Dame Alice Owen's School - sibling policy?

@SheilaFentiman

there's certainly a philosophical case that all schools should become comprehensives. I'm not clear from your posts if that is your view. - ?

To the extent that I have an idea of an "ideal state school" right now, it would be a comprehensive school large enough to support multiple sets to differentiate ability levels. In a dense environment such as London, there would be large, overlapping formal catchments, perhaps designed to limit commutes to an hour by public transport, with places allocated by ballot within the catchment in case of oversubscription.

My bias is against explicit selection because any form of selection generally gives the option for parents to segregate their children and the flip side of selecting for a group of like-minded parents and their children is selecting against others. Furthermore, the empirical evidence I have seen about academic selection in state schools is, at best, inconclusive about any benefits either to the students or to society, particularly if you account for the socioeconomic stratification that usually accompanies the academic stratification.

However, I am willing to engage in a discussion about how the system might be improved. I do not find "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" to be a mindset conducive to improvement. I will also point out that it tends to be the beneficiaries, or those who see themselves as potential beneficiaries, of the status quo who make that argument.

@user149799568 why so snarky?

As it is not possible to create new grammars/super selectives, there won't be a change to the DAO criteria which allow ranking by score for pupils who live an hour away. Therefore PP is right to say that these aren't key stakeholders for DAO.

The things that might be consulted on are removing the Islington link and removing the 'aptitude' places. I assume that, as with church schools, there are historic/endowment matters that make the former tricky.

The latter would make DAO 'just another local comprehensive' - there's certainly a philosophical case that all schools should become comprehensives. I'm not clear from your posts if that is your view. - ?

I really wish I had seen this before spending time on a respectful, thoughtful discussion. What a bizarre mischaracterization of everything what I've written.

I'm going to respond once more.

As the partially-selective school it is and has long been DAO has roughly 5 applicants queuing up for every place available and is serving its pupils incredibly well. This specific offering is wildly in demand and performing its aims at an impressive level and different offerings are already available for area students who want something else. You ask what if more nearby parents want pure comps instead of DAO's partially selective option but this question is entirely moot - local families simply are not finding themselves stuck with DAO when what they really wanted was a pure comp, and DAO has no unused places representing underutilized resources. So how would you justify taking away the wildly in-demand, highly successful offering from the queue of families who seek it out?

DAO is consistently justifying its existence in its current form through its success and the sky-high demand for places there. For as long as that continues to be true, someone wants to get rid of DAO as it exists now or turn it into something else would need to demonstrate that DAO's existence is actually causing enough harm to outweigh that demand and success. If you want to argue scarcity of resources and a specific unmet need in the area that you think should be prioritized over all of the students who desire this option and the clear benefits to its students that DAO provides then identify it, because that's what would need to happen to force DAO to change its core approach.

To be clear, DAO can't be turned into a super selective under current laws (nor can new grammars be created and there is no widespread political movement to change that), but any families who desperately want a grammar over DAO's model can (and do) seek that out elsewhere.

Why should everyone else pay for this without input?
As a general taxpayer you get input on law and policy (at the national level and for your own LA). Campaign for the expansion or restriction of academically selective schools in accordance with what you want your tax dollars to go to and DAO will have to follow that along with all other schools.

@GravyBoatWars

People who want a pure comprehensive school or a pure grammar school are not key stakeholders for DAO.... People living an hour away are also not key stakeholders in terms of this being their local school, so if they're campaigning for the school to be changed in order to meet their needs then those are simply not priority voices to be listened to.

Your position seems to be that, in any discussion (or government consultation) about whether DAO should change its admissions policy, only those people who want to keep the status quo should be heard. That would be an echo chamber, not a consultation, resulting in a foregone conclusion.

Policymaking has to take into account the perspectives of individual stakeholders like that 23rd parent, but it needs to fit those individual perspectives into a far more complex picture.

I made the mistake of assuming that you were prepared to engage in a serious discussion of possibilities. My bad.

I think given it's academic results and the high ratings given by parents of pupils who attend they actually have a really good admissions policy.

@GravyBoatWars

It is primarily intended to benefit students in particular areas seeking a partially selective school.

People who want a pure comprehensive school or a pure grammar school are not key stakeholders for DAO.... People living an hour away are also not key stakeholders in terms of this being their local school, so if they're campaigning for the school to be changed in order to meet their needs then those are simply not priority voices to be listened to.

What is so special about families in those specific areas who are seeking a partially selective school that justifies such unusual admissions criteria? The schools is funded by the state and, as such, is paid for by both the nearby residents who might want another choice of comprehensive and those who live within a feasible commuting distance who might want another opportunity for a super-selective. Why do you think their voices should not be listened to?

Some people want DAO to exist as it has been. Why should everyone else pay for this without input?

I have no idea what you were trying to say in your first sentence or how it related to my comments.

DAO is a partially selective school - it is an established, thriving, highly in-demand school for which being partially selective is a core piece of what defines it and makes it successful. It is primarily intended to benefit students in particular areas seeking a partially selective school. People who want a pure comprehensive school or a pure grammar school are not key stakeholders for DAO in the same way that people who want Italian food aren't a priority voice for your local Indian restaurant. People living an hour away are also not key stakeholders in terms of this being their local school, so if they're campaigning for the school to be changed in order to meet their needs then those are simply not priority voices to be listened to. The idea that parents living an hour away from a school should be able to demand the school change a fundamental, longstanding aspect of its nature in order to make it easier for them to get their child in is extremely silly.

Herts has plenty of true comprehensives on offer to those wanting that, but the people who fight to get into DAO do so in large part because it is not a true comprehensive. Herts intentionally does not offer full grammars and it will not turn any of its schools into one, but parents living an hour away who want a school that is fully selective can pursue grammar spots in London or Berks.

I agree with others that it shouldn't be classified as a comprehensive in whatever rankings media orgs put out, but that's absolutely not a problem that needs to be fixed by changing their admissions criteria.

So if I could have the temerity to ask: Should DAO rethink its sibling policy?

As PPs have said, it would be difficult for it to do so, because a sibling policy is a very common 'comprehensive school' policy and DAO is not a grammar school.

Like many things in Britain, you would never invent it if you were starting from here, but rubbing it out and starting again isn't going to happen.

DAOS is a comprehensive in the same way that Marie Antoinette was a shepherdess. 😇

Reductio ad absurdum, policymaking about local schools doesn't take into account the perspectives of people in other countries. My point is: who should be considered valid stakeholders and how much importance should be attached to their perspectives? What's magical about Islington (yes, I know the history, but if we're talking about theoretical changes...)? What's so special about the postcodes in the official catchment area? They're a good description neither of all the homes within a specified distance nor of all the homes within a specified commute time.

Those people who live within a short distance of the school would likely take the perspective that they'd prefer strictly distance criteria. A school with more selection might be a more "special" place, but it doesn't benefit them if they can't get a place there even if they live only 10 minutes walk from it.

Those people who live an hour commute away, the ones who care, would likely take the perspective that they'd prefer fully selective on exam scores. Again, a school with some non-selective intake might be a more "special" place, but it doesn't benefit them if they can't get a place there.

Who is the school supposed to benefit?

This is very much my experience too - one family I know put all their eggs in the ‘academic older sibling’ basket, to the point of even moving house into DAO’s catchment just to enable him to take the test. Thankfully it all worked out in that case, as the pressure on the poor child was enormous; he spent most weekends in the year beforehand being driven around various practice test centres to hone his exam technique.

Agree with this - DAO is clearly an excellent school and I don’t think they should be forced to change the sibling policy, but nor should they be able to claim ‘comprehensive’ status when it suits them (for example, heralded as ‘Top Comprehensive in the South East’ in some league tables). Same goes for the other Herts partially selective schools - it’s disingenuous given how cherry-picked most of their intake is.

Sure, that one parent would feel differently for their own child in that one year.

But if you turned DAO into a pure comp then in 10 years will it still the same DAO everyone has scrambled to get their DC into? Or have you just stripped away an integral part of what makes the school so desirable?

Policymaking has to take into account the perspectives of individual stakeholders like that 23rd parent, but it needs to fit those individual perspectives into a far more complex picture.

@rainoldcar

I don't know if that would be popular in the community?

Define "the community". I suspect the family who lives 23rd furthest away in distance would be all in favor.

I'm not saying anything is right or wrong tbh. But personally for me, and what I know of the school admissions process from families that have been through it, it all seems massively overcomplicated. You've got catchment places and various levels of restrictiveness around that (looked after kids, SEN needs etc), sibling places, music places, academic places - and then the Islington places!

You either have a sibling policy or you don’t. Can’t imagine a two tier sibling policy aka only the siblings of the 22. Some superselective grammars dont have a sibling policy other grammars have a sibling policy as long as you pass first. Most partially selective schools that have a sibling policy, have it for everyone.

You are right, DAO is not a comp, it is a partially selective school and Herefordshire seems to have a handful of partially selective schools, for example Watford Grammar, which used to be a full grammar school until the 70s and has retained a partially selective intake (and its name). Herts does not run a state grammar school system. The only way you could transform the intake policy for DAO is to turn it into a neighbourhood comp. I don't know if that would be popular in the community?

@CheerfulMuddler - exactly. Personally I think it's a bit odd. I wouldn't like to be the younger sibling hanging on the coattails of an older one, and equally I wouldn't like to be an older child pressured to get into a school in order to benefit the family. I guess parents might keep the sibling advantage quiet when the eldest child is going through the admissions process - but the families I know with kids at DAO all really, really pushed their eldest kids on academic or musical tuition.

@rainoldcar - but selecting on aptitude from an entrance exam IS essentially a grammar-like system in part, isn't it? Yes the sibling/music/catchment places might make for a more varied cohort academically, but it's not exactly a comp...

Because DAO is in Herts and Herts does not run a grammar system.

If people want to put their kids through a grammar system they might consider moving to Beds, Essex, Kent, London.

@GravyBoatWars 75/200 qualify each year on aptitude places. How many do you think qualify as siblings of those who gained aptitude places? I think it's typically about 40 (out of 70 siblings in total), many of whom likely would have gained aptitude places had that criterion come first. At any rate more than half of the students come from selected families. It's debatable whether the school is closer to a comprehensive or a grammar. "Partially-selective" is an apt, if unsatisfying, description.

It’s a way of increasing selectivity by stealth.

It's common practice for musical/sport aptitude places to work like this. If you have a musical older sibling, you can often get into good schools by hanging onto their coat tails on a sibling place.

The entire English school preference system is arguably unnecessarily complex, but within that the DAO system/criteria aren't exactly arcane.

DAO has had immense success as a partially-selective school. Having a partially selective intake where a large portion of each cohort is made up of families that pursue academically-selective education and students who are academically high-performing and yet also having a wider intake than true grammars is a core part of what has made it such a strong school and so popular. Why change that? And it's hard to argue on evidence that Herts' approach of having true comprehensives along with multiple partially-selective options like DAO (and the Watford Grammars among others) rather than running a separate grammar system isn't working well overall.

It just seems unnecessarily over-complicated to me. Why not make it like a grammar entirely with a wider catchment (like Latymer or Henrietta Barnett, say)…or like a comp with a catchment and a sibling policy?