Traveller family lose school admission case

[Odyessus]

Posters here in the main have made it abundantly clear that they have nothing but contempt for the values of the Travelling Community.

EDIT
Oh, I'll let you have the last word. It is of course a two-way street.

Only insofar as those values directly conflict with ours and make our lives a misery.

[Mercurial]

Are you in some privileged position that allows you to determine what is just and fair in any circumstances?

I've made a claim about these circumstances, not about any circumstances.

You are surely aware that these questions have divided well-meaning and intelligent people since the dawn of civilisation.

That's not true. The question here is whether it is fair to confer an advantage upon a child by increasing their chances of getting into their preferred school on the basis that their father attended the same school in the past.

That's a fairly straightforward question, and not one that is difficult to answer.

In the case in point, the law and the courts, and I believe the vast majority of people in our society, believe no injustice or unfairness has been done to the family in question. Of course some people will disagree, as some people will always be found who disagree with virtually any law, rule or regulation, or court decision.

I already pointed out that this isn't true. The courts have ruled that the discrimination was not illegal. That has no bearing on whether or not the discrimination is just or unjust.

Also I would point out that you don't speak for the vast majority of people in our country, and even if you did, the fact that a vast majority of people believe something does not prove that they are correct. History is full of examples where the vast majority of people believed things (both normative and non-normative) which turned out not to be true.

Unless we simply substitute your judgement for that of the majority, you will have to find compelling arguments to change the views of the majority, not simply say it is a fact that the rule is unfair.

It's unfair because it discriminates between different groups of children on the basis of facts about their parents.

Suppose that the government decided that they were going to increase dole payments, but only for those people who happened to be born on a Tuesday. Do you think you could provide a compelling argument to show that such a decision would be unfair on those who were not born on a Tuesday?

[jemur]

Why? The teachers would probably have changed, why discriminate on grounds of blood over location? Shouldent we be encouraging people to travel shorter distances to school?
Please say why a child should be able to inherit his school place over a child who lives localy? sounds almost un republican.

I don't think a child should get a place in a school on the basis of "blood over location" either, but this isn't actually how most admissions policies work. I can't speak for the school in question, as I haven't seen their admission policy, but generally they go something like this: All children are welcome in our school. If we are over-subscribed, preference for places will be given IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER...
Usually, children with an older sibling in the school will be given first preference. This makes sense, I think. Then it is children within a given radius of the school (in the school I work in, this is even clarified as meaning "as drawn in a stright line on an ordnance survey map).
And so on.
To get to the point where you are discriminating on the grounds of where your parents went to school, you are actually quite far down the list and you have already accommodated those who leave nearest to the school.

[Odyessus]

I don't think a child should get a place in a school on the basis of "blood over location" either, but this isn't actually how most admissions policies work. I can't speak for the school in question, as I haven't seen their admission policy, but generally they go something like this: All children are welcome in our school. If we are over-subscribed, preference for places will be given IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER...
Usually, children with an older sibling in the school will be given first preference. This makes sense, I think. Then it is children within a given radius of the school (in the school I work in, this is even clarified as meaning "as drawn in a stright line on an ordnance survey map).
And so on.
To get to the point where you are discriminating on the grounds of where your parents went to school, you are actually quite far down the list and you have already accommodated those who leave nearest to the school.

I would think the rationale for the past pupil parent rule is to give preference to long-time locals over more recent arrivals in the event that there are not enough places for all who meet all the other criteria.

[jemur]

I would think the rationale for the past pupil parent rule is to give preference to long-time locals over more recent arrivals in the event that there are not enough places for all.

Yes, but you have still accommodated the children who live nearest to the school first. (In any admissions policy that Ive ever seen, anyway).

[Odyessus]

Yes, but you have still accommodated the children who live nearest to the school first. (In any admissions policy that Ive ever seen, anyway).

Yes, I amended my post to make that clear. I'm sure the school does not give preference to children who's father attended the school if the family no longer lives in the area.