To think that siblings should not get priority when it comes to applying for secondary

[ReallyTired]

I think that sibling priority is essential at primary school level, but compeltely unnecessary at secondary school. My children will be at different schools as one will be at primary and one will be at secondary and I am sure we will cope.

Why is having two children at different secondaries any less doable than having a child at primary and a child at secondary? I find it unfair that a family can move into catchment of a top secondary, move out of area and still get sibbling priority. It is crazy that some children have to take a bus to school because they cannot get into the comprehensive that is walking distance of their house.

Secondary school children without special needs do not need mummy to take them to school. I feel that community secondary schools should just have a distance/ catchment criteria.

Not all schools have second hand shops and £200 wouldn't have covered uniforms at either school my dd's attended. Yes you get 6 months to save but not everyone has the spare money to do that plus you may also need to buy uniform grown out of so £200 could easily become £300 - £50 a month is a big chunk out of most peoples budget. I do agree that local children should get priority over out of area but within that I do think siblings should get places first.

What Jack365 said

YABU

Just because it's ok for you doesn't mean it isn't for other people.

Not having a sibling rule just removes one of the criteria for getting into schools. It won't make it automatically easier.

The admissions policies are a red herring.

The real issue is the fact that there are crap secondary schools - not acceptable IMO. There should be a minimum standard, which is a good standard, not a few good ones and the rest meh or crap.

Doesn't mean it is for other people

Why just secondaries - what's the difference?

Most 5 and 6 year olds don't go to school alone.

It is much, much easier to have your kids at the same school, and cheaper with hand me downs etc.

It's ridiculous to say that from age 11 up you can leave your child/children at home alone. I think we all know that children mature at different times!

A parent is still responsible for their child at the age of 11 at home and something happens.

I certainly cannot leave my 15/14/12/12 boys at home alone as they fight!!

I agree with the siblings rule if you are still living in catchment. It's nice that all your children have the same start/education as their siblings.

Don't get me started on the sports teams either! Saturday morning football/rugby school games would be impossible if they were at different secondary schools!!

The sibling rule isn't just there for ease of parents or to keep costs down it is part of the safeguarding procedures of our school system. Siblings going to the same school allows the school to get to know the family, to notice behaviours and interactions within the family and gives the school a deeper relationship with the family that allows informal questions to be asked and many concerns about children to be dealt with without the family being refered unnecessarily.

The more services for families are split up the more chance of children falling through cracks in the system.

I'm not saying its entirely fair to everyone but it certainly isn't only down to it being easier for parents.

Lots of areas have single sex or grammar schools or people have their children at primary school or special schools. In these situations schools do get round the issues of safeguarding and parents manage to cope with different inset days and school uniform.

If there was just a distance/ catchment criterion then the majority of sibblings would still get places. The children who lost out would be those who live out of catchment.

freemanbatch trouble is that I expect schools to focus on educating my children; not acting as quasi social workers because other agencies have failed to deal with issues. That is not a good enough reason for my children to attend schools that do not entirely suit them or for their learning to be disrupted by other dc who should not be in mainstream and for whom there needs to be more pru provision and rather fewer excuses.

That argument is precisely why we removed our dd from a school with an excellent reputation (which we chose carefully and were initially delighted to receive an offer from). And thank goodness we did because there has since been fighting on the streets and results have dived.

It terrifies me to think that schools see themselves as social services units. If a school thinks there's a problem it needs to refer and ss then needs to pick it up. No wonder state education is in a messm

Yabu
Attending the same school makes things like parents evening, sport events, concerts etc easier.

Easier for some people! I am not convinced by any of these arguments.

When you got pregnant all those years ago, did you know your second child was going to be the same sex as your first?

How can you use the hand-me-down uniform argument seriously with an issue as important as this?

In my area there is a Foundation school which operates a lottery system for places, and people apply from miles away. So its not really a local school as such, applications are encouraged from across London. I'm not sure of the concrete facts but I believe they get something like 10 applications for every place. But even they have sibling priority! Wtf?

Our school has the same uniform and pekit for girls and boys...apart from girls having the option to wear skirts.

When you haven't got a lot of money....hand me downs are a life saver!!!!

You'd be hard pushed to pass down any of ds's uniform - it's worn until it's knackered.

YANBU OP (with a few caveats - urban and rural schools have different issues re transport, for example - one size doesn't fit all).

Admissions should be about the best interests of all pupils, and not the convenience of parents. Pupils should not be facing longer commutes because their nearest school is full of siblings, basically.

I know it's not really relevant but my DC were so disadvantaged in Secondary School choice because they were foolish enough to be born to atheists that taking away the sibling advantage (we're on the edge of contracting distance criteria) would have finished me off!

Personally I think the whole system needs a radical overhaul.

Married - re the social service aspect -
Schools should not take on the role of social services but they see the child regularly and therefore are the most likely place to notice if anything gives rise to concern ...
I have to be v. careful...
Frail looking child with 'ill health' regularly not attending preschool - not compulsory but still ? Parents not really communicating. Could it be a child protection issue? We don't think so - but for the sake of a child - maybe we need to report to SS?
First get in touch with school and discreetly and informally check it out (child has elder siblings there) ...they know the family and we become confident that all is as it seems...

This informal approach was due solely to us being quite a small area with close ties - otherwise we would have been forced to go down a more formal, possibly disruptive to the family route...(or risked not protecting a child)...
If siblings are all at the same school, the school are more likely to know the family and be better able to judge whether something is likely to be a real problem or not...and that is important...

DP and I have a hard enough commute anyway, so in our case, either DS goes to the same school as DD or I have to quit my job. No brainer for me, but in any case, DS will get in on other criteria, not just the sibling rule.

What happens when siblings go to school in different LEAs and the half terms are always on different weeks?

Sibling criteria don't just disadvantage only children. Those supporting them - would you feel differently if you're eldest child had to commute three hours a day because Y7 places at the school 1km away were mainly taken by siblings?

If your child was leaving at 06:30 rather than 8:00 and getting in after a normal school day at 17:30 rather than 16:00 day in, day out, would that be a fair price to pay so that other parents could save maybe £50 (or even £100) a year on uniform and didn't have to worry about occasional parents evening clashes? Really?

Marriedinwhiteisback - apart from their parents, the school staff are probably the people who spend the most time with the children, and therefore would be far better placed to spot any child protection/neglect/abuse issues than a social worker who might only see the family once every few weeks or less.

And teachers are more than capable of multitasking - of noticing the bruises on a child's arm whilst teaching algebra or french verbs - it isn't an either/or situation.

Pressed enter too soon - in my opinion, if you took away the responsibility of teachers to look for issues of neglect/abuse/child protection, a lot more children would fall through the gaps and suffer more. That cannot be right, can it.

FWIW, I think they should have it simply because of the logistics now that schools have the freedom to set their own holidays - going away at Easter/Half Term in the actual holidays would be a nightmare if the children have different holidays.

Jenai you are right that isn't fair but neither was the situation I was put in that I couldn't get dd2 in the same school as dd1 because we don't have a sibling priority. I still live at the same address etc but the area that can be offered places changes each year due to actual numbers and location of children. I don't think anyone is saying siblings out of area should be offered places but giving priority to siblings in catchment would be helpful.

The specific issue in my area is that most of the secondaries are located near each other quite centrally with most housing sited further out. One secondary is sited further away in the opposite direction and that was the one dd2 got a place at.

I don't think there is any one size fits all areas which would work for school admissions as places like london offer very different challenges to rural areas.

Our DC go to the same school (sibling policy) - it doesn't really make life any easier for us as the parents/other evenings are obviously on different nights for different age-groups and passing down uniform is not an option in our house - it would have to be passed up, if only they were the same sex! They also travel to school independently, so no saving on drop off or pick up and sports clubs rarely seem to be on the same night....

However, I feel that the shared experience of being at the same school has been really beneficial to them - they have been able to help each other out with forgotten kit, packed lunch, no money on fob, etc. They also know each others friends and have been able to support each other in times of upset or difficulty. And we have a better idea of the systems in place with one having gone through before the other. And learn the teachers names!

MarriedinWhite I agree with you completely - there needs to be much more specialist provision for children who cannot manage in mainstream school. I work in specialist provision, and see children flourish and progress where all seemed lost in mainstream. Plus it lets the mainstream schools focus on the other children. Win-win