Dame Alice Owen's School - sibling policy?

@SheilaFentiman I really don't mean to come across as patronising, although I can see my words have failed me again... And my social graces definitely have a lot of room for improvement :(

Despite this, I hope that you (and others) can look beyond my terrible delivery, at the message being passed on by a poor choice of messenger.

Ugh... annoying autocorrect in my earlier post re the maths. Seems it wouldn't let me start the list with a 0. number.

Here is how they should have looked and shown numbered:

Official allocation of places from 2025:
0 - (9) EHCP = 4.5%
1 - (5) LAC = 2.5%
2 - (22) closest distance = 11%
3 - (68) siblings = 34%
4 - (10) music test = 5%
5 - (65) academic test = 32.5%
6 - (17) staff kids = 8.5%
7 - (4) remaining distance = 2%

Finally, a Readjusted look at the demographics of the school without the "mask" of the sibling category to hide behind:
0 - (9) EHCP = 4.5%
1 - (5) LAC = 2.5%
2 - (22) closest distance = 11%
3 -
4 - (17) families of a music test DC = 8.5%
5 - (111) families of an academic test DC = 55.5%
6 - (29) families of a staff DC = 14.5%
7 - (7) families of a remaining distance DC = 3.5%

Coming back to the slightly more abstract question of "inherent" betterness -

At its more basic, the question we are dealing with here is, "How should one apportion/distribute rewards, which are very valuable and very scarce?" As this is what those places at DAO are.

DAO is undoubtedly (in its current guise today) a highly "selective" school which is heavily oversubscribed. It is not a pure grammar, nor a pure comp. So the potential messiness that can ensue is practically inevitable. Amongst this, I do welcome discussion which may be on somewhat more abstract or symbolic principles.

If we could start with the test-based places. These were given on merit, in a way that is quite clean and straight-forward - score high enough and you are in. It could thus be said that these places were given in a way that is meritocratic in nature. One could have a field day arguing whether this is "inherently" fair, (spoiler: it isn't,) but that is not the subject of this thread. (Many other threads for how unfair the 11+ is.)

Moving on to the distance places. Assuming these were for the most part effectively "bought", this is really just the free-market in all its open glory. It is not unlike an auction. Nobody is forcing those families to buy those spaces - they buy them because they want to and they can. The great leveller here being price. This is not "inherently" fair either. But does it mean this system itself is "inherently" bad? At the end of an eBay bidding war, I don't see people shouting for the platform to be taken down.

Coming back to the sibling places. These are effectively, for lack of a better term, a form of institutionally-aided nepotism. Now, (before you all go on again about my use of caustic language,) I would NOT dare dream of using a word like nepotism in the context of a normal comp. But DAO spaces, of which are a majority made up of "selective families" (where one of a family's children got in via a test,) are highly coveted. (Do I hear that endowment knocking on the door again?) So I would say that DAO is fair game.

These three "systems" may not be the most perfect descriptions of those entry routes, but I don't think they are incorrect or without a good element of truth.

• A meritocratic system
• A free-market / open-bid system
• An institutionally-aided nepotistic system

I think we can all agree that none of these systems are "inherently" fair. Anyone trying to make that claim in absolutist terms is either naïve or disingenuous. The question then falls on what is better in relative terms. Or to put it another way, less bad.

I'll use an outside example. If we were talking about how to award government contracts, is it not glaringly obvious which of those three systems should not belong?

Or to bring this closer to education, how would it look like to imagine top universities doing this? "Since your older sibling got in, we could use more of your kind around here."

A free market auction at least has the benefit of being publicly open for all to see and participate. Systems which are nepotistic are closed door affairs to divvying up the spoils.

There may be those of you who will now think, how can you expect an 11 year old to get, "this"? To which I would say, I don't. But I would also highlight that our DCs will not stay 11 forever. There will come a day when they do understand concepts like "reparation" and they should rightly ask questions about why we made the choices we did and about the role that institutions and their practices played in our decision-making. I think it does a great disservice to our DCs if we were to under-estimate their long-term potential.

For all the ruffling of feathers my posts may have caused, I'm just an eyebrow-raising messenger. I'm sure I am not the first, nor will I be the last. If we truly want to get to the root of the issue, we should be asking more questions about the effects of the endowments - what they have done over time and what they will continue to do. Or is it that those who get in are content to keep their mouths shut in a closed cycle of complicity?

Now, getting back to @GravyBoatWars question,

"... So my question to you is why is that inherently better? Why are you opposed to children getting places at DAO based on having a sibling there but not opposed to children getting places at DAO based whether their parents can and do move the family very close by?"

As I read your use of the word "inherently", it suggests to me a need to answer this in a slightly more ideological way. I am ok with going there, as I think the underlying symbolism is important to address. But if I can first give my take on the specific effects of this on the ground.

In a school that is a mix of test and non-test places, I assume a good portion of those non-test places would and should go to local families. The principle of a school which is surrounded by a good number of families in geographic proximity, I would say, is a good one. This being the nice aspect of a comp - nearby families with a meaningfully anchored stake in the community in which the school resides.

I acknowledge this is not necessarily picture perfect. As it is mostly those who can afford to live in the postcodes close to the best schools who can get those places. And therein the ugly aspect underneath what comps can be - selection by house price.

I do get this. If my DC were to get into such a situation, would I be happy for them to be mostly surrounded by rich kids. Perhaps on the surface of it, I may admit to a tinge of wariness at first? But I don't feel it is my place to judge in the slightest. Just because parents have money does not make them evil nor does it mean they will raise their DCs in an evil way.

I don't know how many of those 22 closest distance places are typically represented today by long standing families with "deep roots". After almost 50 years at Potters Bar, possibly close to none? It is hard not to feel some degree of lament for this. On a practical level though, assuming all of the 22 closest places go to families who have effectively bought their way in, how would this aspect be different from an ultra desirable comp? As long as they are happy to play the role of the "locally" invested family, with the symbiotic benefits to both family and school/neighbourhood, would it matter so much that their relationship to the area is something akin to an adopted child?

Getting back to the effects of DAO's current sibling policy - these spaces are dominated by families who have previously passed a test. Collectively combined, if you were to pick out a random child from a box of DAO kids, you would be more likely than not to choose a child from a family who knows what it takes to get through the baptism-of-fire that is the DAO tests. In many cases, these families would have also applied to pure grammars such as HBS, QE, Latymer, etc.

Many (if not nearly all) of those test families won't be complaining about the value of having that advantage of automatic sibling entry at DAO. I'm sure the convenience of it all is a big selling point. Do they deserve it though? By and large, these are generally not families who "need" such charity. If they can get a DC1 to pass the test, the odds are pretty good that they can do the same for DC2. Pure grammars are clean in this way - everyone needs to score high enough to get in. No favouritism.

Put it this way, if there was no sibling policy, I'm pretty sure there would still be plenty of siblings attending the school together. But this would be through individual choice in each case rather than an institutionalised holding of the door open for the next one. And to be clear, I never said I was against siblings attending a school at the same time - for which there are many positive benefits. Nor have I set out to ban siblings from being together.

But we are talking about the highly coveted spaces at DAO, not some idyllic comp.

Amidst the earlier back and forth in this thread, I agree with @GravyBoatWars in saying that, "People who want a pure comprehensive school or a pure grammar school are not key stakeholders for DAO..."

I am one of such people. I am attracted to the idea of a school composed of a mix of both test and non-test places. I'm not interested in making it an exclusive one or the other. But then comes the debatable muddle...

In my naivety, (and I am very grateful to have since learned of the various histories from those who shared here,) I felt that an idealised picture of a mixed test/non-test school would be a ratio of 50/50, with the "harmonious balance" or "healthy deadlock" of neither side being able to claim a majority on their own. (Like a marriage for example.)

What has surprised me from the previous maths exercise is to learn that only about 14.5% of a given intake today is made up of "local" distance places. (And I hold my hand up to my test-based lean, and thus ignorance.) This amount, in my opinion, seems something of a pittance. A result of a system, with the official appearance of only taking in a "minority" 1/3 of its cohort by selection, but under the covers an inadvertent collaboration to hoard places for those seen as preferable to be on the inside.

As an earlier PP said, "It's a way of increasing selectivity by stealth." (I wish I had the gift of being so pithy, which I clearly don't!)

This may be a bit of flogging an almost dead horse, but for the benefit of others not familiar with this school, (and to satisfy my own curiosity,) I thought it might be a useful exercise to spell out the quantitative effects of their sibling "mask" using their actual numbers and hopefully getting a better understanding of their specific mechanisms through the process.

As a basis, I'll use the latest admission figures as an assumed constant played out over successive years:

Official allocation of places from 2025:

1. (9) EHCP = 4.5%
2. (5) LAC = 2.5%
3. (22) closest distance = 11%
4. (68) siblings = 34%
5. (10) music test = 5%
6. (65) academic test = 32.5%
7. (17) staff kids = 8.5%
8. (4) remaining distance = 2%

If you break it down, the placement of the siblings criteria at number 3 is quite tactical. It is primarily the criteria after number 3 which impact on the demographic makeup of the siblings category. The criteria above number 3 don't need to rely on sibling places for future DCs. So for instance, because the 22 closest distance are higher in priority, if say there was a younger sibling in a household within the 22 closest, they would get assigned under criteria 2, in effect, preserving those sibling spaces for the lower criteria and not resulting in a net gain on a new 22 closest distance place. Basically preventing criteria 2 from spawning. Unless of course there are Address Houdinis around.

While the exact number of siblings in any given year can be very variable, for illustration purposes let's say they are repeated as the same figures and extrapolate them in simple proportion. As it is primarily the younger siblings of criteria 4-7 which propagate into forming the siblings category for the following year -

Criteria 4-7 only on their own, with percentages readjusted:

• (10) music test -> 10.4%
• (65) academic test -> 67.7%
• (17) staff kids -> 17.7%
• (4) remaining distance -> 4.2%

Taking those percentages from the previous year and applying them as an illustrative breakdown of the sibling category:

• siblings of music test DCs: 68 x 10.4% = 7
• siblings of academic test DCs: 68 x 67.7% = 46
• siblings of staff kids: 68 x 17.7% = 12
• siblings of remaining distance: 68 x 4.2% = 3

Finally, a Readjusted look at the demographics of the school without the "mask" of the sibling category to hide behind:

1. (9) EHCP = 4.5%
2. (5) LAC = 2.5%
3. (22) closest distance = 11%
5. (17) families of a music test DC = 8.5%
6. (111) families of an academic test DC = 55.5%
7. (29) families of a staff DC = 14.5%
8. (7) families of a remaining distance DC = 3.5%

Whilst this is just an extrapolation, it gives a more concrete sense of this being a majority "selective" school. Out of 200 places, approximately 128 of these will be held by families with experience of getting in via a test. And these aren't easy. Their music places are known for only selecting the most elite and their academic test is known for being difficult. (In one of their sample English papers, there was a question asking to work out the meaning of "reparation"... For a 10 year old... Really?!?)

So it should come as no surprise that DAO gets the results they do - it was foremost by design.

@SheilaFentiman Just wanted to note that a "simple removal of the sibling places" is not my "proposal" per se, but a response to your earlier post:

"So if DAO was to remove the sibling preference, it could not increase its number of pupils selected for aptitude above the current 32.5% and presumably would then go on distance for all pupils after the first few preference categories.
Meaning, @GlassMatryoshka , that there are 65 aptitude places for which your child is competing, and there would be even if the sibling criteria was removed (in fact, the competition would be higher as presumably all siblings would sit the aptitude test and - whether through genetic ability, past parental experience, good connections with local tutors etc - many would score well.)"

I was just following that hypothetical scenario through. I now better understand GravyBoatWars and your following question though, but please let me come back to it.

Ok, I think I understand your question better now. Please let me try to respond better.

By the way, I notice you haven't yet shared what is your stake and frame of reference in all of this? (Despite the benefit of anonymity on this forum?)