Dame Alice Owen's School - sibling policy?

To add:

Because the aptitude places are limited in number but come just behind siblings in the oversubscription criteria, it's actually very-nearby students who don't have siblings and don't meet the aptitude hurdle that have a reasonable argument for being disadvantaged by the atypical oversubscription-criteria; that's the admissions criteria that gets squeezed each year. But what's atypical about DAO's oversubscription-criteria is those 75 places based on aptitude... offering sibling priority at a non-grammar is exceptionally common.

No, I think the sibling policy makes sense. DAO is a school with a minority of its intake spots based on aptitude, not a grammar school.

In a PAN of 200 a maximum of 75 places are chosen based on aptitude (65 academic, 10 music). Almost two-thirds of its intake is deliberately non-aptitude based. In fact, all LAC, siblings and the 22 closest applicants have priority before any academic or music aptitude places are allocated. And sitting the aptitude exams still requires applicants live in certain boundaries, so even those aren't purely aptitude-based places.

The school deliberately has a wider intake than just the aptitude places. It's not a grammar under a different name.

According to Google, DAO school was founded in 1613 on land in Islington, where it remained for centuries before relocating to its site in Potters Bar, in the 1970s.Hertfordshire doesn't operate a grammar school system but as a relocation compromise and due to its historical foundations the school retained partial selection. It is a bit of a quirk but the alternative would have been turning DAO into a fully comprehensive school. It will never be a full grammar.

Editing to add that its history in islington is why they have a small % of students coming in from there.

Hopefully other posters, perhaps local ones, will have more helpful things to contribute.

Best of luck with your school choice OP.

No skin in the game here...but I do think it's a bit of a strange policy tbh. I can see that it's really appealing for parents - get one kid in, any further siblings also get to go...no need to manically tutor subsequent children!

Also, having all your children at one school is quite a nice thing in terms of parental logistics (particularly in quite a challenging location like DAO) and the sense of community it brings. My kids all go to the same school and there are quite a lot of other 'entire families' through the school, despite there being a strict no sibling policy. It's lovely because kids get to know each other across years and in a household, siblings can discuss which teachers and parts of the curriculum they like (or don't!)

However, it does seem quite odd that siblings at DAO are automatically able to go, when it's so competitive for so many others. I think it's a bit of a quirk, just as the 'we must take X number of kids from Islington' thing. I suppose, on an administrative level, it minimises the number of kids they have to consider from the entrance exam and catchment.

Why would this be 'stirring the pot'? It's perfectly ok to ask what people think but you mentioned policy and in policy development you ask the views of a diversity of stakeholders.

You can post anything you like as long as you abide by forum rules.

However, if I understand you correctly, you are a local parent and worried your dc may not get a place as the intake is competitive?

It's highly doubtful DAO will be changing their admissions policy in a radical way, although one never knows.

DAO is in Potters Bar. Herts doesn't have a grammar system only a handful of semi selective schools. Or are you suggesting to turn DAO into an ordinary neighbourhood comprehensive?

First things first, what is your role in this? Your stake? Are you a member of staff at the school? Form the council? DoE? A parent in the local area?

Before responding, may I please ask that you put yourself in the mind of someone responsible for high-level policy making decisions and NOT from the point of view of someone with a vested interest, i.e. a parent with multiple DCs. Of course parents with more than one child would say it needs to be kept for a host of individual reasons - this should be patently obvious.

I am a very experienced policy writer. As such, asking all stakeholders views is pretty standard. Different stakeholder will have different priorities, they all need to be considered in the process. So stakeholders have naturally vested interest, as they should, interest will vary.

My dc go to a different school in a different area but your question stood out to me and asking for only one set of views will only help confirm your bias, so would be unhelpful for policy development.

Separately, it is understood that in semi selective schools, it is usual the calibre of families that make all the difference. Usually families with one high achieving child have other children that are also highly aspirational albeit perhaps not as highly academic and, as we know in the selective system, some peeak sooner than others. The diversity of sibling academic ability semi selective schools have is generally seen as a positive. Less pressure more opportunity to grow as an individual.

HTH.