Schools admission criteria......

What an odd perspective! You're not bottom of the pile. You're in the same order as any other school. Children in care is a very low number of children and PP won't be huge. Then it's just normal order.

Because a child that is not living with their parents and is being looked after by a family member hasn't in that position because they're in a privileged position.

There parents might have died and they're being looked after by a pensioner who can't get them to places to access opportunities.
Their parents might be drug addicts or in prison or in hospital for any number of reasons. They might have been looked after by granny who died and now auntie looks after them, all whilst still visiting their parents in prison for example.

Their home lives are more likely to be disruptive, chaotic, live in poverty, transient etc. they're could be in children's homes, fostered etc

We want these children to rise above and give them any opportunities to break the cycle,get the best out of their education.

This doesn't discriminate against race, religion or anything.

I'm not sure what other metrics you're thinking of?

Then report don’t troll hunt.

All care leavers (or ex the disadvantage doesn’t go away if adopted, relationships more likely to break down etc…) should get grants for university fees rather than loans. All accommodation should be paid for for the full year (as they often don’t have anywhere to go during the holidays). Probably up to a starting age of 25.

Education is one way of breaking the cycle and it is increadibly hard for care leavers to access.

It's awful isn't it OP? All these poor children and orphans taking away our opportunities! Why aren't they in the workhouse where they belong?

Does anyone think this post could be fake, considering how tone deaf it is?

In our area they relax the pass rate for pupil premium and LAC - 10% lower than the required attainment for ‘normal’ kids and then also give them priority over distance. I think it’s fair as it levels the playing field. Everyone else tutors heavily.

I checked our non selective and oversubscribed comp school. Last year only 3 places went to the first categories of children looked after and named school. Siblings in catchment swamped those numbers by a mile. How is that fair to first born/only children? See we can all play top trumps.

I don’t understand why covid would
have changed the catchment area. And I would be astonished if “looked after children” weren’t first priority amongst those who passed the exam back when you first applied - that’s a very standard preference

Are you saying that there was a sibling preference in the list when your older one got in, and now there isn’t?

I can totally understand why you are anxious about this, I understand too why you want this school for your child. I do think however, some of your language here is problematic. For example, “hardworking families” - the suggestion is that those in the bands above your own are not hard working which is a massive assumption. Secondly, “why children from normal families” - the use of the word “normal” is so judgmental and says a lot. I think that this is important for you to reflect on your language here and the inherent judgments that are taking place in your posts. However, I wonder, does her diagnosis of dyslexia offer any elevation in the criteria. Might there be a case to argue that the grammar school is a better fit due to support and resources? You mention that you, of course, value education so, whilst obviously not ideal, if she did go to the other school, could you utilise tutors to offer further support and elevation of her learning. I very much hope that you find that a place is offered at the school of your choice as I can totally understand your desire for both of your children to be at the same school.

I think you need to relax.

Looked after, and ex looked after now adopted, are a clearly definable group who as a whole have less good outcomes. Letting them have priority access to the school their guardians think is most suitable for them is a tiny tiny step towards redressing their disadvantage.

Yes there are others who could do with a leg up too, but that is no reason not to give this group priority.

I'd support a view that LAC/Adopted should actually all get EHCPs as standard, but that's another discussion. (I'm an adopter for clarity).

This isn't unfair and your tone reeks of privilege. Your daughter will most likely get in.

The percentage of children in care or in receipt of pp at grammar schools is staggeringly low. Don't worry, she will likely join all the nice children from "hardworking" families. Obviously those children from disadvantaged backgrounds who have managed to pass the 11 plus shouldn't take priority. I say this as somebody who went to a grammar school and then on to Oxford when neither of my parents when to uni.

Jesus, give your head a wobble.🙄

I know a few (previously) "looked after" children who would qualify for priority. One was born addicted to heroin, another abandoned as a severely malnourished infant, and the third removed from their birth parents as a young child after severe abuse.
If children with this level of trauma can nonetheless pass the 11+, they have demonstrated a level of resilience and capability that has earned them a prioritized place.

Sure. But people are on average motivated by wanting the best for their children. Your obligations to other people's children are unimportant in comparison to your own children. This is why school admission systems that don't recognize this basic truth never work to create the fabled 'level playing field'. Any parents with the resources will game the system for their kids, as anyone who had the resources would

We live a short walk away from a grammar school, my dd passed the 11+ with no tutoring and went there. I would have been extremely p**sed off if she had missed out on a place because some kid who’s probably had tutoring to pass, that lives miles away, happened to have a sibling that attends.

These kids on pp or in care are exactly the sort of kids that grammar schools should be giving places to, because they are likely to be the naturally intelligent kids who haven’t had a load of tutoring to get in

I would bet if dd1 had missed out on her place due to siblings taking priority op would have moaned about that on mn too. Can’t have it all ways.

Such as?

Re looked after children . The reasons they are prioritised are:-

• Vulnerability and risk: Looked-after children are one of the most vulnerable groups, often facing trauma, abuse, or neglect, which can lead to barriers in their education.
• Poorer educational outcomes: They statistically have lower educational attainment than their peers and are at a higher risk of exclusion and poor mental health, which can have long-term adverse effects.
• Addressing disadvantages: Prioritization aims to provide the support needed to counteract these disadvantages and give them a fairer chance to succeed.
• Role of the state: As a "corporate parent," the state has a responsibility to ensure these children receive the support they need to thrive in school and life.

There is also a high prevalence of SEND on top.

But surely everyone understands we have to live in the real world where there are other people and our children aren’t as important to wider society as they are inside the walls of their own homes.

Argh I posted this earlier with a load more text and it missed out the rest and now won’t let me edit it and it’s missed out the but!

BUT state education is meant to be about equal opportunity- in the same way the playing field will likely be levelled for your daughter with dyslexia to give her the chance to succeed equally with her peers whether that’s with extra support or extra time in exams- admissions policies do the same for children from the 2 backgrounds you mention because study after study shows how these things affect educational and lifelong outcomes.

Regardless of whether a parent has a worked hard or not (and I think I’d probably think there are a lot more examples of hard working parents with children who qualify for pupil premium) shouldn’t the children (who can’t help the circumstances they’ve been born into) have an equal chance to their peers?

It’s also likely the changed admissions policy reflects the fact that they’re trying to gain back some fairness because many parents with more money often move into grammar areas. These parents will have often had resources whether financial, time or background which means their children are already ahead of the children who qualify for pupil premium or are in the care system.

Well it is fair to the children who don’t have a sibling but who qualify for the place on other grounds such as passing the 11+ , distance from the school etc. Why should having a sibling give your child preference over a singleton?

@mamagogo1 I think the grammar schools have taken longer to adopt this criteria because when my adopted DS passed the test 9 years ago there was no priority in the admissions rankings for him.

There was also no sibling criteria and there still isn't.

All children had to have passed the test regardless. The places were then allocated according to test score. So the highest scoring child took the first place. Had my DS passed but scored lower than the child who took the last available place he would not have got in. Luckily he scored well and got a place. He scored 326 and the lowest scoring child got 307.

They have since changed the criteria so now he would be given a place as long as he passed the test - whatever he scored.

If he had applied for any of the non grammars back then he would have had priority even if not living in catchment. We took advantage of this for my DD who got into a school we were not in catchment area for just based on her status as a previously looked after child ( we ended up moving her to private after two years as her problems as an adopted child were so great she needed a smaller calmer environment to learn in but that's a whole other saga!)

@Gruffporcupineand @KickHimInTheCrotch- it’s also just about being practical. If a child is moved into care, they may be placed a long way from their current home but for various reasons, it’s considered better for them to go to the secondary school the bulk of their primary school class are going to, so this allows them to get round the distance issue. or it could be a way to ensure if there’s extended family in a particular school, the looked after child can go to the same school when their carer’s house location wouldn’t put them in catchment for that one.

It also works the other way, if for safeguarding purposes a child shouldn’t be at the same school as a relative or relative of people they need to be kept away from, but the carer’s house location would normally mean you get allocated that school, they can choose a further away school.

and then there’s just the practical side of carers having several children at different schools being hard work, particularly as often looked after children aren’t allowed to walk alone/take public transport to school for safety reasons.

Looked after children are a tiny fraction of the population of children, but when things go wrong for them the adults involved should be able to make the transition to new schools as easy as possible.

Exactly. What would have gone on school fees will be used to buy advantage in a different way. Tutoring for the 11+ and buying property in the right catchment.

@LookingforMaryPoppins did you feedback during the consultation process