Schools admission criteria......

What OP is describing, which is a sibling rule at grammar schools, is hugely discriminatory to only child families. I don’t see why it’s the states issue that you have chosen to have more than one child? Secondary school children usually make their own way to school, so logistics shouldn’t come into it. I think comp places should be allocated using a lottery system, similar to Brighton’s process. Grammar should continue to be offered based on test scores and other talents.

Is this Watford?
I know a few years ago they used to have a siblings just get a place allowing them to claim that they weren't fully selective which put them onto a different classification in the school league tables at the time.

It seems to vary by area and specific rules apply to specific counties.

Absolutely this. Private schools near us boast a '100%' 11+ pass rate. These are non selective schools, so it's not that they get the most children in because they are the smartest, it's because they are allowed to prep them for the test, and for a reason I can't seem to find out (happy to be enlightened) state schools are forbidden from doing any prep beyond 1 practice test 2 days before the actual one. This I feel is absolutely ridiculous. My daughters tutor offered to provide free sessions during the school day for those children who had the ability to have a good chance of passing, but parents unable to afford tutoring. The school had to turn her down due to the rules around this which seems crazy.

Another adopter here, and trust me OP's attitude is widespread. I have heard it so many times from parents in my (affluent) area. Along with alarm that 'so many' LAC kids in the school might pose a risk to the others.

My oldest child, who is not adopted, got contextual university offers due to being in receipt of FSM. We got the comments then, too.

Be assured, everyone, that other than priority in school admissions (which we didnt need anyway because we are well in catchment) my LAC dd has had no handouts or privileges along the way. What she has had is a school system that doesn't meet her needs, a mental health service that has refused her support, and piles of social prejudice and racism. But at least she's not 'bottom of the pile' unlike those kids from 'normal, hardworking families'.

Completely disagree with you. Why should my daughter be less likely to get a place because your daughter has an older sibling there? Arguably your younger child already has an advantage over mine having parents and an older sibling who has been through the process already who can better support her in preparing for the exam.

Primary schools need sibling criteria as parents take them. Secondary don't as most children go on public transport. You mentioned family budgets - if a child who lives closer didn't get a place due to sibling criteria, than they would potentially have to spend more to get to an alternative school, so that would be worse on their budget.

You can of course be dissapointed if she doesn't end up getting a place. But it cannot be claimed that it is unfair, because it isn't.

Having grown up when grammar schools/secondary moderns were the norm and seeing a very bright (top of the class in all exams way ahead of anyone else) but from the small council estate being told that she didn’t pass the 11+ and all her ambitions and plans went out of the window as it meant No O levels, so no A levels and then of course no degree.
But another friend (bottom of the class by a huge margin) who struggled with reading and writing but from the nice new estate of bought houses being told she passed the 11+ student something stank.

Didn’t know at the time that HT’s had final say in who went and who didn’t get told they had passed the 11+

The friend who struggled but was told she had passed of course couldn’t keep up with the work at the grammar school and her parents removed her after a term and put her into a small local private school.

Friend who was told she hadn’t passed. Felt completely stunted by the secondary modern.

Much fairer to have the comprehensive system. At least on paper it gives everyone a chance and isn’t subject to people’s opinions and prejudices

Seriously, you need to pack it the fuck in with this 'normal' shit!

The idea of the 11+ exam was actually that it would separate children who were naturally more suited to continued academic education from those who would naturally be better at technical and vocational roles in life.

I'm fairly certain that you're refering specifically the children who come from low income background as the great unfairness here. Presumably you don't mean the ones who are PP because they have parents in the military, for example. I'm assuming this from the comments about 'hard working families'.

Children who come from families with a higher socioeconomic background generally have better educational outcomes. Therefore children from families with lower socioeconomic status have a lower starting position than your child.

All the children who want to go to your grammar have to sit the 11+. The pupil premium kids who come from lower socioeconomic households have managed to pass the same exam your child did from a lower starting position than your child. Therefore they're either naturally smarter or have worked harder than your child.

These are children whose parents have a low income. It's not some judgement of how hard their parents do or don't work and how much money they do or don't earn. It's an attempt to level the playing field for children who could have loads of academic potential but have something in their lives which is acknowledged to get in the way of having that potential fulfilled.

All you can see is what you've not got. Not how great it is these other children have achieved this.

It's trying to improve the position of children who are born into a less favourable situation to fulfil their potential, which they clearly do have if they've also passed the same exam your child has worked hard for.

The great unfairness here is that these children shouldn't have a lower starting position than yours in the first place.

On a national level, we decided to try and give these children the opportunity to show their individual potential rather than their opportunities being defined by the position they were born into. They're not getting a leg up they haven't earned, they've done really well in-spite of a disadvantage that your child doesn't have.

Stop wasting your time thinking about how unfair it is you perceive yourself to work harder than their parents. It's not about you, no-one cares about what you do or think, they care about trying level up the playing field for children.

@BeeKee

It’s not just one school though is it? There is pretty shocking behaviour being exposed by staff in nurseries/other institutions that are ‘supposed’ to care for vulnerable people. Winterborne View is another.

Underfunding, high staff turn over, a place where there are a great many behavioural needs altogether, lowest pay for the staff who are there.

ReformUK are not going to provide ‘better funding’ for places like this, they will be focusing on the needs of the elite.

But you’ve said that you support this ‘ethos’ - so I don’t think it’s a stretch. Or are you not considering the full implications of your ‘ethos’ because you are far more focussed on your individualism?

So, one school has been abusive and therefore, what, you don't think special schools should exist? And where did I say abuse of SEN children at a SEN school is acceptable? Goodness, lots of stretches.

@BeeKee

And you think ReformUK would prioritise funding for referral units over the ‘fit’?

You think it’s fine for SEND children to be taken out of their local community and segregated off? You think abuse such as the SEN school in the Wirral is perfectly ok?
“Life Wirral is a school that is supposed to provide education to children with Send. A BBC investigation released on Monday showed staff calling students—directly to their faces—terrible terms such as “fucking idiot”, “retard”, “flid”, “ponce” and “batty boy”.
A staff member described how he dealt with a student. “(The student’s) been beaten into being a bit of a bitch now, which is why I think he’s going to stay behaving well.”
The school’s head of operations, Paul Hamill, talks of fantasising about drowning a pupil in a bath “like a kitten”. Hamill tells the BBC’s undercover reporter of an instance where he threw a student “all over the place” and of “fucking ragging” him.”

I hugely support all of the above.

Children with severe SEN need to be in specialist schools that can support their needs. Nobody benefits when severe SEN children are in mainstream.

Then she is leapfrogging over someone who is closer.

There is no way this isn’t going to be unfair to someone. It is an oversubscribed school, no matter what the selection criteria are someone will lose out and feel miffed about it.

2 options:

• Scottish style system where everyone goes to their catchment school. You can ask to go to another but they will only take if there are spaces. No putting down schools by preference etc…
• Schools publish their oversubscription criteria and apply it to all. Which it seems this school is doing.

I feel when applying out of catchment sibling policy is unfair, others don’t. One exception twins/ multiples should be in the same school (SEN/ 11+ allowing).

UABR if you look up the criteria of the ‘failing sink’ schools their criteria will be exactly the same. (except 11 plus) Every local ‘sink’ school I looked at had that criteria, I wasn’t looking at grammars though.

Presumably the amount of pupils attending on an elite 11+ basis isn’t enough to keep the school open alone.

I don’t think OP’s criteria included a ranking by score, just a priority list once a threshold is passed.

This is, in my opinion as someone who works in education, just one of the many ‘problems’ with the grammar school system. Have you considered looking at schools ‘across the border’ in an authority close by which does not have the grammar school system? This may give your daughter a ‘proper’ comprehensive school experience with a mix of children from a wide range of different demographics, backgrounds, life experiences etc. Just a thought…

I agree. I'm not sure why OP wants her dd to leapfrog over dc with a higher score because she has a sister there.

@LookingforMaryPoppins why are you fixating on LAC and PP for taking grammar school places from 'normal' families? They are a tiny cohort who absolutely need every bit of help they can get.
Why no ire for private school families who want grammar for their DC?
Why did you decide to live in a grammar school area if you can't deal with the very real possibility that not all your DC will pass or go to the same school?

OP. You are right that every child deserves to go to a good school. I don't think anyone would disagree with you on that. (However that isn't what your original post was about.)

Can you tell us more about the non grammar option(s)?

I have only seen the headline maths & English figure. Is that for passing both at 5+ or at 4+?
Much more importantly what is the progress 8 figure for the previous higher attainers?
What is the Ofsted rating?

Are there other non grammar schools with better results you could apply for?

There is a (fairly new) sibling policy at my children’s grammar and the criteria is ordered as:

1. Pass the 11+
2. PP and LAC childrem
3. Siblings and children of staff
4. Remaining applicants ranked in score order starting at top and going down until all places filled

Personally I think this is far more unfair because all the sibling has to do is pass the test and, even with a score only 1 point above the pass, is prioritised over a non-sibling with a much higher score, which makes a bit of a mockery of it being truly selective.

It's funny how people are all for selective state schools until the criteria go against them. OP is basically saying she thinks her child should be top of the list. Classics sharp-elbowed grammar mum!

@LookingforMaryPoppins wow. You’re really doubling down on this. Claiming that PP kids aren’t poor?? Can you even hear yourself?

these are normal kids from normal families who have done well enough to pass the 11+ test despite a tougher (‘abnormal’?) start to life than your dd.

just stop whinging. They won’t take all the places. There will be plenty left for the middle class (“normal”) kids.

Why are you so insistent that your perfectly "normal" child is being disadvantaged over children who have dead parents, parents who are drug addicts, parents who can't afford t feed them properly and children who have severe learning difficulties?

What disadvantage will she suffer from going to the comp?

The lack of support from her loving family?
Not having enough food to eat?
Will she have to go home and care for her mother?
Will she have to go home wondering if a new child has moved in and if they're violent?
Will she not have a warm and comfortable quiet space to work at?
Will het parents not take any interest in her learning?
Will she not be able to join any extra clubs because you have no money?
Will she struggle e sleep at night because there's people constantly coming in and out of the house?

You persist in the fiction that being a 'normal' family is a disadvantage when trying to get a grammar school place. Siblings at the same school in a non-selective school is a reasonable ask. In most selective schools, it isn't.

You keep doubling down on your belief that Looked After Children and children who receive the Pupil Premium are stealing the places that should rightly go to your daughter. As other posters and parents of LAC have confirmed, those numbers are extremely small because very often the disadvantages that these children experience from birth onwards are normally incompatable with high educational achievement. A few lucky ones are adopted or fostered by people like some of the amazing posters on this thread.

Your contined use of the word 'normal' to describe your own family is insulting to the families that you deem 'abnormal' and undeserving.