Why do most secondary comprehensives still have a siblings policy?

But wouldn't the ending of sibling policies have the potential to have a negative impact on low income families?

Consider the case of a low-income family renting. The oldest child is awarded a place at school X. Imagine the family has 3 children. The younger children are likely to be attending a local school. The family's lease expires as second child is coming up for secondary transfer. The family have to move, perhaps just out of catchment for the school child 1 attends. The sibling policy isn't in existence, so they are faced with the prospect of 3 children at three different schools, all some distance from each other. The logistics of that are a bit of a nightmare, given that the family are going to have a struggle paying transport costs.

Which children will they move, from which schools? Would you want to move child 1 in, perhaps, a GCSE year, given that the options that child might be studying may not be available elsewhere?

And not all families, as other posters have pointed out, live where a variety of schools are an option - the schools might be literally miles apart.

I agree that the whole renting-for-a-year to get all your children into a school, either primary or secondary, phenomenon - is incredibly frustrating but I do think that the other options are really hard on those renting, or forced to move for a variety of reasons (illness/death/sudden loss of income/divorce).

I'm surprised at the variation in admissions policies on this thread!

We have two kids at two different secondaries. DS1's school prioritises:

-Looked after children
-SEN with statement naming school
-In catchment, at feeder school, with sibs
-In catchment, at feeder school
-In catchment, NOT at feeder school, with sibs
-Out of catchment, at feeder school, with sibs
-Out of catchment, not at feeder school, with sibs (that would be us then, and that's why we have two different secondaries)
-No-hopers

In practice, it cuts off after line 5. On a bad year, it cuts off after line 4!

Because if you live where I do only one local school has a bus and the next nearest school is in a different county. Has been known to have Easter holidays where the whole two weeks didn't over lap never mind different half terms!
Easier for schools to have parents who know the ropes, hand me down uniform has saved me a fortune at primary. It just makes sense all round.
Awful if you live very near a school and can't get a place, but then the school should simply find a way to take more children.

There have been problems caused by Academy schools introducing things like a lottery which has no distance criteria at all. The lottery at Kingsdale offers a glimmer of hope to parents further north in the borough, but leaves others in a no-man's land.

Not sure what the catchments are for Elmgreen and Harris Crystal palace now - they used to be wide, but I would guess are shrinking.

I agree with PanelMember about the siblings / out of catchment effect.

I'm with Bibbitybobbityhat.

As Admission says, the admissions code leads LEAs towards giving priority to siblings, but I see no compelling basis for it. In a borough like this which doesn't have catchment areas, siblings always take priority and that creates problems, particularly in oversubscribed schools where families stay in the vicinity just long enough to get the first child in and then decamp. I would like to know more about the impact of abolishing the criterion (I gather my LEA has attempted to model this) but it seems to me that, without the priority for siblings, most siblings would still get a place when considered under the 'everybody else/distance to school' criterion. The siblings who wouldn't get places would (as far as I can see) be the ones who have moved miles away since the eldest child was admitted.

I would agree that it would be sensible to prioritise siblings in catchment.

I'm not sure the London education system is especially broken. Although it varies, of course. Schools in my borough are getting better all the time and they are expanding the number of schools and places, too.

There are some 'black holes' and areas where it is hard to find a school you are confident with, but there are also cases where it is attitudes, outdated reputations and parental panic / parental competitive frenzy that are as much the problem as the system.

One reason why siblings get priority is that the admission code suggests that siblings should be given priority. If siblings did not get any priority then anybody appealing for a place at the school could argue that the school are not keeping to the school admission code.

Talkingpeace2 I think that this is a good admission criteria because it does give preference to siblings that are in catchment but gives the next priority to those pupils who are local. A good compromise, I think. It also reduces another potential problem which is the family who move into the local area to get a school place but then deliberately move to a different location. By giving catchment children priority over out of catchment siblings, parents know that "bending" the rules for the eldest child might well backfire on them for younger siblings.

at our schools its
catchment plus sibling
catchment
non catchment plus sibling
non catchment
therefore Wormshufflers problem should never arise
I'd be interested to hear Prh's views on this

I have gone from wondering why anyone would object to a sibling policy to understanding that there are problems. In the case of Wormshuffler's village school, it seems to me that villagers should get priority over siblings of existing children who do not live in the village. Then out of village siblings should be second priority group. I think the conditions from my earlier post should apply to secondary.

What I have learned from this thread is that the London education system is even more broken than I thought it was.
Time for ILEA to be resurrected in a non 1970's form methinks

It is very inconvenient for families to have their children at several schools. That's why sibling policies are a good idea.

In the village where I live there were a couple of years with hardly any villagers applying, as there weren't any. So being that its a great school loads from the nearest town applied and got in. Fast forward to now and the village kids can't get in as siblings from the town people get in first. 8 last intake in a small village and these are people who have lived there more than 10 years. This is a primary though

One problem with the sibling policy in over-subscribed schools is that it enables a family to get the first child in on distance (having possibly rented a place to apply from), and then move away and all the other siblings get in, meanwhile every year a new family gets their first child in and then moves away...and the accumulative effect is that lodas of siblings get in and the actual distance catchment for first children gets smaller and smaller.

I can see why some families would find it much easier to have children in the same school especially in rural areas where the schools might be miles and miles apart and very little public transport.

And why it might be important for some to send their children to the same school, but in terms of justification as to why a child has a priority over others to get in it seems a bit unfair. i.e a child who llives within 800m of the school really wold seem to have more of a case than a yr7 sibling of a child in their last year, who lives 4 miles away.

In any case, the children have already been in separate schools for years while the younger sbling was still in primary!

I can now see how people playing the system can make a reasonable policy seem unfair. It would it be fairer to continue with a sibling priority, but with certain conditions. Eg only having a reasonable catchment where siblings are given priority. And, perhaps, not to apply at all where the older child in already in 6th form.

huntcat - 10 children!!!!!! OMG

Try living in an area where you have a Hobson's choice of one slightly crap, in and out of special measures comp.

The problem with anything like a sibling policy is that if you're on the right side of it, it makes sense and you think it's fab but if you're on the wrong side - like the OP it appears - it seems unfair.

The problem in the OP's case is that the good school is hugely over-subscribed. The sibling policy having an impact is only a by-product of that.

I know one family with 10 dc...but NOT all their dc go to the same school! her dc are 24(g), 21(g), 19(g), 17(g), 16(g), 12(g), 10(b), 7(g), 7(b), 3(g).

Her 10yo is at one primary, her 7yo twins at another...and her 3yo is likely to be given a 3rd primary...

Christ -how many families with 10 children do you know op?

Well said, RobynLou.

I actually said to DS1 this week "will you please take care of your blazer, I would like DS2 to wear it one day"

I live in a grammar school area. I know families who have 3 DC at 3 different schools because of this system. I also know a mother who didn't sent her DS2 to a grammar school because she thought it would be easier to have all 3 of her DC at one school.