Schools admission criteria......

In my area, its normal for siblings to come below catchment for places. So you can live a mile away from the school your sibling goes to, but not get in as an eldest child who lives 6 miles away but within the catchment area got the last place (as the catc6areas aren't circles... but its clear in the admissions criteria if you read them. Chose an out if catchment school, no guarantee the younger siblings will get in (or you move out of the catchment area).

Your child is in exactly the same position your older child is in. She will get inon her own merit, or she won't. Those who get in will likely either live closer than you or score higher .

You gave up the likelihood and argument of siblings in the same school when you decided as a parent to put your child on a train to a grammar that is out of catchment and not her feeder school.

Being a sibling doesn’t give you a right to a place in any school. Many kids have to wait until places become available when they move to new areas and 1 sibling gets a place but another doesn’t.

It was your choice.

I havent RTFT but I think what is missing from the OP’s post is that places are allocated using the criteria selected plus the score the child attained in the test. If a child gets a massive score - if the school hasn’t applied a rigorous catchment area - then a child will get in. But if a school has absolutely 1000s of applications, passing the 11+ doesn’t guarantee a place.
OP, look, I am in the same situation as you.
i have an older child who got into the girl‘s grammar school. My son has just received his 11+ results. He passed his 11+ very comfortably, but his score is unlikely to get him into the extremely competitive grammar school to which he applied. I suspect this is the situation doubting yourself in.
It‘s a painful and very disappointing experience - I totally get that. It’s a complete blow and a worry if your local state schools are not good (we are in this position too.) But it’s absolutely not fair to begrudge looked after and pp premium kids the opportunity. Compared to them, your child is already advantahed - if those pp and looked after kids got in in their circumstances, then they deserve their place. I was a very bright pp kid and it’s only now as an adult I realise how unusual my situation was and how up against it I was.
You don’t know if your child will be granted a place or not until offer day - keep your head and still put the grammar as number 1. Your child may yet get in via waiting list. Give yourself some time and let your feelings settle. I was gutted on results day, but rolling with it more now. Don’t forget to keep congratulating your child on trying something hard. These experiences are never wasted.
Good luck.

But sibling criteria would do nothing to prioritize normal families. Those abnormal families might have younger siblings too.

Some schools have sibling criteria, but I can see why grammars would be less likely to. Their catchment areas are larger and it would really highlight when younger siblings are unable to teach the 11+ pass mark.

You're pissed off because you think DD might not get in to your preferred school. But trying to justify it is not going well.

She claims, upthread, that such children are "dragging down" education. Which many of us found to be an extraordinary claim, but one that she has doubled down on, it would appear.

If a ‘sink school’ isn’t good enough for your child, it shouldn’t be good enough for any child. Why is it unfair? Because you are middle class?

You say that you have a "disadvantage" by being a "normal" family.
What does that even mean?
You chose to have a selective education for your daughters, assuming that selection would work in their favour.

The other way to see this is that any child in care or on pupil premium is on the back foot in life, and the school system selection is attempting to level that out.

They're literally classed as 'disadvantaged children'. They are on the ones on the back foot.

@Bushmillsbabe why is it ridiculous?
Bucks have a minimum qualifying score system, they are not super selective.
The admissions criteria is clear that you have to score a minimum of 121, after that schools' admission policies applies.
As Bucks schools always prioritize catchment and when you moved there, why wouldn't they have a sibling criteria? It's perfectly normal and common. It's usually the one above distance

If you wanted super selective - Reading and Slough are nearby. Potentially some London grammars

@LookingforMaryPoppins

Plus the shift in ‘ethos’ in the UK (St George’s flags everywhere/Reform UK/exclusions at an all time high/individualism) is very much filtering through into the education system.
You’ll be fine. My DS will not be fine.

How does having 2 children at different secondaries disadvantage you? They are secondary age, can travel alone, no school runs. If attending the same seondary school is of such utmost importance you, then you could have opted for the local seondary.

Will you feel better OP if I tell you my youngest didn't initially get into the eldest's non selective (sink) secondary school, as siblings weren't part of the admissions criteria?

It's extremely common.

If you'd asked about that, you would have had sympathy.

You didn't.

You have made yourself look extremely entitled and happy to trample on some of the most vulnerable in society.

@LookingforMaryPoppins

In terms of my son’s EHCP - the school don’t ‘want’ him there and will use any trick in the book to off-roll. The school will be trying to preserve their ‘selectiveness’.

They know the LA are under resourced and will use reasons such as ‘we can’t fund’ or ‘we are at capacity of % of children with needs’.
It’s whether that parents fight/can be bothered to fight/uphold the law - and I expect most won’t.

I think your DD will stand a better chance, despite what the criteria states.

I am not say sibling priority criteria shouldn't exist - there always has to some way to assign that final place - but I fail to see how not having it disadvantages a certain type of family?

Edited for formatting.

OP, putting "normal" in quote marks does not make it any more acceptable.

I still don't understand how the lack of sibling criteria is bringing about disadvantage to "hard-working families"? Consider two families who live next door to each other, essentially identical when it comes to employment, backgrounds etc. and both families "hard-working". Each family is has two children. Only difference is the eldest of one family, child A, is the same age as the youngest of the other family, child B. Both these children score highly but there is only one place left at the school of choice. Should child A be disadvantaged, purely as they had the misfortune to be born a younger child?

Sorry but that means fuck all when you have a few local prep schools where kids are covering 11+ material and sitting mock tests etc in lesson time due to parents wanting to swerve increased school fees for secondary.

The same parents are also happy to invest thousands in competitive tutors and private mocks. I know someone who did all of that and also paid out nearly a grand for a 2 day intensive the weekend before the test.

Add to that people who move into catchment areas temporarily to get a place. MIL bought a house recently from a family who had only lived there 6 months so DS would be in catchment and once they had his results and saw he had enough to get into an even more competitive school in the county they moved again.

I also know someone who made their child sit 2 tests in different counties with the intention to send their child to live with GPs if they did better on that test.

IMO it's right for LEAs/grammar schools to change criteria to prioritise kids who otherwise wouldn't get a look in because some of these parents are happy to play the system.

Not getting a place at grammar is not 'being dragged down'.

You sound ridiculously entitled.

No one said everyone who gets in is tutored, just that some have the option of tutoring and some dont, and for 2 children of the same ability, the one who is tutored is much more likely to get in than the one who is not, which is inherently unfair. Included in the heading of tutoring is the children whose parents tutor them through a combination of them being intelligent, engaged, having the time to support and doing things like providing them with practice books and papers. Also, it's not an 'either/or' situation in many cases - we pay for tutoring AND spend lots of time supporting our daughters with their learning, but I recognise that I'm privileged in having the time and academic ability to do that, and that my job gives me flexibility to work my hours in a way that I can sit down with her after school at least 3 weekdays to go through learning activities with her. That I have enough leave to take them to museums and other natural learning opportunities.

The whole grammar system is inherently wrong and flawed - as you say so much is linked the parents engagement and ability to support. Part of me is reluctant to put her into a system which is so inherently unfair. But it's an aspirational choice she is making, for positive reasons, so I wont let my moral objections get in her way.

No, all the evidence suggests that supportive and engaged parenting and cultural capital actually make more difference to a child's outcomes.
So you've done absolutely the right thing, and your children will benefit from your parenting immensely, probably better than those who can throw money at it.

Very much agreed. It's the "cultural capital" that an engaged and intelligent parent is more likely to provide.

This is where the debate gets very thorny when it comes to PP. Because there is no direct link that says "parents on very low incomes are less likely to provide rounded educational experiences outside of school." But there are proximate links, as the causes of someone being on such a low income often have other implications, which affects a child's education outwith school.

• Disabled parents are less likely to work full time, and therefore their children eligible for PP. They are also less able to take their children to places that inspire and enrich their children.
• Parents who are full time carers may have children eligible for PP. They may also have very limited time to commit to their childs education.
• Parents who don't value work and therefore live off UC are likely to also not value education. They will be less motivated to enrich their child's education.
• Adoptive parents may be very able and willing to engage in their children's education. But their children have experienced ACEs that make it difficult for them to engage in these experiences at times.

All of these are probabilistic. Many parents in the categories above will provide excellent, rounded experiences. But the chance that they will is lower. Therefore, I applaud grammar schools like OP's DD's school, who are trying to redress these disadvantages and level the playing field.

Yes, I do recognise it. And I fully accept the privilege. My point was to say that not everyone pays for tuition, and some - with the will, effort and ability - can do it without money. The unfairness is the assumption by many that all success is due to ability to pay.

But the issue you are raising is that children in care and on pupil premium are getting preference over your child, and that there should be a sibling criteria!

It has only been since responses have been overwhelmingly against you that you have started talking about raising standards for all.

If there was a sibling criteria we wouldn't be hearing a peep out of you about raising standards for all. You would be perfectly happy to let all the children from 'abnormal' families go to the "sink school" as long as your kids were safe in their grammar with all the children from "normal" families!

You have to recognise that even having the time and ability and motivation to support them is in itself a privilege which many children dont have? You are right that this confers more of an advantage than paying for tutoring, or 'farming out' as you put it. One which many children dont have.

Well done to your 2 for doing so well

How isn't it fair? Do you think the most vulnerable children in society are less worthy so should have to go to the 'sink failing school'.