Using a private school in a school shortage (state paid for) ? Is this allowed?

[cswilliams78]

Hello,

Could really do with some advice. There is a shortage of school places in my local area and quite a few have been (including my DS) have been offered places outside of the area which we are obviously not happy with.

We have attracted the support of our local MP, Andy Burnham also shadow education minister and coverage in the local press, we have also formed a Facebook group to bring those effected together - so a bit of a campaign going.

The council are due to hold a meeting in which they say they are hoping to find 'positive outcomes' for us.

A local private school (which has spaces) have offered to help both the families and the council by offering places to the council at the same cost as they would pay a state school to educate the children (at no extra cost to the families). This seems to me like a brilliant win win solution but I am quite cautious that the coucil will agree to it.

Does anyone have any experience of this or know if it is possible or allowed.

Thanks,
Catherine

But it seems from the extract that OP posted above that none of the children in this case are without places.

The parents are unhappy that they did not get their preferences, and are having to travel 2.7 miles to the offered school.

Our nearest state primary is more than 2.7 miles away anyway. And yes 4 year olds here travel on a school bus to school. They are fine.

As others have said, if the LEA has offered places within the borough they have done their duty. They don't have to give you a place at the school you want, as you know.

I don't think it's a school bus, but an ordinary bus with the children having a pass to travel on it.

It seems irresponsible to expect 4 year olds to travel to school this way.

Many children face long and complex journeys to school. The distance here seems to be under 3 miles for most of these children. The question is whether to remove funds from school A to allow school B to expand. This is controversial even between state schools (and even when planned within the usual rules for expanding permitted admission numbers).

No part of the country operates a "voucher system" under which a parent can have fees paid to a school of their preference. And I believe that Labour opposed it when in office - so having the shadow Education minister stepping in in favour of the underlying principle of the scheme. Has he spoken publicly on this? If so, could you link?

Andy Burnham's motives do indeed seem suspect if he is prepared to support what the parents and the private school propose - effectively a local voucher scheme for the parents to transport the equivalent funding of a state place into the private sector.

I am totally in favour of it being universal practice (I'd love to be able to lop off DS's private fees the equivalent cash that at present the LEA is not spending on him) I'm just surprised Andy Burnham is.

The LEA have places available. I don't think they should offer places in a private school. It will still cost them money to have unfilled places in the undesirable school.
I do think you have a case for asking for transport, but not a free private education.
When my DCs were starting school there was a shortage of places in our village. Places were being allocated in the next village and transport was provided. Parents were not happy about this because
the next village is not as 'nice'. Parents were demanding that a new
school be built. The LEA would not consider it while the neighbouring school had places available. I think they were right.

I think this is a terrible idea.

I also get the impression that the LEA could be offering chauffeur-driven limousine to get the children to school and parents still wouldn't be happy. It's not the distance, but the school and the area offered that they are unhappy with.

My best advice would be to join the PTA. Stand as a parent-governor. Get involved with the school and support it. Encourage others in the same position to do the same. Schools can change a great deal in a relatively short time (hence some going from special measures to satisfactory or better under a positive and strategic leadership team).

I would be absolutely LIVID if the state/LEA here was to pay to prop up an undersubscribed private school when there are state school places available. The LEA would be MAD to do it, because it effectively demonstrates that they themselves have given up on the unpopular school.

I sympathise with your disappointment at not getting your chosen schools but I don't think that the parents have been treated unfairly at all. A 3 mile trip to school is not unreasonable at all.

I'd be surprised if the children got a free private school education because many parents are lumbered with schools that they did not choose because they weren't in catchment of their preferred choices. Many parents (including myself) pick homes based on how close it is to local schools. In fact, we are moving house during the summer holidays so that we live near a great secondary school (our current local ones are poor).

If the children get a free private school education then I imagine that there will be a big influx of people into your area trying to get the same for their kids.

I did a hasty Google last night and couldn't find any press article which indicated that the MP was doing anything more than support his constituents in calling for a meeting with the LEA. I found nothing to suggest that he had spoken in favour of the private school option.

I would be very surprised if any elected representative - MP or councillor - were ever to endorse the argument that a school or a part of their constituency was 'rough' or that children shouldn't be expected to go there because it was 'rough'. What sort of message would that send to constituents who already live in the area and whose children attend the schools: You and your children are 'rough' and the nice adults and children shouldn't have to mix with you?

Just chipping in in response to some of these replies.

I don't think Andy Burnham has expressed his opinion on this option afaik and certainly hasn't gone as far as showing his support but I think this as well as other arguments/proposals would be brought up at this meeting which is supposed to be taking place.

St. Peters is 2.7m from us as the crow flies, so longer via road.

St. Peters is the 10th closest school to most of us so that's 10 closer school which we all couldn't get into (all 32 of us afaik). Most of us live within half a mile or less from at least 3 schools.

I think a bulge class would be a better idea but most of us are up to the point that we will take whatever we can get as long as it's local as all appeals (mostly reception but we lost our y3 appeal last week).

As another poster said - it's not school transport which has been provided but a bus pass for the child (not the adult) to catch a normal bus. I kid you not it would be downright dangerous to send a 4yo on this bus through this area on their own.

It's just sickening that extensive house building has been allowed to go ahead for years without any extra primary school provision at all and the council knew about this upcoming problem in 2009, possibly earlier and did absolutely jack shit about it. I admit I too can't see a Labour council going for funding places at a private school but it's all part of badgering the hell out of them to do something, anything to ease the problem.

We've had to get DS into a school farther away than the one offered to be closer to the junior school DD was offered just so we can collect them both. Our surprise has come because this area never used to have issues like this until recently and it doesn't seem like it will get better any time soon.

Yes I know what you mean - there's been a smallish development of houses right next to the school and more just up the road and it's all young families and of course if there's a school on your doorstep that just happens to be rated ofsted outstanding then that's going to be the first choice. I think about half the places went to siblings as well. Plus it's my old primary so that adds the emotional factor as well!

I think there is little else to say here but I just want to clarify a few points.

1. I didn't say anywhere that Andy Burnham was supporting this idea, only that he is supporting our case to find an alternative solution - which he is.

2. I didn't say anything regarding the allocated school being rough or about people being nice or not nice being allowed to go to certain schools (and I don't know where this idea has come from).

3. I didn't ask for anyone to give their opinion on the strength of our case -only was it legal / allowed.

4. The other school would not lose out on a great deal of funding should our children be schooled elsewhere, I am only aware of 2 families who have accepted their place (including ours).

5. The other school will not be an overspill option for much longer as 650 new houses are about to be built between us and that school so I imagine they will be full next year and any places vacated by us now will be quickly filled.

6. There IS a clear need for an additional school and this under used, almost empty currently independent school can clearly fill a gap which is there to be filled without the costs incurred by building a new school (which was planned but scrapped as it was part of schools for the future, as almost all were and it does not mean there is not a need part of that decision means retaining my eldest son's secondary school which needs in excess of £4 million spending on it ...just to bring the building up to an acceptable standard).

I am really quite shocked and amazed by how this thread which was a question posted quite innocently has become a debate based on very little fact or knowledge. I didn't state the facts as it was irrelevant to my question which was asked on technical not moral or emotional grounds.

I am very sorry to hear that so many have to travel to schools outside of their areas, it is not the norm in this part of the country and I will do everything in my power to ensure that it doesn't become so. As I said in a post above just because something is common place it does not mean that it is right.

Catherine

I didn't suggest that you had said your MP was supporting the private school option, but several other posts here seem to be assuming that he is. Likewise, I thought I had seen a post here which named the school you have been offered and described it as a "rough school in a rough area". I have just read back and it was described (by Verity) as an "awful school in an awful area". To me, that means the same thing but if you think otherwise, forgive me. Anyway, my comment about "rough" and "nice" schools derives from all my recent experience on appeals threads - where wanting to avoid a "rough" school is often asked about as a potential grounds for appeal - and was intended as a general observation.

I don't think you can complain, though, that people have wanted to discuss some of the ramifications of a LEA paying for children to attend a private school. That's the nature of MN, isn't it?

If the LEA has offered places, it has done all it has to do, legally.

It paying the independent school is not a win-win; it is still incurring most of the cost of educating your children even if your children don't go to the allocated school; all the fixed costs of buildings, a teacher, etc don't become smaller if they are teaching, say, 20 kids rather than 30. So the private route would be very expensive for the LEA.

You would be better putting your energies towards convincing them to put in a bulge class at a nearby school with enough space, which is a common and expected solution; though given the children do have spaces somewhere, this will be hard too.

The thing is if the lea pay for the private school they will be paying twice for each kid. I get what you're saying about how the fees won't be any more than it costs for a state place.

Problem is though if there is a school with spaces then the lea are paying for these spaces whether they're full or not. They're paying the teacher, they're paying the head, the gas, elec, insurance, etc. If your kids fill the empty places at the state school it won't cost the lea anymore money apart from the bus passes.

They're not effectively going to pay to keep empty places empty and then pay again for your kids to go to private school. I don't think you have any chance, sorry.

I think posters were reasonable to make the comments they have done - including about Burnham's role as the title and OP were about the state paying private school fees - not about a more general "how can we find alternatives" (though the OP's later post did remove the ambiguity)

LEAs (probably) can pay fees - but only if the case is truly exceptional. i've only come across it with highly specialist teaching for a few SpLDs when there is no other place remaining at all elsewhere, and where the placement is short term and expected to lead to reintegration into the mainstream.

I would agree with other posters that your case would not count as exceptional, and thus it would not be possible for LEA to pay fees.

It seems that right now, there are enough places within the LEA, but (as so often happens) they do not match shifting patterns of housing density. If everyone has been offered a place, no matter how unsatisfactory, then they have fulfilled their duty and there is no need for a bulge class (for which there would be no current budgetary provision).

I think you have a very good case indeed for an additional school bus.

You only mention further pressures on school places because of more building later on in the thread. It is right to highlight this to LEA now - it sounds as if LEA (like many) is going to need to expand its number of school places in future years and the more it knows about likely hotspots (this might not be the only one) the better the chances that it will be able to make a suitable borough-wide plan. (It may or may not solve the "blight" in your specific neighbourhood, but should bring the right number of places overall). If your area is set to continue to be blighted, this should help a case for a school bus.

You know, the obvious answer would be to turn the fee-paying school into a Free School or Academy- win-win all round, no?