Dame Alice Owen's School - sibling policy?

I cannot help feeling that the effect of DAO's sibling policy (and perhaps those of other similar partially selective schools,) allows, and in fact encourages, the creation of a slew of miniature dynasties-by-default, by automatically conferring them with monopolistic advantage. When you consider what is at stake with this particular school, is this really fair?

While sibling policies are rightly expected in a happy-go-lucky local/neighbourhood comp, DAO does not seem to me to fall within this category.

SCENARIO 2: The "Address Houdini"

This is obviously not directed at families with long-standing roots in the immediate area. I also have no issue with families who manage to secure one of the distance places by moving into the tiny area that is necessary to do so, provided they actually stay there for the full duration of their DCs time at DAO and are thus "local". This happens everywhere (and you can't blame people for having money and using it as they see fit).

But I'm sure you all know what is meant by the "Address Houdini". They move in by whatever means in time to secure a distance place, stay for the minimum time to be beyond official reproach, then are free to move wherever else that may suit them better. When I trawled through DAO's website, I've seen references to the school checking in to verify the address up to December of the first term, but I couldn't find anything conclusive about any continually sustained effort to ensure a local place stays as being used by a local resident for the full duration of the DCs time there? Please correct me if I am wrong.

Assuming Houdini-behaviour is possible at DAO, with a catchment stretching as far as over 12 miles, it would be pretty easy to conceal this to other parents. Now, if one were to do this at DAO for a single DC, that would be dastardly enough. Fine, you did the dirty, so be it. But... how about that sibling policy again?

The Address Houdini at this point is now no longer local, and yet, with one DC firmly entrenched at DAO, they now have a perennial pass for however many more successive DCs they have. Is it really right that a "local" family who is no longer local should have a back door route? The sibling rule not only makes this possible, it sanctifies it.

And how about this as a darker variation: A cynical businessperson could use their maximum leverage to buy up any and all available homes which may be within the 22 closest to the school, then rent them out at extortionate prices. The tenant families, who would probably only want to stay for as long as it is needed to ensure their DC1's place is secure, can then later move somewhere cheaper, in the safe knowledge that their younger DCs would get in via sibling places. Get in the next family, rinse and repeat. What would be so local about any of this?

SCENARIO 1: The "Coat-tail Rider"

When it comes to kids who get in via a test (academic or musical), DAO is known for taking the cream of the cream. So a DC who falls just short of the cut-off at number 66 on the academic criteria, is highly likely to be a very able child. On its own, this is not a problem, "Sorry, but a line had to be drawn somewhere." Parents of academic child 66 would have no reason to feel injustice. But... because of the sibling policy, it is not so simple and straight cut.

As PPs have pointed out and explained, the number of academically "selective families" getting in each year are, by virtue of the sibling policy, generally greater than 65. There are younger siblings among the academic-route families for whom it is completely unknown whether they would have scored higher than academic child 66. Especially since younger siblings aren't even allowed to take any entrance tests (as the sibling criteria is above the test-based places). Given the prevalence of parents overloading their older DCs so their younger DCs could get a free ride on older DCs coat-tails, (and could you blame the parents if the system allows it,) I suspect there would be a good number of younger siblings of previous older academic place DCs who would otherwise have easily been beaten by academic child 66 in a fair contest. How would you feel if you were the parent of academic child 66?

On the other hand, it is also without doubt that many families who have an older academic DC at DAO, would be able to produce a younger DC who would likewise be able to get in via the academic criteria. So, why not let this happen properly? Younger DCs who can get in on their merits are being denied the legitimacy that comes with earning their place fair and square. As PPs have shared, if I was a younger DC, I also would not want the quiet cloud of personal ignominy hovering over me for the rest of my life. And what of some of these poor older DCs, being thus burdened with flying the family flag. If parents are happy to do this for DC1, shouldn't they also for DC2?

Should the purpose of a school like DAO really be to make the lives of parents with multiple DCs easier? Nevermind the potential long-term repercussions? (Probably a separate post there.)

With the admissions criteria clear for us all to see, if I could expound -

For criterias 1 (looked after) and 6 (staff kids) - I would consider these to be "understandably sympathetic." No point to argue with really.

For criterias 4 (music) and 5 (academic) - It is undeniable that these places were earned, very competitively one must add.

For criterias 2 and 7 (distance) - With the exception of families who genuinely have deep roots in the area (and thus rightfully deserving), one could say these places were also "earned", albeit in a wholly different way than the academic/music places.

Now we come to criteria 3 (siblings) - How can anyone say these places were earned? Strictly on their own, they are not. They are not at all like criteria 4/5 or 2/7. Are they like 1/6? On this, and in the context of the kind of school that DAO is, I am struggling to consider them as "understandably sympathetic."

To illustrate why this niggles at me, I'll give some examples:

For reference, I am paraphrasing DAO's admissions policy:

DAO admissions criteria for their 200 places, in order of preference:

1. Looked after kids.
2. Closest 22 in distance.
3. Siblings. (There doesn't appear to be a fixed number to this, so in theory it could vacillate hugely? But based on the last 5+ years, this has consistently been the largest category.)
4. Musical Test (up to 10).
5. Academic Test (up to 65).
6. Kids of staff.
7. The remaining distance kids.

I hope this is clear and correct. Please let me know if not and I'll edit.

Before getting into it, I think it would be useful to establish as close a picture as possible to what this school is today in reality.

DAO is not some kind of idyllic neighbourhood comprehensive by any means. I believe this is now fairly understood by this thread. But for anyone tempted to think that it is or should be a comp, I would ask to consider the following:

• Over the course of centuries since its founding, the arc of it being located in Potters Bar is a relatively shorter phenomenon (49 years out of 412 total). It is a historically transplanted school. As such, the relationship of organism to host must and continue to be carefully considered and managed. And their particular and unique history has had some far ranging impacts, which I'd like to get to in a bit.

• Whilst it is technically not a grammar per se, it is highly "selective" - and I'd like to use that term liberally. As PPs have pointed out and explained, the cohort there are in fact heavily influenced by a form of pre-screening, and this reflects on the results they get. There are those who will say that DAO is, in effect, almost like a grammar without the name. Going by the stats of their aptitude test, many other kids who attend grammars in other parts of the country which are in all-grammar areas, would not likely get in. This would probably qualify the academic places at DAO to be comparable to the so-called "super-selectives". The current head is known for drum beating that they are "unapologetically academic," with the hint to prospective parents of not sending your kid here if this is not the right school for them.

• DAO may have a catchment area, but this stretches from Islington to Welwyn Garden City. One cannot think of this as being "local". This is not some quaint 3 mile radius, it can in places be up to 4 times that.

• It is also not a primary school. Plenty of DAO parents each year, seem perfectly content to send their YR7 child (particularly with regard to DC1s), at the tender age of 11, schelping their way there across Hertfordshire and North London by whatever means. The level of hand-holding necessary in primary school is naturally lessened when secondary begins. But given the distances many DAO kids travel, it can be argued they are made to grow up sooner than others.

• It's the money, isn't it? While DAO's time in Potters Bar may be relatively short compared to the time it was in Islington, it is all intrinsically related to and a product of gradual land development, as well as being a beneficiary of the property boom. Enter the Dame Alice Owen Foundation and The Worshipful Company of Brewers... How many state schools have a benefactor regularly gifting it well over £1m in grants and bursaries on top of normal government funding? In a similar way to which DAO is not technically a grammar, but quite grammar-like, it may not be a private school, although it certainly has private-like benefits. I sometimes question whether this money is a burden as much as it has been a boon. But for better or worse, one cannot go back in time to undo it, the turkey has been pumped into what it is today. Leaving us lot, drawn as we are, like leeches at the gate of an estate of a recently deceased heiress, with whom we have a tenuous relationship at best, to listen to the reading of her will. When I consider this, I often find myself wondering what Dame Alice herself would be thinking about it all.

This is no typical or ordinary school. And I think understanding this is critical before getting back on topic.

Thank you to all who replied.

It has now been a week and the poll has closed. As limited and imperfect as it may have been, it helps to know how the MN community feels about this. For the record, I did not vote, nor did I speak up much, as I didn't want to sway things while it was open.

If it is ok, I'll use the next couple of posts to discuss further.

Just a reminder that this poll closes tomorrow.

If you have any experience with or knowledge of DAO, please vote and let us know how you feel about their sibling policy.

One group I forgot to mention was past alumni. If you went to DAO as a student and are happy to share, I'd really love to hear.