article in standard about removing sibling policy for schools

[dulwichfamily]

A good number of people aren't in a catchment at all - let alone a catchment of a school they don't rate

[LondonMix]

Exactly! This problem wouldn't exist if there were both enough schools and all the schools were good. That is what I would like local government to put their energy into as when that is achieved all this other BS would automatically disappear.

[Otta]

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> 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.

Indeed.

[Soulking]

I don't really understand what people mean by 'gaming the system'. Obvioulsy you shouldn't be untruthful about where you live to get a place at a school, but why is it wrong to move close to a school if that is their stated admissions policy? Some of the comments here seem to be imply its OK to get a place for your older child, move somewhere else because 'life' happened, but to not to do it in a pre-meditated way? And in any case how could the school differentiate between these different groups of people. I have a friend who did this - and at first I thought how unfair this seems - but when I thought about it, they are just doing what they thought was best for their children.

[LondonMix]

I agree-- I am sympathetic to people who have done what your friend did if they couldn't afford to live near the school.

I don't think its really about good people and bad people but rather a lack of public service being provided that is creating winners and losers. In those circumstances, its not really surprising that people use either their money to try to buy near a good school or move near one temporarily to get their kids into one.

[DuncanW]

Most parents will do what they can to get the best for their children, and moving in and out of an area is within the rules so you can't knock the individual(s) for doing that.

I think the question is - are the current rules fair? There's a balance to be struck between not causing unnecessary inconvenience to parents with children going to different schools and having a admissions systems which favours those with the means to move in and out of a catchment area at will to take advantage of the perceived better schools in the area.

[LondonMix]

Why do people think this allows wealthy people to move in and out? Wealthy people can afford to buy / live near good schools. You can't have two homes so anyone who moves near a school must already have that as their only residential address and schools already check and enforce this provision.

I can only really see this rule hurting people who can't afford to live near a good school for very long and do so temporarily to get their kids in and the move some place more affordable.

[david_carnell]

Why not just make it a lottery?

No catchment areas at all. No one can "buy" a place with a house.

You just put your names in a hat and get given a school. It'd even out pretty quick in terms of performance.

I think Brighton did this a while back - anyone know how it went?

EDIT: it seems this government banned that on a council-wide basis but individual schools can do it. Interesting read here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/10656101/Surge-in-admissions-lotteries-threatens-childrens-right-to-place-at-local-school.html

[newboots]

I absolutely can knock people for temporarily moving to the catchment of a good school and then moving out again. How cynical is that? How can them "only doing what is best for their children" be justifiable if they trample over those who could never afford to move to, for example, a private rental in the Heber catchment for ?2000 a month, even if it was for just 12 months? If they live in a council flat or a Housing Association flat or just don't have the means to double or triple their rent out of thin air. Its a perverse argument to say that its ok if you're only a little bit middle class and only doing it for 6 or 12 months. Really.

[Otta]

I'm with Newboots. If you rent a place for 6 months just to get a school place, but with no intention of staying in that community, then I have no time for you quite frankly. ("you" not aimed at anyone specific)

But do agree with Soulking that there isn't really any way a school could tell.

[Soulking]

Family A and family B move into adjacent houses, close to a school they both thought would be great for their children. Family A does this cynically, because they are a little but middle class, with the intention of moving out when the school place is secure. Family B have made no plans for the future. Family A moves out the first week of reception. Family B decide the house isn't right for them, or maybe they are (unexpectedly) expecting another child and need a bigger place - pick your story that isn't cynically gaming the system - and move away as well. Would you "knock" family B as well?

I'm not saying family A are doing the right thing. But what admissions criteria could you come up with that separates these people when the only difference between them was their intentions?

There are admission rules - people make decisions based on those rules. And yes, people with "money" have options that those who have less do not. You can say this is unfair, but what can you do about it? Whichever system you come up with will advantage some over others - and often having money gives you flexbility that confers an advantage.

If you think this unfair - what would you change?

I'm not sure a pure lottery system would work - for example - what if your child was allocated a school on the other side of London? I think some kind of distance based criteria makes sense for schools (both primary and secondary) because the school should be part of the community - and that is easier to achieve if the families live close by.

[LondonMix]

When you say they can afford to move, what on earth do you mean?

Why would a family ever move in catchment and then leave if they could actually afford to live in catchment? Also, one would imagine the rights being trampled were the relatively affluent people already in the school's catchment, no?

Either way, as SoulKing points out, trying to create admission policy around intentions is impossible and the bigger problem is a lack of good schools.

I think the idea of a lottery within a reasonable radius makes perfect sense: 1 mile would be fair as it would still be a community school within walking distance for families. That way, living close to a specific school would stop being a way for people to buy their way into a good school.

[Otta]

You are totally right that there isn't really a fix all answer. We were a little bit like family B.

Living in rented house for 4 years (having not even considered schools when we moved in whilst expecting baby number 1). Daughter got place at the school around the corner (not the "top" school in the area, but we didn't like that anyway).

Then we found we had an opportunity to buy sonewhere and it felt like now or never. Couldn't afford to buy in the immediate area (unfortunately, as that's where I'd like to have stayed) so bought what we could afford a couple of miles away.

Now when baby number 2 starts reception next year she'll likely get a sibling place.

I would honestlyr understand someone living closer to school being upset if their kid misses out on a place next year and my girl has a place, but my conscience is pretty clear, we kept older girl there because moving her would have been difficult for her.

If however we'd moved to the first place for a few months just to get the school place then pissed off to where we'd rather live once the place was secured, we'd be blatantly playing the system, and you'd have to have no consideration for anything other than yourselves to do that.

I should also say that we didn't realise our youngest would still get a sibling place when we moved and were expecting to have to somehow deal with two separate schools. It was a relief to learn otherwise I won't lie.

But as you say, what rules could possibly keep everyone happy and stop piss takers? I don't think there is a perfect solution. Unfortunately you always have to rely somewhat on honestly and decency from people, but there will always be some selfish scum "doing the best for their kids" at the expense of everyone else.

Edit to fic predictive text typos.

[newboots]

"Also, one would imagine the rights being trampled were the relatively affluent people already in the school's catchment, no?"

Well ... no! London being London there's usually a wide mix of family incomes/types of housing within the catchment of most schools. Or there is until the magic word "Outstanding" applies, and then there is an undignified scrabble and an awful lot of flats going up for rent on the doorstep.

[newboots]

Anyway, it's this temporary renting thing that the proposed change to the sibling rule in Wandsworth is trying to address. If you have more than one child you might think twice about stepping over everyone else in your efforts to get in to the best school.

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

I know quite a few Camberwell Parents who rented in Dulwich just to get a local place and then moved back to Camberwell. I was quite furious when they told me but since they can get away with it I suppose in their minds they are just doing what they can to get a good school but it's upsetting when friends then have to travel further to a school because the Camberwell lot have taken their spaces.

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

I think part of going to a local school is playdates , helping each other out , being near enough for before and after school clubs/activities . It's also not good if you have to rely on a car / bus to get to the school also .

[Otta]

Yeah we're having to get the bus now. If I was doing it alone I'd walk it, but it's too far for a 5 year old.

And that's reminded me, I can think of two (and there may be more) kids in my daughter's year that have been moved by the council and now live a total mission away. They would rather a school place near their new place, but there isn't one available so they are forced to do the journey. In my opinion it would be harsh for them to then have to take a younger sibling somewhere local to their new place, and then travel to take the older sibling to school.

For me, unless one child is placed in a special provision due to SEN, siblings should be at the same primary school.

Secondary not an issue IMO, most 11 year olds should be able to travel toschool on the bus independently.

[LondonMix]

Agree with Otta.

It might seem unfair that the Camberwell folks moved to Dulwich and then left though I am sure they feel it's unfair that their post code dictates the quality of their child's education.

Instead of turning parents against each other, getting everyone a place in a good school should be governments goal