Sixth-form girl living alone

[BoboChic]

Do you think that a private mixed sixth form should admit a new pupil who will be living alone in a small rented apartment during the week, returning home to her parents at the weekend?

There are lots and lots of reasons why a pupil might not get a place at a private school. It's not discrimination to refuse access to a pupil because it would be unwise to make that pupil vulnerable when they already have an existing stable school situation. That is responsibility.

@ealingwestmum, I think we are thinking the same thing....

However If the info presented is pucker, again why aren't you OP holding the other parents responsible for their children?

I can imaging a dinner convo like this:

"Johnny isn't doing so well, but that isn't his fault of course"
"Oh no, poor thing, what happened?"
"Some state girl joined in sixth, terrible, we didn't know she was living loco non parentus, thought they were doing the best thing, but really. And so johnny spent sixth getting smashed at her place. We didn't know of course, it was very hush hush, school didn't want anyone to know.."
"That's terrible, poor johnny, what happened to the girl?"
"She made it to uni, but crashed out after first. Terrible situ for all"

"You should sue the school, what were THEY thinking......"

Etc.

(The Bad Latin was my joke about a steriotype of PS mums) 😜

The parents would - encouraged by the school - believe that all other DC were living with their parents and adequately supervised. In those circumstances they would probably feel secure in giving their DC some freedom. The parents were making decisions based on false information, and school was the source of that false information.

Don't think so Bobo.

If the admissions criteria has taken a family's application that their child is responsible enough, based on the given circumstances for wanting her to live alone, then even if the school points out this is not normally recommended, the responsibility is with the parents to ensure it can work for both. We have NO IDEA how the school dealt with this.

If the school decides to decline the application, even though it is not illegal per se, but not recommended to allow a sixth-former to live alone, and they assume she will not be able to handle herself (with no facts at this stage that she may go off the rails), then this is discriminatory.

There are always unusual admissions cases. And sometimes it goes horribly wrong. But to categorically place the blame at one door and not the other, is what you are arguing. It could be shared, but we don't know, because you are making up the scenario as you go along.

A child of 16 is entitled to live wherever they want. If they leave home they won't be forced to return.

A child of 16 is entitled to apply for a school of their own choice.

If she had applied to a state school they could not legally have excluded her on the basis that they weren't happy with her living alone.

Whilst the rules are different for independent schools, I think the independent school was absolutely right to admit her. The living arrangements of their sixth form pupils are none of the school's business.

The school has a general duty of safeguarding for all pupils. As far as I can see the only negative effect that has been suggested so far is that her grades suffered. That is not a safeguarding issue. If she was a victim of abuse and the school spotted signs of this they should have taken appropriate action. Similarly if others were being abused due to her living arrangements the school should have got involved. But I don't see any evidence that either the girl involved or anyone else was actually abused.

The school was under no obligation either to admit her or to create a situation where other DC were vulnerable because one of their classmates could host anyone anytime she like with no adult supervision. Schools have a duty of care

If the school had previously admitted boys who were living alone they would potentially have been guilty of sex discrimination if they had refused to admit this girl.

As for the second part of this sentence, words almost fail me. Sixth form children do things all the time without adult supervision. They also take advantage of parental absences from home to bring their friends round.

The fundamental is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with a girl of sixth form age living alone. I can see no reason why the school should have refused to admit her and no evidence in anything that has been posted that the school has done anything wrong or that it has failed in any way.

Any parent that thinks that other parents are going to supervise to the same level as them is deluded. Every parent isn't going to do that and it is naive to think so.

The fact that something is not illegal doesn't mean that the school cannot have other rules.

Pallisers - indeed, it would seem from other posters and also from the girl's school's desire to cover up the fact that she was living alone that parents with DC at private schools have a legitimate expectation that their DC's classmates are living at home with their parents.

I have children in private school and I don't have any expectation of knowing the personal living circumstances of any of their friends or classmates. If my 16 year old told me that her friend was living in an apartment on her own, I would probably raise it with the school in case there was a safeguarding issue. But it wouldn't change the way I behave with my teens or increase my anxiety for them. But my kids don't expect the level of freedom many parents on MN think appropriate for 16 year olds and neither do their friends.

If the school made any mistake it was in telling the girl to hide her living arrangements. I go by the rule of thumb that if you can't communicate it, you probably shouldn't be doing it.

The parents would - encouraged by the school - believe that all other DC were living with their parents and adequately supervised

More fool the parents, then. These are sixth formers. There is absolutely no guarantee that any of them are living with their parents. Even if they are, parents will have very different views of what constitutes "adequate supervision" for a 16+ child. For many, "adequate supervision" is indistinguishable from no supervision at all.

I can't see it as a problem - it is the decision of the girl and her parents. Her academic failures may have nothing whatever to do with her living arrangements.

As a SW I visited many Mums of this age living alone in council accommodation; they mostly did pretty well; and they did not have the advantage of a good education and supportive parents.

I was a boring swot at school and took all my O and A levels a year early, so went off to uni very young and was in digs on my own miles from the uni - two buses away on the outskirts of the city. It was a bit of a baptism by fire, but I grew up fast!

There are lots and lots of reasons why a pupil might not get a place at a private school. It's not discrimination to refuse access to a pupil because it would be unwise to make that pupil vulnerable when they already have an existing stable school situation. That is responsibility.

Wow, what a message to all state children because they may wish to continue their sixth form education elsewhere...including at an independent school to exercise their choice of education (and they can, because they have the means to, even if not conventional to most). And the admissions team conducts a patronising interview that says what, but you have a stable situation, why change? is that responsibility or is it judgement/prejudice?

I know a whole family of three DC who were "asked to leave" their private school because the other parents were complaining that these three DC were left alone to party and were creating havoc.

So not that their precious kids who were attending those parties were to blame?

and since then every kid got straight A's and managed to get to the red brick unis of their choice

do I smell some b**x here?

The parents would - encouraged by the school - believe that all other DC were living with their parents and adequately supervised. In those circumstances they would probably feel secure in giving their DC some freedom.

Sorry but that is ridiculous. the first thing I would think when a teen is invited to a party in someone's house isn't "Oh the parents must be supervising" but "ARE the parents supervising or are they away for a weekend and no supervision?". You'd be fairly naive to think every time your teen heads over to another kid's house, that there is parental supervision.

It is a very long stretch to make the parents of this girl and the school responsible for the partying of every other child in the class.

It's judgement but not prejudice to admit a pupil based on a rounded appreciation of their chances of doing better at the new school than at the existing school.

Bridge there is absolutely nothing wrong with a 6th form girl living alone

No. No I don't agree with this at all. It is a very grey area.

Some will do fine. As posters who have had experience of it on here have pointed out. But many absolutely will not.

Which is why we are discussing this situation.

Poor Johnny, he didn't stand a chance, what with her beguiling state school ways....

Pallisers - I agree that when there is an official party, you check out your DC's destination.

I'm not sure that it's so straightforward to monitor the comings and goings from an ever-open-door crash pad round the corner from school. My friend said that the girl was renting her flat out to couples for quickie sex after school etc

And therefore pretty subjective, given that most admissions have little more than a Head's reference and set of predicted results to go by. And the positive intent of the student as to why they want to progress elsewhere. You have the legal people on this thread now, and you are still digging on a made up scenario that goes well and truly above what an admissions team should be delving into, and assuming as a result that is is not prejudicial for them to conclude stuff that hasn't presented itself...yet.

Holy Moly, another drop 💧💧💧she was quite literally a "little madam" renting out her den of shame for SEX!?!

OP I think you're wrong on every level.

Risks to the year group?
None of the families were informed of the situation?

Sounds like a group of teenagers behaving relatively normally, drinking and having sex. If some of them cocked up their A-levels it is not the responsibility of the school or the girl. It's the responsibility of the students who participated in the pissing about. They're not 8yr olds. Normal 16-18 year olds are responsible for their own actions.

Poor little unblemished Johnny......

But my kids don't expect the level of freedom many parents on MN think appropriate for 16 year olds and neither do their friends.

This is the heart of why I find threads like these so fascinating (and why I don't care how accurate the particulars are - we are hearing it third hand and two years late!). Mostly I find my values align fairly closely with the MN consensus and Real Life in my part of Britain. This is one of very very few issues where I really feel like alien Johnny Foreigner. And I need to know - am I out of step with reality or is MN?