Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Original poster

New code of practice stating teacher's children will get priority on school places

90 replies

McTemp · 02/06/2011 11:18

Not sure if there has been a topic about this before - I couldn't find one.

Has anyone seen the Draft Admissions code that is being consulted on here ?

It states Children of staff at the school
1.33 If admission authorities decide to give priority to children of staff, they must set out clearly in their admission arrangements how they will define ?staff? and on what basis children of staff will be prioritised.

This is new - children attending mainstream state funded schools have never been given priority if their parents teach there before.

What are your thoughts on this?

Personally, I think its very unfair. It discriminates against other working parents who also have to manage the school drop offs/pick ups. Teachers already get the benefit of not having to find childcare during school holidays, this seems like a ridiculous 'perk' to have, surely?! Not to even get started on the problems I can imagine arising where good teachers no longer want to work at the under-achieving schools, because they will only want jobs in the outstanding schools, so their children can go there. I'm not a fan of this proposal at all!

OP posts:
prh47bridge · 03/06/2011 17:53

They can set their own admissions policies but they must comply with the Admissions Code. The current code does not allow schools to give priority to children of staff as part of their normal admission criteria.

YummyHoney · 03/06/2011 20:41

Rosebud Grin Great post.

gordongrumblebum · 03/06/2011 21:07

You lot are way too cynical. As Bonsoir so rightly said - it's a matter of logistics. If the school requires a teacher to come in early and to work late, it is sensible if she uses the out of school facilities. She might as well get the children educated on site as well.

Many of my colleagues children (teachers, TAs, lunchtime supervisors) and my ds have been through my school. This hasn't created any problems whatsoever.

It is completely different to a doctor being able to move his children up a waiting list - that would be an unfair advantage.

A child being educated in a parent's school has no unfair benefits. He is educated just like any Tom, Dick or Harry, and wins no special favours.

YummyHoney · 03/06/2011 21:12

But the DC does win special favours if it's a popular/oversubscribed school, Gordongrumble.

Rosebud05 · 03/06/2011 21:23

I agree with YummyHoney - a parent working in a popular/oversubscribed school is an unfair benefit if the kid living next door to the teacher's kid will have to go to the unpopular catchment school down the road. It de facto increases the options to families who have someone working in a school - this is an unfair benefit.

I don't buy the matter of logistics argument. If on-site childcare is so essential, why have all the local authority creches been closed down? Most parents have to organise out of school care in a different place to where they work - why are teachers singularly unable to do this?

How is it 'completely different' to saying that the family of anyone who works in a GP surgery can have first dabs at appointments, regardless of whether they live in the catchment for the GPs?

My dh works for a local authority which we don't live in - should my kids and I have privileged access to his authorities services?

MmeBlueberry · 04/06/2011 07:37

Teachers are contracted to work from 10 minutes before the start of the school day to day minutes after. Many parents will just work those hours because they want to keep their childcare costs to a minimum.

If the child is in their own school, it will be easier for the teacher to work free overtime, which is a benefit to the school as a whole.

jabed · 04/06/2011 08:16

*Many parents will just work those hours because they want to keep their childcare costs to a minimum.

If the child is in their own school, it will be easier for the teacher to work free overtime, which is a benefit to the school as a whole.*

I know this is well off topic but I just wonder how many parents in other jobs are willing to work " free overtime" like this ( anytime)?

Now I am easy because I work part time. I dont often leave work on the dot either but parents seem to expect this from teachers. But do they do this themselves?

IndigoBell · 04/06/2011 08:56

Yes, Jabed. Many, many people work unpaid overtime.

Almost anybody who is paid a salary rather than by the hour is expected to do their job no matter how many hours it takes.....

jackstarb · 04/06/2011 09:25

I think jabed's earlier post is very true. In reality, very few teachers send their dc's to a worse school than the one they teach in.

They do what most educated middle-class parents do to ensure their dc's go to a good school, anyway.

This a about a 'perceived' unfairness and improved logistics.

Rosebud05 · 04/06/2011 09:46

My dh's LA contract states that there is no overtime and that he needs to work as many hours as necessary to complete his contracted duties. I don't imagine that he is along. The vast majority of people - salaries or paid by the hour - do free overtime.

Thinking it through, this move is also to facilitate increases in PANs in 'good' schools ie 'it's not fair that Mrs B's son has a place just because she works there, we live nearer/has sibling etc.' 'well, we'll make it fairer by allowing the school to admit more kids each year, hence sapping parents with resources from unpopular schools, meaning that schools in a resourced middle-class intake become better and the 'sink' schools, eh, 'sink' even futher.'

If it's so essential that child care be provided on site in parents' workplaces, why have all the LA creches been closed down?

jenniec79 · 04/06/2011 10:09

If children are in the same school, it is pretty easy to put an hour in before and after school, possibly more.

This drove me mad as an older teen. I'd been at the school from age 10, mum started working there when I was 17. I was already driving, had my own things to do in the evenings - D of E, cadets etc. and homework for 5 old A-levels (and I didn't generally bring the textbooks to school as sciences so really heavy) - and suddenly mum was there but "farting about" rather than "getting in the car right now so we can leave" DB and I frequently had to get to the point of stuff in car, us in car (car turning over and out of parking space) and still she never got her arse in gear until about 5.30pm.

It was all the timekeeping things she'd moaned at us about constantly while she was a SAHM and when she worked PT elsewhere, so we both knew the arguments and that using them actually proved we DID listen to her!

Once she realised I wasn't kidding (I set off without her and dropped DB off at cubs leaving her stuck until I got back, rather slowly "but there's traffic now mum cos it's so late!" and I did stop to moan quickly at mate's house on the way back!) we managed a compromise of half 4 latest.

The coursework club for her subject was the low point. The trouble is, even at that age, Mums insist on always being right, and teachers do too. IMO the best example out there of 2 rights making a WRONG.

meditrina · 04/06/2011 10:14

I don't mind this being included as a priority, though I'd prefer to see it restricted to teaching staff. The numbers of children will be very small, and if it helps staff retention I see this as a good thing.

PS: I doubt GPs families could get priority on hospital lists, but I bet they do get fitted in to surgery appointments (if they're registered at the same practice in the first place).

kat2504 · 04/06/2011 11:39

Teachers can probably not afford to send their children to independent schools. Unless they are married to someone much higher earning. Most of us (especially in the South East) could never afford it in a month of Sundays.
There are pros and cons to teachers' children going to the same school. In the last school I worked at some teachers got a hard time for sending their kids elswhere if they could have got a place at that school. Something about sending out the wrong message to other parents.
Many teachers choose not to work in the catchment area where they live. So if their kids go to the school where they work they won't have any local friends, which could be bad for them socially. Also it's a bit crap being stuck doing nothing at school until gone 5 while Mum or Dad is still in a meeting or doing work.
In some areas, where teachers can't afford the houses in the catchment area of the school, it would encourage good teachers to work there and commute. Otherwise they might struggle to recruit staff.
It shouldn't be a top priority in my opinion (children in care should be top priority) but if it is taken into account it will probably not do any harm, perhaps one child per year in an averagely large school. Many teachers might not want their child in the same school because it is too far from home or because they want to keep work and home life separate.

LaydeeC · 04/06/2011 14:17

I know a couple of teachers who didn't want their children going to the school that the husband worked at (despite being offered a 'back-door' place) - not because of academic rigor but because they didn't want their dcs 'mixing' with the 'type' of kid that ordinarily went there. It just wasn't middle class enough.
I'm firmly of the view that if a school isn't good enough for their own kid, then it sure as hell isn't good enough for anyone else's child.

jabed · 04/06/2011 14:59

Yes, Jabed. Many, many people work unpaid overtime.

Almost anybody who is paid a salary rather than by the hour is expected to do their job no matter how many hours it takes.....

Thank you for that information - do you have some statistics which support this by chance (I am a statistician, I have an interest in this sort of thing from a statistical mapping point of view)?

Of course as a mere hourly paid teacher (part time) it is not in my contract and not expected of me but thats OK.

jabed · 04/06/2011 15:07

I'm firmly of the view that if a school isn't good enough for their own kid, then it sure as hell isn't good enough for anyone else's child

I am inclined to agree with this. I always said when I was much younger that it was a good measure of a school as to how many of the teachers would send their own children there. This was back in the days when most teachers lived much nearer to catchments than they do now.

For the record I will happily send my DS to my school when he is old enough ( I work in senior school).

hocuspontas · 04/06/2011 15:21

In reality this is going to be one or two places at most I would have thought. It's only the children of teachers; most TAs/midday staff (generalising here) already have school-age children or they are local and their children would be in catchment anyway. The secondary schools round here (Foundation) have generally had this as one of their admission criteria most years anyway. No biggie to me.

Rosebud05 · 04/06/2011 19:55

"it's only going to be one or two places at most..."

I guess that's exactly what the parents of twins who are offered places at different schools think when they're told that the school cannot exceed the PAN, or the parents of the thousands of kids who haven't actually been offered a school place this year.

prh47bridge · 04/06/2011 20:32

The good news is that another of the changes will allow schools to exceed PAN in order to admit twins even if it takes an infant class over 30.

And this change will not make any difference to the number of school places available in total. It may mean that some places at school A are taken by children of teachers, but that frees up the places they would otherwise have got at school B.

Rosebud05 · 04/06/2011 22:26

Why is that good news? Are classes of over 30 a good idea?

Genuine question btw.

gordongrumblebum · 04/06/2011 22:55

I don't think this is a big deal. My ds moved to a new school with me (in Y3) when I changed schools (and it really did make my life easier!), I have no idea how the admissions were worked out in 1999, and it just 'happened'. I live 5 miles from my school and 200m from the nearest school. The nearest school said I had no chance as it's a CofE school and I don't go to any religious meetings (Hindus were above me on the waiting list as they attend a place of worship).

The whole thing was a question of getting him there, getting him educated and getting him home. The quality of the school was not that important - as long as it didn't have a dreadful name, I was happy (and I think that would apply to most teacher-mothers).

I still maintain you're getting too wound up about this, and it is genuinely to do with logistics and an easier life!

YummyHoney · 04/06/2011 23:01

Totally agree with the poster who said many, many people work unpaid overtime - you don't need statistics to know that - you just have to live in the real world and have an awareness of what is going on around you.

MenaZovut · 04/06/2011 23:10

My s-children attend the (faith) school I work at, it's practical. It's not a very good school but it's one I'm happy with. I doubt they would have otherwise got in tbh as we live miles away, but it's practical. They would have got in within a year or so as beyond the lower years no year group is full. Is it really worse than the sibling rule we operate, it's still a choice down to family logistics.

Rosebud05 · 04/06/2011 23:18

I'm still not getting the logistics and easier life argument in light of the fact that most local authority/FE nurseries and the like have been closed down over the last 10-15 years.

Most working parents don't have their kids' childcare on site - why is this so problematic for teachers?

hester · 04/06/2011 23:18

I vaguely know a teacher who told me, last year, that her child would get priority admission because of her job. At the time I thought she must have got this wrong - this was a mainstream state primary - but maybe not?

Incidentally, I've never been in a job where overtime was paid. I'm not grumbling - I think it comes with the territory over a certain payband - but it is definitely the norm so far as I'm concerned.