Schools admission criteria......

having a sibling at the school makes no difference.

Good, that's as it should be for a grammar school. I know plenty of families where some of the kids passed the 11+ and went to grammar and where siblings didn't, because they didn't pass. That's what happens.

I am very surprised that the OP didn't think to read the admissions criteria till now. Far too late to change her choices at this stage. If they live a 12 minute train ride from the school they're many miles away from it. If she was relying on sibling priority, it would have been sensible to check that actually existed.

Lovely 🌹

I am extremely thankful to the headteacher who cared and wouldn't give up. She was a fantastic support for all of us.

Well done to your DD. I don't think people understand the pride we feel for very normal achievements. I still remember the day DD ran out of school with a massive smile on her face, telling me she could read now! Everyone else inherited year group was reading well - this was the first time she had managed it. I can still remember the name of the book - Bob Bug!!!

@EverythingElseIsTaken I've posted this already buts it's a fast moving thread. DS's old grammar school has changed the criteria since he applied 9 years ago. When he applied there was no priority for LAC but now there is.

Quite. A case of be careful what you wish for. People got what they wanted with a side order of what they didn’t. More fool them.

This thread illustrates so clearly what is wrong with the grammar school system. Even the people taking issue with the OP are showing up how ridiculous and damaging the system is!

Thank you. I think sometimes people don't understand what proportion of the prison population has at some point been in care, the same with girls and women being involved in prostitution and sexual exploitation.
It's not about them having some amazing privilege, but attempting to give them at least a chance in life.

So you're complaining that children from typically poorer families and those looked after by the state are getting priority ina state funded system? Even when they have passed the 11+?

Have you looked at the proportion of children on PP or in care are actually enrolled in the grammar school? I bet its a small minority.

Just go private if you dont like the state system prioritising vulnerable children.

Your language speaks volumes. “Hardworking”, “normal” families - the very clear implication being that anyone needing extra support does not fall into these categories. I would suggest children in care - almost certainly through no fault of their own - have enough to deal with without being derided as “abnormal” by people like you, who think their offspring are far too precious for the local comp.

You are rightly proud of her daughter for passing her 11-plus despite the challenge of dyslexia. So maybe think for a minute about how challenging it must be for a child stuck in the care system to do the same. Realistically, how many are there? You make it sound like there’s a whole slew of children in care just waiting to pounce for the place to which you feel your daughter is more entitled.

Maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad thing if your daughter went to the “sink” school. Mixing with a more diverse group of contemporaries might teach her some of the life lessons and compassion her mother clearly never learned.

The grammar system is simultaneously extremely fair and extremely unfair. I strongly believe it is a parent’s responsibility to ensure they are prepared to provide the support required to navigate the 11+ before they enter them. The admissions criteria are always very clear, whether you read them, like them, or not.

Jesus I’ve just now read some of this thread.

What a bunch of selfish people.

Do any of you have any idea the experience of children in care???

Give yourselves a shake.

I very much doubt there has been a change in admissions criteria. Priority has been given to “looked after children” (which includes adopted children) for many years, even when I was going to secondary school in the 80s.

@NoUsernameAvailableAgain I agree on PP not being black and white. You could have a child of divorced parents who lives with a parent on means tested benefits but the non resident parent may be wealthy so the child may still benefit from lovely holidays and great enrichment activities. Both parents could be graduates. Another family may be headed by a couple with poor education and skills and working in low skilled minimum wage roles but working high hours so not claiming benefits.

There won't be enough children in care or entitled to pupil premium to fill the whole year's intake I wouldn't have thought.

@Wetandcold that's such a great outcome. Gives me hope that things are improving since my two went through the education system. All of the schools my two attended fought against me and spent not a penny of their pupil premium on addressing their needs.

There was very little understanding of the needs of adoptive children who had experienced ( and are still experiencing) trauma.

If we hadn't moved my DD to a very supportive private school she would have left with no GCSEs at all. In the end she got 5 ( levels 4 and 5) which was amazing.

Beg your pardon? I did not say that. What I said that if all schools were of an excellent high standard across the nation, with no postcode lottery, there would be no need for private schools or grammar school. Blame the system, not the parents who want the best for their own child. The reason why so many people hate grammar schools and private schools is because they are envious of them.
if state schools were designed to that standard that envy and competition go get into the best state school would be gone and all the children will be educated to excellent high standard like in Finland, but sadly they are not and they won’t because the people at the top have never had experience or training in education, never mind state education. None of them have first hand experience of how things operate in there and the level of needs that need to be met etc. Many politicians hardly spent few minutes in schools for a photo opportunity and then gone, yet they are responsible for major decisions in education that will affect our future generation and economy.

No job out there lets unqualified people walk into top positions without the right experience yet somehow Tom, Dick, and Harry from around the corner landed it.
Yay!

Not read the whole thread but @LookingforMaryPoppins trust me any child in care is not ‘ahead’ in any area of life.

You sound bitter towards children who’ve had horrendous experiences.

Are you kidding me?

Imagine a child who is exposed to all kinds of crap in the womb, born addicted to heroin, time in the nicu. Then you spend most of the first couple of years of your life in your cot, not being fed much or stimulated because your parents are either out of it or sleeping off their hangover. You don't learn to walk until you are 2 and there are no books at home. Your parents keep moving around to evade social services and you end up going to over 30 primary schools. You usually don't get there until 11 because your parents are too hungover to take you. You finally get put into foster care aged 8. You've got enough food and clean bedding now but you still get moved around from pillar to post. You can't be in the school play unless your face is covered. If you are lucky you get to live with your grandparents. You worry that your friend will ask why your "parents" are 20 years older than his or why you can't have your photo taken in school. You've missed great big chunks of your education. Do you really think this child shouldn't get priority.

Some of the comments on this thread (not many compared to some threads I've seen) are vile. To be honest, if this is an example of the children of "normal hardworking families" who go to grammar schools i would rather my dc take their chances at the local sink school than go to the grammar school where people think LAC are at an advantage .

I think that if shes passed thats the first intake surely?

OP, you have some serious misconceptions

1. That pupil premium means your family is not "normal"
2. That pupil premium means your family is not hard-working
3. That prioritizing one group is disadvantaging another. No, it's an attempt to level the playing field.
4. That your child should be entitled to something because they have an elder sibling who got it.
5. That school results are unrelated to selection. Your child is likely to become part of the 20% who do well, if they go to the "sink" school, because they are clearly intelligent. The children who don't pass the 11+ are much more likely to be in the 80% who don't meet gov thresholds for gcse attainment.

But presumably, because of your support, she’d be one of the children getting good grades at the sink school?

If children are on pupil premium their families most likely wouldn’t be able to afford tutoring targeted at passing the exams. The fact that pupil premium is being prioritised likely means the school are currently underrepresented by children in that situation and are trying to make things fairer for those children. Maybe they are also hoping for young people naturally good at taking exams

Too late now, surely. The cut off for applying for secondary school places is the end of October, I believe. Any admissions criteria relating to address will look at the address at the time of application. This is how it used to work, anyway.

Children in care - yes.
Pupil Premium - no.

I also don't agree with children with EHCPs getting priority over somebody in the catchment area either. ALL schools should provide the same care for children with SEN (admittedly they don't).