article in standard about removing sibling policy for schools

[dulwichfamily]

... in Wandsworth

Interesting read

[Renata Hamvas]

I don't think they are removing it totally, but for siblings over 800m.

Renata

[ClareC]

So how would that work in practice? How can parents physically be in two places at once?

[oimissus]

I guess if it's on distance, the idea is that if you move out of catchment once your eldest child has a place at school X, you shouldn't expect your younger children to get in. Which seems fair enough as they'll be stopping children who do live nearer the school from getting a place. I have sympathy for parents who end up with children at different schools, but equally it's pretty frustrating when you're applying for child 1 and see at least half the reception places disappear as they go to siblings. One school near us a few years ago had it's entire reception taken up by siblings! (I believe there were 30 places and 33 siblings.)

[mariababe]

Agree for secondary school but not for primary

[Otta]

Yeah I think catchment for secondary is rubbish, mosy 11 year olds should be able to get a bus to school independently.

Primary school on the other hand should always keep siblings together IMO.

[ClareC]

oimissus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I guess if it's on distance, the idea is that if

> you move out of catchment once your eldest child

> has a place at school X, you shouldn't expect your

> younger children to get in. Which seems fair

> enough as they'll be stopping children who do live

> nearer the school from getting a place. I have

> sympathy for parents who end up with children at

> different schools, but equally it's pretty

> frustrating when you're applying for child 1 and

> see at least half the reception places disappear

> as they go to siblings. One school near us a few

> years ago had it's entire reception taken up by

> siblings! (I believe there were 30 places and 33

> siblings.)

Which is fine if the sibling already in the school is automatically guaranteed a place in the new area school - except that guarantee doesn't exist as its dependent on space......

[ClareC]

The reality is that siblings need to be at the same primary school whether that is the one the elder sibling was at or the one most convenient post move. It's simply not practicable to need to drop off and collect from different primary schools.......

[oimissus]

this policy doesn't stop that happening, just that parents who chose to move out of the catchment of their older child's school need to bear that in mind. Why should another family who live closer to the school be 'inconvenienced' by a sibling whose family are no longer in catchment?

Bear in mind that this policy would only affect those who have moved more than 800 km from the school. Those who were less than that when child 1 got in will still have a sibling place for child 2, as will those who move but remain 'local', if you like. I should think in most schools the majority of siblings will be fine.

[katgod]

Heard an interesting sibling policy today at Harris boys. If you have a son there your younger daughter gets priority when applying for Harris Girls. But not the other way round. Which does not make much sense!

[Otta]

Our older daughter started at the school around the corner last year. Then in Feb this year we moved further away. We did look at the school close to our new place, but we didn't want to unsettle her, and will be relying on a sibling place for her sister next year.

I totally take the point about a family living closer possibly being inconvenienced by a sibling from further afield taking a pace. However, part of me thinks "tough", hopefully it will stop people with more money buying houses closest to schools and pushing house prices through the roof.

[oimissus]

but you could argue that a sibling policy creates that situation (in part) - that because half of a schools places could be taken up by siblings, who get in regardless of whether they live 100m or 1000m from the school, the only way to guarantee a first (or only) child getting in is to move closer and closer to the school. And presumably one reason this policy has been brought in is to do exactly what you say - to stop parents moving near to a school, getting a place for child 1, then moving further away (which may have been the intention all along) once the place for both that child and any subsequent children has been secured. (I'm not saying that's what you've done, btw, but I bet some families do do this.)

There are good arguments on both sides. With the squeeze on primary school places there are going to be winners and losers. But just dismissing people's concerns with a 'tough' seems a bit of a harsh response, and one that I could throw straight back at you, should Southwark bring this policy in.

[Otta]

Yeah I heard this woman in the park in Sydenham boasting loudly to her mate that they'd rented a place more or less next door to Elliot Bank for just this reason, and that they wouldn't be hanging around once their kid had got in. That made my blood boil.

I guess no way of doing it is going to please everyone.

[kristymac1]

I think 800m is way too short, the reasonable walking distance which is applied for primary schools is 2miles isn't it?

We moved house when my son was born, further away from the school but we still walk/scoot/cycle to school. If the 800m was applied in Southwark my son wouldn't get in to the school on a sibling place or by distance (even though we are still clearly in walking distance). Think the 800m seems very arbitrary and ill-conceived - ironically we would be unlikely to be offered a place at a school within 800m.....

[LondonMix]

This is really ridiculous.

What if your first child go into the school on a bulge year and you always lived more than 800m from the school? What if it you were allocated a place there a year when it was under-subscribed but by the time your second child applies its much more popular?

Punishing parents like this even if they have moved is ridiculous. Life circumstances dictate change and I dare say dropping of two primary school age children at different schools is a larger inconvenience than a child living close to a school having to go slightly further away.

[dulwichfamily]

If I was a family in a catchment who lost a place to a sibling who had moved far away, I'd feel punished/treated unfairly and justifiably so in many circumstances. It may seem ridiculous, but this is a real idea, happening in neighbouring boroughs.

I'm personally not affected by this situation - but interested in the dynamics of how rule changes could seriously impact families right now...

If they change the rules, it will just mean different families are 'punished'.

Ultimately - the 'rent-in-the-catchment' thing is an issue. It's this that's stimulating the debate I imagine.

[newboots]

I don't think it is ridiculous. I think some councils are trying to tackle the problem of families moving temporarily to the catchment of a popular school to secure a place for the oldest sibling and then moving a couple of miles away to a cheaper area/larger property after a year or so and sending the rest of their children to that school. It happens all the time. Why should the needs of those children trump the needs of children living near a school but having to travel for miles in the opposite direction to the next school that has places?

And its a farce that siblings still get such high priority at secondary school, especially when so many of our local secondaries are single sex, and one offers places by lottery. Lottery unless you have a sibling? What sort of an admissions policy is that?

[James Barber]

Boy this is a tough one. Admissions is complicated enough already.

I can see why Wandsworth are trying this experiment.

I guess if you said siblings had to either be at an address the same distance or less as the sibling already in the school or within 800m whichever is the higher. Then you're covered for the occasional bulge class. You're ensuring people don't rent a house just for the original admissions purpose. Non of the East Dulwich primary schools have admissions distance close to 800m.

Part of creating a great school is having a local school community. If people dip in for admissions and then move further away they're less likely to be able to support that wider school community.

[kristymac1]

newboots Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't think it is ridiculous. I think some

> councils are trying to tackle the problem of

> families moving temporarily to the catchment of a

> popular school to secure a place for the oldest

> sibling and then moving a couple of miles away

But 800m is quite bit shorter than couple of miles 800m vs 3000m...

[BellendenBear]

I don't understand why they have chosen an arbitrary distance of 800m when primary schools don't have fixed catchment areas. If you want to design a fair system to try to tackle the issue of people renting close to a school and then moving away, then it needs to be in the way that James suggests (I think I understand what he means)which is to only apply the sibling rule if you live at the same address or one closer than when the first child applied.

You are wrong about no ED schools having catchments of >800m though James. Only a couple of years ago all applicants to Bessemer would have got a place and this was a school offered to many parents who didn't get any of their choices. Same for Langbourne. These aren't strictly ED schools but they are used by lots of ED kids.

We are in exactly the position that LondonMix describes. My eldest child goes to a school >800m away which didn't used to be very popular. Like many parents we have got behind the school and tried to throw ourselves into the school community. The school is now much more popular so we wouldn't get in on distance anymore. We haven't moved house. It would seem very unfair if my younger kids didn't get a place.

[kristymac1]

James Barber wrote:

> Part of creating a great school is having a local

> school community. If people dip in for admissions

> and then move further away they're less likely to

> be able to support that wider school community.

I totally agree, but whilst still in (demonstrably) walking distance of my daughter's school which is almost double the arbitrary 800m, we are still very much an active part of the school community (I'm currently Co-chair of the school's parents/friends association) . I cannot see how a council could possibly argue that it is totally justifiable to allocate children a school which is 3000m (walking) distance away but say that siblings must be housed within 800m distance. It is ridiculous.

[Otta]

I think we should stop using words like "punished", no one is being punished, they don't have a God given right to a place at the nearest school, or a God given right to a sibling place. Using words like "punished" suggests a sense of entitlement.

I totally agree that families temporarily moving just to secure a school place is something that needs to somehow be stopped. But I suspect that more people are moving for genuine reasons than for dishonest reasons. And it's not like you can just turn up at the school nearest your new place and say "hello, we've moved locally, you'll need to find a place for my year 3 child as well as my reception child".

[Belle]

James, your option sounds fairer. Politically is this an issue which may come up for review in Southwark? Like others, it would affect us even though we have not moved, not do we want to.

[oimissus]

I agree that 800m seems rather low and yes, the bulge class issue would need to be addressed (do they bulge in Wandsworth?). I've just had a look at the (very brief and not terribly informative) article in the ES, and at the mo they are consulting on it, so it's not a done deal.

But I also think that the reasons behind parents moving into school catchments needs to be addressed, if parents really feel that not all their local schools are up to scratch. Whether it's in their heads or an actual reality, the underlying issue needs looking at too. I think we in this area are so lucky having the forum as you can get to know, from parents, teachers, governors and local councillors, the reality of many of the schools that you might not otherwise have considered for one reason or another. And most of us not only want to our children to go to a good school, but also have to look at onward travel to work, wraparound childcare, getting younger children to nursery - the list goes on.

Hopefully any debate on the EDF can be used to inform Southwark should they choose to have a look at this themselves.

[LondonMix]

Yes, punish sounds a bit entitled, though the intention seems to be to punish people trying to game the system Otta. I can understand the frustration with that but the proposal as stands would catch people out who never moved house.

Also, I am not sure living close to a school really entitles you to go there. In London, its basically a way for rich people (like me) to ensure their kids get into a good school. I have a lot of sympathy for people who can?t afford to live near a good school but desperately want their kids to get a good education.

Rather than trying to stop the few families that might be gaming the system by further complicating admissions policy and restricting movement of young families, my view is the council should be addressing the underlying problem: a shortage of good school places available to everyone.