As it would be highly illegal for the council not to provide education in that case, I sense bullshit but admit I didn't penetrate past the paywall.
'The mother, who asked not to be named, had applied for a place at two schools via the council’s online portal amid fears she could be priced out of her daughter’s private school by the Government’s VAT raid.
The email from Buckinghamshire council said: “Unfortunately we cannot offer any places at your preferred school/s as they are full”.
The email continued: “In this circumstance, we would normally advocate that [the child] should remain at their current school. However, if you can provide evidence that you can no longer finance the independent school fees, please advise and we can make a local authority non-preference allocation.” '
I hasten to add I have a pay wall buster extension in Firefox, would not want anyone thinking I shell out to read Das Torygraaf
If I understand this correctly the schools the parent applied for were oversubscribed and her child didn't meet the criteria for admission. The local authority then suggested a way they could jump the queue by claiming poverty on the school fees, which was also illegal. Presumably the parent could have got their child into a school that wasn't their preference and that is frequent outcome when parents apply normally. In general however you wouldn't move unless it's to a preferred choice, hence the normal recommendation to stay put if you don't get your preference.
A bit different from what was implied by the summary.
Yes, but:
The local authority has a *statutory duty* to provide an education to anyone under 18 in their area, for free.
They are *not* allowed - and I really mean not allowed - to means test it. The person who asked for that financial data may have committed an offence.
If the preferred schools are full, they should have offered places at another school instead. Then it is up to the parents to decide whether to take it, or either try and find the money somehow or go with home schooling.
Of course, the government could have avoided stories like this by introducing the policy for all fees from September 2025. But that would have been a sensible policy and VAT on private school fees is essentially red meat to appease those weirdos like BJO who haven't (unlike him) left the party yet.
You're making my original point about local authorities not being allowed to evade an absolute obligation to provide a school place. I misunderstood what the council did here however.
The letter is garbled and I suspect checking fee paying status was never policy as it would be so obviously illegal.
Maybe the person dealing with the case went to someone more experienced who told them, we often get private school parents applying for grammar school places but they never take allocated places at other schools unless they really can't afford the fees at their current place. That somehow got conflated with the usual advice to stay put unless you get your preference.
There is some poorer family preference for Bucks grammar schools, so it would have been legit to afk about family income at some point. I'm going with a two bad paragraphs selectively quoted out of a garbled letter, which overall was poorly written but not illegal.
And, as with the NT story, a newspaper that attempts to make right wingers of a certain age cross, rather than trying for a partial but reasonable representation of the events of the day.
Comments
And, as with the NT story, a newspaper that attempts to make right wingers of a certain age cross, rather than trying for a partial but reasonable representation of the events of the day.
NEW THREAD