Webwise "Customer Choice Process"

[Ian Batten]

On 11 Apr 2008, at 17:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>
> fwiw, and with my school hat on, I think that keeping the three kids  
> together in the same school is more important than protecting the  
> catchment area. After all, they aren't going to chuck the other two  
> kids out when the parent moves. But it's clear (from many examples)  
> that schools don't normally take this view

Actually, here in sunny Birmingham they usually do.  I know of one  
school --- a church school with a particularly complex history on  
Cadbury land --- which has or certainly did have a ``siblings in  
catchment'' (parish in this case) category.  But no other school whose  
policies I've seen does, simply because catchment areas went out with  
flared trousers.   The hierarchy usually is:

* Children looked after

* Siblings

* Various faith categories, of greater or lesser complexity, where  
necessary

* Distance from the school entrance in a straight line.

Obviously, in this structure, siblings are siblings, irrespective of  
intervening moves by the family.

Bournville Primary has (or had in 2000) a ``siblings only from the  
parish'' policy: indeed, one reason we didn't send our elder there,  
even though she was offered a place, was that we don't live in the  
parish (even though we live on Trust land) and therefore wouldn't have  
a certain place for our younger.  But as I said, that's very unusual,  
and I know of no other primaries and no secondaries with that policy.

ian