Children of staff - admission priority

[JillTheReckless]

Our local school is consulting re changing its admissions criteria - the proposal is to put children of staff as a higher priority than the distance criteria.

I'm planning to object - I think that it's unfair when the school is supposed to be for local children and the distance criteria is already shrinking year on year (and yes, we are at a distance that could possibly fall outside admissions in a "bad" year!). It's not as if staff would need to be taking their children to school - these are secondary school pupils, not primary - so it just seems like a perk of the job.

I'm just about to send off an email, as part of the consultation process - but wondered if anyone has had a similar situation and has any other points of argument for me to add to my response. Many thanks!

A few schools near me seem to have added this to their admissions policy in recent years, it seems to be due to difficulties recruiting as sometimes it specifies that it only applies to staff in difficult to recruit posts, or to staff who have been there x number of years. I think it is a result of the general difficulties schools are having recruiting at the moment (I heard a teacher recently say that they have a vacancy at their school which has been advertised for quite some time now with only one application!), and to be honest, if putting this in their admissions policy (which would probably only affect a minimal number of pupils in fairness) means that they can attract/retain the best staff, then personally I would think it is a good thing.

In reality this is a perfectly legitimate criteria, and very very very few places would be allocated under this category anyway. Most secondary teachers are too young to have children in year 6, and at most one or two a year will. And if they are happy to send their child to that school knowing what it is really like, then that's a good thing , no?

I hear what you are saying and am open-minded as to the arguments - but you can't blame me for my concern when it could potentially affect us directly!

Thanks for the comments

I think it is a good school if teachers want their own dc to attend the same school.
It happens in Primary so why not secondary.
I doubt there are going to be many taking up the offer.

is it worse than people buying/renting in catchment because they have the money to do so thereby pushing genuinely 'local' children out?
I think it is a good idea - would you want your kids at a school that the staff felt was not good enough for their own children?

It could affect you directly - it might attract better staff

I would be really happy about this actually because it would show that the school was committed to supporting staff - if staff felt they needed or wanted to have their child at the same school.
I would also feel more confident in a school where the staff didn't send all their own children somewhere else!

If you are so borderline to get in, that 1 or 2 places per year are worrying you, then you are going to be on the brink anyway whether this goes ahead or not.

There is never a fair way to do admissions. Why should people who are wealthy enough to buy a house in the catchment area of a good school get priority? Is it possible to buy a house in the catchment area of your child's school on a teacher's salary?

My son's school has the most amazing music department. I find it unfair that gifted musicans do not get priority. However the admissions criteria has benefitted my son. I can understand why the parent of a grade 6 violinist might feel its unfair that her child has missed out on a place.

People are always going to be upset if their child does not get a place at their preferred school. There is no easy or fair way to decide admissions for a school.

Did you buy your house because it would be in the catchment of a good school OP?
Just asking.

Sunny - depends what you mean. If you mean people falsely renting in an area - then no, of course it's not worse! And obviously I'd object to that. I'm not sure that I would object to someone genuinely moving into an area though - people move all the time.

morethanpotatoprints - I didn't know it happened in primary - I've never seen it before. Though I guess for primary it's more understandable so that parents can take their children to school which is less of an issue for secondary.

I hear the argument that it could be a good thing to attract good staff, and that it is likely to only be relevant to a few each year. Thanks for the comments.

I think this is also a way of ensuring that staff can "give" more of their time to the school. If they have to stay late for football coaching or to organise extra lessons, then their children can stay too and can be safe and cared for. Childcare issues (I know they are teenagers but they start at 11) are solved more easily. And, I know from my own experience (teaching both children - no choice as no other school) that I am happier knowing my children are here.

Well we've been here for years and moved predominantly for more space when we had 3 kids - but it was certainly a bonus. Point taken. But that still doesn't mean that I am not entitled to have a differing view.

" I'm not sure that I would object to someone genuinely moving into an area though - people move all the time"
handy for wealthy people though isn't it that they can just move next door to whatever school they please, elbowing genuinely local children out.
I realise we may have x posted but did you buy your house because it was nearer a school you fancied?

And now they have changed the catchment and changed the priorities?
lol.

Roseformeplease - yes, there is some merit in that, I see. Seems like my view is in the minority then! Message received all - thanks!

Most of the schools I used to teach in, the teachers would rather die than send their own kids there! One teacher did bring her own son to the school we worked in and everyone was horrified.

Sunny - we moved a few years ago when we had our 3rd child. We weren't born in the area, if that's what you mean by "local"

There isn't a catchment as such. I'm not sure we'd get in anyway - I just didn't want to diminish our chances even further!

We certainly haven't moved "next-door" to a school. Not sure why "lol".

thanks tiggytape

I didn't know this was even a possibility. I would love my children to go to my school but we live out of catchment.

You can object.

But the school probably wants this as in some subjects it can be a very nice sweetner to retain good staff, and attract others in shortage subjects. At my DCs school with 200 staff this would only affect one pupils every few years. Most staff who would want their children at the school actually live close enough anyway. There is normally a number of years criteria, or teaching a shortage subject. This prevents someone taking an office job or similar just to get their child in. And its a nice incentive for parents, at no cost to the school.

My DCs secondary school has this criteria - staff have to have been employed for 3+ years and do a minimum amount of hours. The Principal is quite happy to defend it and I can't see it as an issue. I think there's one child in DS2s year and none in DS1s, it's not really a threat. TBH we're more of an issue than staff children. We moved (not through choice) when DS1 had just started in year 7, and are now way way out of catchment. DS2, and now DD in September, got in purely because they have a sibling criteria (for which I am truly grateful)

LOL at the poster who thinks 'most teachers are too young to have a child in year 6'. Really? This may be the case where there is a very high turnover of staff, lots of Teach First and NQTs but certainly not the case where I teach. One year I had 6 staff children in one Maths set in year 10.

That's unusual though kwitty. An average size secondary will have maybe 40 teachers. Even if they're all middle aged there would be very few offspring in each cohort.

Eh? We're a smallish school, we have over 70 teachers! Plus these rules apply to all staff not just teachers.
I think it sends a strong message about how good a school genuinely is actually, not just on paper, if staff want their children there.

Not so; we are an average sized secondary (800), which may actually be quite small these days, and have close to 100 teaching staff. then there are all the support staff, admin, grounds etc. Plus, things are fluid. People move on and we do not always go for the youngest therefore cheapest when appointing. There are a lot of staff children in each year of the school.