great heads/teachers and good test scores. Of course it's great if children can walk a short distance to their closest local school but it's not to their detriment to walk a little further or have to catch a bus.

[DaisyLady]

Back a point but the stats for the number of siblings are not correct. There is a freedom if information request which asked how many siblings for Belleville and Honeywell lived 500-2000m from school this year. For 2012 there were 20 children I.e. 20% of the places available lived over 1000m from belleville. Some will be because they have older siblings who moved in later years as someone sensibly already pointed out. But I doubt this accounts for all 20. 20 extra places means we would be starting at belleville in September not a school miles away.

I am up for a petition , meeting with the governors . Just post when and where!

[excitera]

Thank you daisylady!
You moving out of the area 1000m - you not local anymore, simple as that. It is your own choice to move! and please take your kids with you. By moving out and still going to the B/H - you are arbitraging scarce resource from local families.

[excitera]

if you not in catchment area of the school - you are not local. 1000m - is way too generous in this case.

[WandsworthResident]

I'll say it again - what about the younger siblings of those children who start at the school in eg Yr 3 and above, some of whose families may well already live 1000m away?

The school needs to fill places when they become vacant (often because so-called "local" families decide to move out of London or go private for KS2 so they can get their kids on the treadmill for public school entrance at 11+ or 13+).

You can't very well tell the parents of those children that one child is good enough to fill a spare place but that their sibling isn't welcome. Or perhaps you think the school / council should? You seem to be keen to set up any type of system that works for you, even if it would then be unfair to others...

[stayathomemuminsw11]

The point about 'deciding' to have two kids rather than three is ridiculous IMO.

Two of my friends 'planned' on having just two, and number two turned out to be numbers 2 and 3.

I also echo Wandsworth Resident's point about children who have taken spaces further up the school in Yr 3 say, which no one local wanted, should their younger siblings be banned from attending?

The fundamental problem is there just aren't enough local school places for local children... I've said it before and I'll say it again-a priority area won't help, a sibling ban on those who have moved more than 1000m away won't help, nothing will ease this situation other than building more schools and finding more places....

No one is ever going to agree. It's very sad that not everyone can attend their local school, but there are plenty of other schools other than BV and HW which are walkable to from BTC. Several of my friends who live BTC didn't get BV or HW and are giving their third 'choice' Alderbrook a go... One of my friends (who admittedly lives nearer Balham) put it as their 1st choice.

I'm sure that before long, Alderbrook and probably High View/Shaftesbury Park etc will all be doing very well. I completely 'get' that it's infuriating to have to walk past HW or BV on your way to school knowing that you 'should' have a place-but the only real solution is more schools.