Why do most secondary comprehensives still have a siblings policy?

We don't have any of this crap tbh.

No Grammars, no single sex schools, no failing schools and no free school malarkey.

Decent schools, that people go to and then the comps. Easy.

Abendbrot do you really think specials schools belong in that list? Surely something different again?

Yep, Custard, it just goes on and on. Single sex schools, faith schools, special schools, private schools, foundation schools, and now free schools. With these divisions it is no wonder that Inner Cities have no sense of community. None of the kids know anyone in their street because of this, unless of course you are the lucky one who lives in an area with a small catchment and actually gets into it.

We really need to question why it is that some schools are extremely oversubscribed and a school half a mile down the road has empty places.

No it doesn't begin with K bbb - I think there are lots of areas like ours, with just the same problem. It is bound to happen with the system being the way it is.

As I said before, I am a byproduct of this system and I had a cr*p education. I got some qualifications, but levels were low. There are a lot of us about - many of my peers got their qualifications after they left.

Something has to change, and it's either a lottery system or a no sibling rule. But now we have free schools I fear nothing will change for the schools 'left behind'.

This policy discrimates against only children - they may be in a feeder school, live within the catchment area and still not get a place as the places are filled already with 'siblings'

Not forgetting the teachers who have to work in the schools that nobody wants to send their kids to.

Selection on ability in a comprehensive school is a contradiction in terms.

We have a school that does this (since it because a Foundation school). It is wonderful to give children with special gifts a place at a school to further that special gift - a music school for instance. But for a school to offer that child a place at their comprehensive is not really helping them reach their full potential. And this school gets paid for by the poorest taxpayers in one of the poorest areas of London.

The whole system is cr*p, we know it, the government knows it and the children left behind in the 'sink' schools most certainly know it.

Siblings of grammar school kids still have to pass the 11+ . some schools like the one nearest us are super selective and only take the top so many scores due to over subscription. The siblings of these kids can get in in appeal if their score us lower, but they still need to pass the lea level.

Carrots you sure those buses stille xist? They don't here with any reliability. Not from the outlyings anyway.

What's this about not needing to take them? maybe in some places but we are one of very few famillies who won't have to take ds2 to comp, becuase of teh villagey catchment most people end up driving the kids in.

Exactly, CustardCake. As I've said already, I'm sceptical about the value of a sibling priority in admission to comprehensives but in partially-selective schools, where the older child is there because they have been selected on the strength of their academic or musical ability, I see no justification for younger siblings getting places on their coat-tails. I notice that academically selective independent schools don't automatically admit siblings and expect them to pass the same selection tests as anyone else.

I can see no reason for a secondary to have a sibling policy as surely most y7 pupils can get themselves to school so the parents do not have the logistics problems that they would with primary school children?

Not a London-centric view as i got myself to school 6 miles away at secondary on the bus from a tiny village in the north west with one bus an hour - as did all my friends. My DB and DSis got themselves to a school in the opposite direction with no problem. My mum just watched us turn in different directions at the top of the roads, not really a hardship.

Yes, its nice to have continuity, be able to pass down uniform etc. but this should not be at the expense of families who live round the corner who then have to trek miles.

Actually, Alemci, it is your example that I find the most problematic.

We also have a partially-selective school near us (although not in the LEAs for which I chair appeal panels). The school admits most of its pupils according to the standard criteria and the farthest distance at which places are awarded under the 'all others according to distance' category is usually about a mile, so the school is very much for local children. However, an exception is made for the children admitted through the academic test, who comes from miles around. I can see the rationale for admitting local children and I can (although I know many people can't) see the rationale for admitting a proportion of very able children outside the usual criteria, but I see no objective justification for admitting siblings who don't fulfil either the 'local' or 'very able' criterion.

Some people cannot afford private schools and do not have the £3,000,000 to invest in their properties but they still want their DC in good schools. My ED got into a part selective school due to her musical ability. My yd got in as a sibbling but she is very academic so is an asset to the school IMO.

My ds got a place too as a sibbling but I would have let him go to the local school. We live a distance away from the school and TBH could not really afford to move into the area.

We are very thankful for this opportunity for our DC. We are not rolling in money but were encouraged by my dd's teacher in Y6.

Animula - It's precisely because of that sort of issue that I would want to know what the actual effect of ending sibling priority would be.

For the moment, it seems to me that tying schools' and LEAs' hands so that they have to give places to younger siblings, even when the family has moved far beyond the distance at which places would usually be awarded, is creating problems that need to be fixed. As we don't have formal catchment areas in our LEA, we can't distinguish between siblings in and out of catchment, so ending the sibling priority seems to be all that's left.

My hunch - although it is only that - is that the actual impact of ending sibling priority would be limited because so many places would be freed up to become the 'all other applicants, according to distance' places and siblings would usually get those. To cater for the scenario you describe, I would prefer a slightly broader interpretation of the social/medical need/exceptional circumstances category, so that the family can point to any compelling reasons (such as approaching GSCEs) why the eldest child could not move to a new school in the new area or why the younger children needed to be at the same school as their sibling.

gnome you have highlighted that there needs to be a different system in cities to rural areas. Rural areas need smaller schools spread out more.

I agree with you bibbity that the system does not work in cities, particularly London.

People live in an area where they think the schools are good - if they can afford to. This makes other areas suffer and results in a segregated community.

In some areas people cram into tiny flats for a year to get their eldest into the right school, then move down the road where property is cheaper. I know a lot of people who have done this. It's sneaky and wrong - but they don't consider there is an alternative.

Some say 'we moved here because the schools are so good we don't have to pay for private schools'. This is about more than handing down school uniforms and convenient parents evenings. For a family of 3, these people save £300,000 and meanwhile they are investing in their property.

As a by-product of this divisive system myself, I know first hand how it affects not only communities, but individual children who consider themselves as 'left behind' as their posh pals move away in year 4. Twas ever thus.

I think they are considering a lottery system in some areas - there has been a pilot in Brighton I think. And now we have Free Schools to make the system even more divisive.

bibbitybobbityhat - the assumption that there is public transport to get to a school is also London-centric. I'm in the midlands and where I am there is very limited public transport. Some schools are simply inaccessible by public transport. Without a siblings policy it would be possible for parents to find their DCs in separate schools with no means of getting there.

So that you can hand down uniform between them?

I do think sibling priority is a good thing - apart from it being nice for the siblings themselves, a family's commitment to a school is likely to be stronger if it's the only school at which they have children: so more likely to be on PTA, governors board, go to plays and events and so on.

One of the very popular schools where I live had only 1 place (of 30) available in reception as every other place was taken up by siblings. However, I still support a sibling policy because at least I only have the stress of getting the first child in somewhere and don't have to dedicate another 2 years of calling 10 schools once a week to get an update on the waiting lists

(Not in UK)

Depends where you live whether sibling policy matters to you. Hereabouts- big city, lots of comps both single sex and mixed and grammars as well it probably doesn't matter much. All non selective schools that are "reasonable" to apply for in the local area are not too far to travel independently too. Grammars have no sibling preference of course- that would be silly.

Primaries I think need a sibling policy. It just isn't on to get young children to different schools (move out of catchment though and still expect yous sibling place- nah- that's having a laugh)