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

[McTemp]

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!

At 4 years old?

if you're going to go to all the trouble of setting up a free school, you want to be able to guarantee your children a place at the school

hence change to legislation

But merci they are only saying children of staff would get priority. People like Toby whatsit in W. London still wouldn't get his children in unless he completely changed careers.

oh yes, looks like you are right

bet they define 'staff' to include governors then

sure it's sneaky plot really

Yes I did read something about giving priority to anyone who was 'very involved' with the school somewhere.

Of course the likes of Toby Young aren't going to put all that effort into setting up a school without benefiting from it.

I've just filled in the consultation questionnaire... I think the notion of giving priority to children of all school staff in all schools is too broad.

My take, (as a primary school teacher who teaches in a school 870m from my home whose DD didn't get a Reception place but was offered one 2.8 miles away in the opposite direction) is that it would be incredibly helpful if the Reception-aged offspring of primary teachers - who have to be in class teaching first thing in the morning - were given priority because there is no flexibility whatsoever as to when the school day starts. I could hardly say to my KS2 class, "school will start at 9.30am this year because DD1's school is 2 buses away, has no breakfast club, there are no local childminders that do drop-offs at schools that far away and Social Services have told me 4 is too young for her to make the journey unaccompanied...it's too tricky to be in two places at once so your school day will be 9.30am til 4pm each day".

I believe it's different for non-teaching staff (lots of support staff at my school who have young children start at 9.30am, once they've dropped their children off) as there is more flexibility to work reduced hours.

Although it would be great for my DC to gain a place at DH's grammar school merely because he teaches there, I don't think priority for secondary aged children is necessary because the vast majority of Y7+ pupils will be expected to travel to and from school independently.

SE13mummy,
In your context I might agree with your line of thoughts but in many schools, non-teaching staff are expected to be in school by 0840 and to be available till 30 minutes after pupils leave (and frequently not paid for the hours worked) so I would not agree with your reasoning for teachers being more deserving than other school staff.
On this it is either all staff or no staff.

It's not convenient for any parent to have to commute 2.8 miles in the opposite direction to where they live or work to drop their child off at school. Many (most?) jobs don't have flexible working hours.

Sorry, but I still don't see that teachers are a special case, and certainly no more so than non-teaching staff.

Ah ha! I was wondering how those 'altruistic' types who were setting up Free Schools for 'the good of the local community' were going to be able to ensure their DCs were advantaged. Now I know!

How do they define 'very involved' with setting up a free school?

Completely confused by the "free school thing" please excuse my ignorance.... (and the jury is still out on whether teachers dc should have priority over places or not) but I think that the main difference (and I appreciate the many compensations of similar- not always the same... school holidays) as a teacher you have no option to take time off for a special assembly or your child's first sports day... things that are special in a child and parents life unless your child is at your school... it is not just a case of I can't because I need time for holidays.... the simple truth is it is just NOT an option. However I also appreciate in certain jobs at certain times ... it is also not an option but it is more a question of choice and compromise! If I have a day off for a special event then maybe I miss a day of holiday and use a holiday club!

Unfortunately, there are many jobs where workers don't have a choice about when to take their holiday. A friend of mine used to be a bus driver and he was on a rolling rota with holiday weeks pre-allocated, no swapping allowed.

At least teachers know from one year to another when their holidays are going to be. Also, many teachers work part-time after having children so many do have some flexibility.

I think all of the arguments about teachers getting to work on time, leaving on time etc is irrelevant. The same applies to parents in many other jobs; you cannot do your job without childcare. The solution is to set up better childcare, not give preference to teachers. So the staff in a school who absolutely should be given priority for places is anyone prepared to run the school's before and after school club. It is often very difficult to recruit or retain qualified staff who want to work 7.30 to 9.00 and 3.30 to 6.00.

As a general idea, it is clearly unfair to give a child priority based on who their parent is, but then the whole school admissions system is now so unfair, that people are unlikely to get really worked up about yet another layer of unfairness being put on it.

I don't think it is justified in terms of ease for teacher parents.

It is used for recruitment and retention purposes. Most schools who offer this 'perk' to their teachers only offer it to those who have continuous service for over 2 years or who are being recruited into shortage subjects. It is to the benefit of ALL the children in the school to have continuity of staff and for the school to attract a decent number of applicants in shortage subjects, so a good teacher can be hired.

Many schools now have big problems in keeping their staff and in attracting quality applicants (especially ins one subjects) so this is just another way to address this problem,which affects all of the children in a school. I have never heard of a popular school extending this perk to every member of staff,regardless of their job,mor regardless of their type of contract. Schools which are heavily over-subscribed are very aware of the fact and in most cases will only be giving a couple of places per year to teacher-children who wouldn't otherwise get in - and most parents I think,would support the school attempts to gain and maintain a highly qualified staff.

People are right that teachers are likely to want their children to go to high quality schools. They may move to get into them, but this may not always be possible. Schools which offer the perk, simply put themselves in a better place to attract a bigger pool of applicants, which then results in higher quality teachers.

The threads over four year old!