Schools admission criteria......

I agree, compared to the total number of pupils there will be very few who were disadvantaged (ie either been in care or eligible for free school meals).

I live in a county that got rid of the 11+ in 1976 so cannot compare directly. however, in the top performing school in the city where we live, there are 11.5% disadvantaged pupils.

This compares with 25% at an averagely performing school in the city and 49% for a poorly performing school.

In a neighbouring county they do still have the 11+. In a town about 15 miles north of us they have a grammar school that achieves similar results to the best performing school in our city. They only have 8.8% disadvantaged pupils.

Or, also not far from us, the state school that had the best academic results in the East Midlands (according to The Sunday Times Best Schools Guide 2025), The King's School Grantham, has just 6.2% disadvantaged pupils.

This is the reality of how few disadvantaged pupils make it into grammar schools.

So, I don't think that you need to overly worry on this point.

It’s time to stop belly aching over grammar and private schools which only a tiny fraction attend and focus on provision for the majority.

I totally agree. Too many people are focussing their attention on grammars and the independent sector, which relatively few children attend. I don’t know why there isn’t more of a fuss made of the failing comprehensives which too many children have to attend. Unfortunately I can’t see it changing any time soon because the current government are too interested in achieving equality by dragging great schools down rather than improving the lower performing ones.

How dare the children in care have any priority access to education. The reality is they may not remain at the school for their entire education. The could be relocated to a different home that is too far travel. They will highly likely not received any tutoring to assist in the application process. Your daughters are fortunate it is probable they have a secure home and have parents. Children in care do not have secure homes and would not be in care if they had stable parents. Seriously count your blessings and reflect upon the opportunities your daughters have.

What is a sink school?

Op you are effctively saying:

'My sister goes to that school'

should trump

'my parents are dead, I live in care, noone pays for my tutoring or helps me with homework and I still passed the 11 plus and want to commit to my studies'.

So what exactly is the complaint here?

The bigger problem was the ban on creating new grammar schools in the areas that still have them. So if a grammar school closed down, that was it for the places. It lead to issues like the OPs one- her dd has passed the 11+ but still might not get a place at a grammar school as the number of places available in grammar schools is not linked to the number who pass. They don’t weight the 11+ exam to ensure it’s harder to pass in a boom year and keep the number of places available in grammar matching the who pass.

it’s really common for children who have passed the 11+ not to get a grammar place. Which seems unfair, if you are going to have the system, there needs to be the right number of places. (this problem may solve itself as the birth rate falls and grammars don’t cut their places.)

@LookingforMaryPoppins unfortunately the entire education system isn’t “fair”. You are fortunate to live in an area with academically selective schools as vast swathes of the country don’t have that option available to them.

The current system fails our children. We need excellent state schools available for all children, and a system where parents can access an education suitable for their child (an academically school isn’t right for everyone). Faith schools aren’t “fair”, as those state funded schools can discriminate based on religion. Any school with a catchment area or criteria based on distance isn’t “fair” as those who can afford to move and pay higher house prices to be nearer the school are at an advantage. Some areas of the country have excellent comprehensives available. For others, the only option is underperforming schools. That’s not “fair”.

its very common for children in care, and previously looked after children to be near the top of the criteria, in state schools. Usually these children are in foster care or with adopters, so living with hard working people that value education, and are vulnerable children that have had a bad start in life. It is right that they are given priority in so many school admission policies. Especially as it’s likely these children would have had to overcome so much adversity to pass their 11 plus

There probably won't be many pupil premium children applying to grammar schools as their parent(s) will not have the cash or the time to send their children to tutoring and coaching for two to three years prior to sitting the 11+ years. However if they do pass then they should be getting the place because they are naturally able.
It is sad that the selective schools cream off the bright, keen, those with supportive and or wealthy parents and leave the other school in town to the can'ts and won'ts or as OP calls it a sink school

My main issue with grammar schools is that they cause the non-grammer schools around them to slide into being sink schools as the population divides between them. The number of pupils and families who value education is insufficient to dilute the feckless and badly-behaved. You end up with a highlly desirable school and a school to absolutely avoid, and while some children will do about as well in either school, disruption is usually rife and opportunities (extra-curricular, subject choice, even the chance to try a foreign language) are more limited because of lack of interest or a need to focus on the basics. This the issue, not the OPs worry that DC2 will not benefit from an anomaly that may have benefitted the elder child.

How many pupils in care or on pupil premium do you think there will be who have passed? The LEA will have stats on this from previous years so you don't have to guess. The answer will be not very many.

The LEA will also show the furthest distance that kids who passed and aren't in the other criteria and were admitted in the last few years.

But it’s rich competing with rich so who cares. And we should be looking at how shite grammars are- for society as a whole, MH and quality of teaching which is often lazy. Thankfully there are few them. It’s time to stop belly aching over grammar and private schools which only a tiny fraction attend and focus on provision for the majority. It’s a distraction that wealthy families want us all to continuously bicker over and focus on. Leave them to it.

There are lots of posters talking ideologically. Yes state schools should all be excellent, you aren’t going to find many who don’t want that. Some state schools are truly amazing, but they don’t seem to be the norm, often their locations are highly sought after, so you have parents attempting to buy their way in, via catchment or grammar priority zones. OP doesn’t sound like they live in the priority zone, that being the case a place was always highly unlikely, my understanding is they take top 12%, so it’s stiff competition based on test scores only. If a student doesn’t fit zone criteria, grammar schools can choose kids with excellent scores from miles away.

That’s because there’s no pass or fail in reality. It’s all score based. A score of 200 is a “pass” for x school where the lowest score admitted was 188 and a fail for y school where the lowest score was 210. The benchmark also moves depending on the number of applications and cohort scores.

YABU. There are not likely to be huge amounts of kids in care/ pupil premium unless you live in a really deprived area. Your issue is going to be distance. And it’s completely unfair that your DC should get a place, just because her sister is there, when someone on the doorstep, who also passed their 11+, doesn’t.

The school and the LA will be able to tell you how far they took kids from last year and the year before and, sorry to sound wise after the event, if you’re in a difficult area on distance you might have considered moving if it’s that important.

All our local schools have admission criteria that puts ahead factors such as looked after children and pupil premium etc. I don't think this is unusual, are you sure it was actually a change not standard? It's always been the case in our borough.
Sibling rule at grammar has never been a thing. Grammar is hard going. Pupils should only go there if they are confident with the heavy academics.
I went to a grammar. I actually left end of year 8 as I hated it. It was so much pressure and I have adhd (undiagnosed back then). Then went to our local comp and started to enjoy subjects again and stil got good grades.
I wouldn't put my child in a grammar school full stop based on my own experience of being in one. They are very pressured and the pace is very fast and they are very focussed on grades and academics.
Either your child gets in based on being a top scoring candidate or she doesn't. If she doesn't then you should really think that its because it is not the right environment for her to be in.
You have probably hyped up DD1s place, were super proud when she got in etc, making your younger daughter think this is the be all and end all of schools. But really, I would not recommend sending any child to grammar who might struggle with academics. My grammar was one of the top three schools in the country at the time, but it was so pressured, mental health issues were rife, bullying and drugs. It was all girls and the kids were a bit of a mental health mess. Hence why I left myself.
My son could have passed the 11 plus, his sats scores were incredible but i decided not to put him through that. I never wanted to see my happy, creative, fun loving child be pressured into academic rigour and competative study. Grammar destroyed a lot of my peers mental health. Ok some kids do thrive but ai certainly wasn't going to watch my childs mental health be destroyed by such a system. I knew he would be better in a creative mix of people and a less academics heavy environment that focuses more on pastoral care and the whole child.

My son has just passed his 11+.
But what I’m genuinely interested in what makes you think that children who are on PPG have parents who do not value their education?

😂😂
Look out for Maci-Lea, she's never been in John Lewis!.

That’s exactly what has happened, and what many grammar school heads warned of. Many grammars (although it is area dependent) have seen large increases in applications from families who would otherwise have gone private.

OP have you checked how many children from each category were offered places in previous years?

If you have documentation showing an imminent move then that can be used.

We had to do this as we had temporarily moved when our house sold to break the chain and were living with relatives in another village but were in the process of buying another house.

Although renting a house for 6 months just to get a school place is extreme. This is why house prices around grammar schools are high.

If the grammar system worked, people wouldn't worry about their child failing to get in, because they would then be going to a more suitable school.
It seems to me that somehow the existence of grammar schools seems to make the non grammars relatively 'worse'. Whereas all comp areas don't have that issue.

Exactly. It just perpetuates a two tier system. Some people just don't want to see equality of opportunity in education.

Exactly. The OP seems to believe the entire cast of Tracy Beaker will be rocking up at the grammar gates on 1 September; probably making rude hand gestures at the windows of the bus to the “sink” school as it passes by, packed with the mournful offspring of the overlooked “hardworking families”.