School appeal, can they use where you work to reject dc or can i use it as reason to accept dc?

[CelestialGalaxy]

Am trying to understand if the fact i work in a school that is further away (not by much) than the appeal school is likely to be a factor which either i can use as a reason for my dc not attending same school that i work at or if i would have to declare that i work in the other school and they might use that as a reason dc should go to school i am at, or if it should make no difference.

Anyone can appeal. You can have an immensely strong case, or nothing at all. You still have the right to appeal. And yes, on appeal (unlike the initial application) individual circumstances can be taken into account.

It won't make any difference at all. At our school, children of teachers get priority, but obviously if you don't want them to go there, it's irrelevant in that respect.

Disagree strongly with the previous poster (who appears to be pushing a book). Practical issues with drop-offs and collections do not make for a successful appeal, nor does arguing that the appeal school better supports your family setup. The question is how your child will be disadvantaged if they don't attend the appeal school. Things that are a problem for parents or the family are generally given little or no weight by appeal panels.

As so often, I agree with prh47bridge.

Practical issues such as travel, routines and family set up may be relevant to a child’s education, but on their own they are very unlikely to indicate a level of prejudice (detriment) to the child that would outweigh the prejudice to the school in having to cater for an additional student.

I'm not sure who the previous poster is, but in this case I don't think the issue centres around practical issues. I think the OP has a child who has been offered school A and is appealing for school B on the grounds that it offers subjects that school A doesn't. However, she works at school C, knows that school C offers the same subjects that she's arguing for in school B, and knows that her DS is a higher priority for a place there as the child of staff. The trouble is that she doesn't want him to go to her school. She's worried that the panel might say 'Hold on a minute, you work at a school that offers all of what you're saying you need, so he could go there!'

The previous poster was the person promoting their Facebook group and handbook, who was giving misleading advice on how to raise practical issues (transport etc) at appeal. Their post here has been erased!

Isn't it great when Mumsnet deletes a post to which you've responded leaving no trace so that your post doesn't make sense any more

I think this is the only time I’ve seen a post be completely erased, without the usual “this post has been deleted for breaking MN rules” message!

So sorry @PanelChair and @prh47bridge . I normally agree with everything you say implicitly but I couldn't make sense of @prh47bridge 's post, so thought 'oh they must have been reading two threads at the same time and posted on the wrong one.'

Yes, our posts don’t make much sense now!

It does seem odd that MN have entirely deleted their posts - it made this and a couple of the other appeal threads v confusing!

I think because the poster spammed so many threadS, MNHQ deleted them as a poster?

Even then it normally says 'this post has been deleted for breaking the talk guidelines.'

Do you work for a trust? I do and it's specifically if our admission policy trust colleagues get preferences for schools admissions above other families. It's clearly declared in our list of criteria. Have a look at the school admission policy if it's not there they can't use that one way or another to rank you if over subscribed.

This

She's worried that the panel might say 'Hold on a minute, you work at a school that offers all of what you're saying you need, so he could go there!

In my experience the panel will say exactly that. They may well ask something like “have you investigated whether other schools offer the subjects you want, and if so, can you get a place at any of those?” and assuming you’re going to be truthful, you’d have to say that the school you work at also offers those subjects.

In that case, the prejudice to your son of not going to the appeal school is pretty low, as he could go to your school instead to get the same subject range. So the appeal would fail as you haven’t shown prejudice.

You’d need a very good reason why you can’t have him at the school you work at, I think.

Thanks everyone for the replies, but i am no clearer as some say it is irrelevant and some say it is.

You do not have to declare where you work.

It is possible the person presenting the school's case will bring it up if they know where you work. If they do, you may be asked why you didn't apply for a place for your child at your school. If you don't have a good answer for that, the panel may feel that weakens your case.

However, if the person presenting the school's case doesn't bring it up and you don't mention it, the panel won't know where you work so that won't enter into it. And, if it does come up but you have good reasons for not wanting your child to go to the school where you work, it won't affect your case one way or the other.

This was my thought.

The only other scenario I can see it being brought up under is if the school OP works at has open places/isn't generally oversubscribed and someone on the panel knows that and that it offers the subjects OP's child is looking for. The "can panelists consider whether other schools also offer what this student needs" question is a complex one that panels will differ some on, but for an appeal based on academic subjects it wouldn't be shocking for the panel to ask about efforts to secure places at other local schools with that offering.

But again, as long as OP can explain why they don't want their DC to attend the school they work at without just saying "I work there so I know it's not a good enough school for my child" or similar then that's unlikely to become a sticking point.

You Need to justify why going to the school is beneficial to your child. I don’t think your workplace is relevant.

I appealed for my dc to get in a grammar school. At the time, it had a computer specialism. So I put a case forward why my son just missed out on eleven plus ( family illness), showed evidence he was capable of the work, plus gave evidence of IT etc. It worked.

Evidence is the key word. As others have said, you can’t just say he wants the school because it has a better curriculum, but prove that curriculum suits your son..ie. Offers music GCSE’s, orchestras etc, and your son is learning the trumpet, and has done exams, not that he wants to learn the trumpet.

I agree. In which case I would say something like 'It's important to James that he develops independence and has his own identity. We were worried that by being the son of a teacher he may be treated differently by either other pupils or staff. We felt it was important that he had his own secondary school experience that wasn't influenced by my presence in the school.'

"Evidence is the key word. As others have said, you can’t just say he wants the school because it has a better curriculum, but prove that curriculum suits your son..ie. Offers music GCSE’s, orchestras etc, and your son is learning the trumpet, and has done exams, not that he wants to learn the trumpet."

I think that care needs to be taken not to imply that parents can only win if their children have had opportunities that other children may not have been able to access. I would have been just as persuaded by 'Lucy would have liked to learn the trumpet but we couldn't afford lessons. School A has a free after school music club where students can learn an instrument and trumpet is one of the offered instruments.' as 'Lucy has been having lessons in trumpet since she was 5 and is now grade 3 on the trumpet. School A has an orchestra where she can play the trumpet.'

It's about the benefit of the school to the child, and an opportunity that is otherwise than that which they could access outside of their education could be far more beneficial to a child than an opportunity which enhances an activity that they already access in their free time.

I’ve only ever seen children of staff as an admission criteria in private schools.
It has no relevance in state schools.