Schools admission criteria......

[LookingforMaryPoppins]

So, my youngest has her heart set on the same grammar school as her sister. She has worked hard and successfully passed the 11 plus. Really proud off her, she is dyslexic so no mean feat.... having just checked the admission criteria, having a sibling at the school makes no difference. Passing the 11 plus is the first criteria followed by children in care, pupil premium and then distance - she is bottom of the pile. If she doesn't get a place, which with that criteria is likely., the option is a sink failing school..... how is that fair?

It takes way more than dyslexia to get an EHCP.

Dyslexia is a condition that all schools are expected to support, it wouldn’t qualify a child for an EHCP.

Have you got any idea how hard life is for care leavers? You sound ridiculous. No-one should be moaning about being bumped
for them.

So you want your DC to be a priority over a child in care?

The child in care is already at a massive disadvantage, probably wouldn't have the support that your child has and being offered the opportunity for a better school might be a massive difference in their lives.

Unfortunately it means children with parents that live further away miss out.
Surprisingly, you are not arguing the convenience of having siblings together, which I would understand but that it's unfair to your DC to have kids in care a priority.

Are you saying the children of these non-hardworking families get in without passing the exam?

This, and the cut off distance for the furthest away admitted child? You could be panicking unnecessarily

My DS’s non grammar school is very oversubscribed, last year there were 1300 applicants for 280 places. The criteria is LAC, then ECHP then siblings, then distance

The figures for 2025 entry were 3 LAC, 2 ECHP then 115 siblings.

(There is a attached SEN unit but I presume there was a different criteria for those children as there’s definitely more than 2 kids with SEN)

There is no difference here for siblings in and out of catchment and I’m reasonably confident several of those siblings live some distance away (there definitely were a handful in primary school)

So no system is totally fair. Under this criteria an eldest or only child a ten minute walk away could loose out to one whose parents are happy to drive them in, as they happen to older DC!

It might require a low income (£7400 pa net for the UC criteria) but this is then 'made up' by UC so the money available to the family is more. You do realise that £7400 isn't a full time wage? It's not even 16 hours at minimum wage for someone over 25- so, all things being even (number of children, disability status, age of children, age of parent) - the family on UC has more time with their primary school aged child that a parent in a FT NMW role- who may be eligible for UC but would not be eligible for PP.

I don't think that's fair or equitable.

Does anyone know the statistics of how many children with an ehcp travel to mainstream state schools out of area? Just wondering as my dc with ehcp's are at the local comp. We did look at mainstream schools out of the area but found them to be fairly similar to each other. The special needs schools were great but wouldn't take either of my dc. So we went with the local comp so they could stay with their friends.

Also, bear in mind eligibility for PP is based on criteria that covers 6 years preceding. Which means that, from an income pov, it's not the income the family is necessarily on now (which could be more or less) , but could stretch back to when the child was in reception.

Are you absolutely sure they have changed the criteria? Children in care have always had priority for school admissions in my area. Don't think pupil premium features, only an EHCP naming a specific school, but other factors you don't mention do, so that probably balances out. Most pupils are admitted on the bog standard distance measure. It's very possible you might be okay, but if she fails to get in, I can't see why that's on the face of it less fair than it would have been for a child without an older sibling in the same situation.

But that's not what has happened?

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/mar/10/no-exodus-to-state-sector-after-vat-added-to-private-school-fees-say-english-councils

This thread is far too long to read through all the responses so apologies if this has already been said. Firstly, although technically non-LAC/PLAC or PP children will be ‘bottom of the pile’, in reality the numbers of LAC, PLAC and PP children being admitted to the school are likely to be very low. LAC/PLAC have to come first in ANY oversubscription criteria and PP was added by a number of grammar schools to try to widen access for a very under-represented group (often in exchange for Fair Access Protocol funding in 2018-2020). Secondly, if you look at your local authority’s composite prospectus (should be on their website) it will include a list of every school in the area and their oversubscription criteria and will tell you a) how many pupils were admitted in each category the previous year (so the current Y7 for secondaries) and b) the category in which the last child was admitted. If that category is ‘distance from the school’, it will also tell you how far they lived. Obviously things change year to year but you’ll be able to make a reasonable guess at whether your daughter will actually obtain a place.

I understand not wanting your child to be educated at a terrible school. No child should have that and like all public services the education system is a mess right now and that’s painful for everyone. If you’re confronted with that as a reality for your child I get why you might be emotional.

But this thread is nuts. Children in care have appalling outcomes which is why they have preference in education allocations. In these circumstances a child who has experienced adversity at the threshold required for them to be in care and then can pass a test that many people tutor their kids to pass shows they have amazing academic potential and are likely brighter and more resilient than many of their peers.

Equally children entitled to FSM aren’t just working class, they are poor in absolute terms with everything that goes with that. Someone said their parents will be home giving them intensive academic support. Obviously not. If they could they would be working, if they have to accept living on less than £8k a year then they are unlikely to have the means to give a child support through the 11+. Again if a child can cope with this level of adversity then they are likely to be exceptionally bright, more so than children from other families. So yes they should be prioritised from a fairness perspective.

So no one should target their frustration or claim it’s unfair on working families because it’s really not. But equally I wouldn’t want my child in a failing school so I get it and would feel quite desperate. I don’t know what to suggest but applying for a bursary at a selective private school might be an option as the tests tend to be less demanding (I have friends kids at top London schools that weren’t successful in super selective grammars, so that’s not to say private schools are less demanding - it’s just the entrance exams!)

For myself, I’m angry that there is no money for public services and inevitably the social contract will break so far that support for them and wider public goods is on the way out. All the tinkering and gaslighting about education eg. VAT on private schools isn’t helpful public policy giving all kids free breakfast is meaningless. We’re in a state I don’t know how we get out of it.

Children growing up in deprived households have to work twice as hard as the children of 'normal hardworking' families, and if they don't get opportunities to escape the cycle of poverty, their outcomes in life will always be determined before they were even born - and that's all outcomes. Health, education, career...

There's a difference between opportunities being equal, and equitable. If we want good outcomes for the whole of society, an equitable education system is best.

I hope your fears are unfounded and your daughter gets to attend the same school as her sister, but if she doesn't, then throw yourself into making the 'sink school' more equitable. You're clearly an engaged parent.

OP, unfortunately I feel both your daughters may be disadvantaged in life, if they are exposed to the views you are giving here?

I have not read the full thread.

It sounds like this is a school that limits entry to those who pass the 11+ (not all grammar schools do). So your daughter has passed the first hurdle.

Schools are required by law to give top priority to looked after children (i.e. children in care) and formerly looked after children. This has been the case since 2006. That aspect of the admissions criteria will definitely not have changed since your older daughter was admitted.

Schools can give priority to children receiving pupil premium, but they do not have to do so. Contrary to your latest post, there is plenty of evidence that children who qualify for pupil premium are disadvantaged. That is why pupil premium exists. Around 8% of children in grammar schools are eligible for pupil premium. If this has been added to the admission criteria since your older daughter was admitted, it will have reduced your daughter's chances of getting a place a little. However, given that you clearly were not aware that looked after and formerly looked after children had priority when your older daughter was admitted, are you really sure this is a change?

Everybody thinks their preferred school's admission criteria are unfair if they think it means their child won't get a place. There is nothing objectively unfair about these criteria.

That is typical for most state schools, grammar or otherwise.

My neighbour’s son has an EHCP and he is dyslexic. He has a specially trained TA sit with him a couple of times a week as well.

Op, I think you are being somewhat dramatic here. At a guess, your daughter's rank amongst the kids who have met the standard isn't as comfortably high as your eldest's was.

I'm in a similar position, where after the other priorities are allocated, we'll be unlikely to get a place.

Are the other schools really 'sink schools' as you put it? We attended all of the local open evenings and were impressed by two of the local academies. They had a great range of subjects, extra curriculars, and seemed to have high expectations.

We can see our daughter doing just as well at any of them really, but she liked them, could see herself at the other two we liked, and we don't feel a tonne of pressure riding on the application. Could you phone the alternatives and ask to look around if you haven't already? It might put your mind at ease.

Maybe they should scrap PP as a direct criteria altogether and do it based on results of test Vs household income over previous 2 years. And then get a percentage from each band. So then wealthy household will be competing against wealthy households and MC Vs MC rather than pitching really poor Vs super duper struggling.

So like comprehensive schools do - mix of bands, but mix of bands based on income too.

Some children with dyslexia do get an EHCP. It’s about the need and additional support a child requires in school rather than the diagnosis.

Op, I think you are being somewhat dramatic here. At a guess, your daughter's rank amongst the kids who have met the standard isn't as comfortably high as your eldest's was.

I'm in a similar position, where after the other priorities are allocated, we'll be unlikely to get a place.

Are the other schools really 'sink schools' as you put it? We attended all of the local open evenings and were impressed by two of the local academies. They had a great range of subjects, extra curriculars, and seemed to have high expectations.

We can see our daughter doing just as well at any of them really, but she liked them, could see herself at the other two we liked, and we don't feel a tonne of pressure riding on the application. Could you phone the alternatives and ask to look around if you haven't already? It might put your mind at ease.

That’s interesting, thank you. I suspect the dyslexia is quite severe, then.

However, if the intervention is a TA part time, that wouldn’t necessarily mean that the EHCP would name a specific school. Just “having an EHCP” does not put a child at the top of the list for all schools, only the school (if any) that has been named.

But all things are not equal.

Some people take on very low-paying jobs out of choice.

But the majority are taking what they can get. They can't take better-paying jobs because:

• They have a disability
• They are caring for relatives, unpaid
• They have a lack of qualifications
• They don't have a good level of English

Any of these reasons puts their child at a disadvantage in education. Even if the parents have chosen to work very few hours - that disadvantages the child. It's not the child's fault that they've been born to parents who lack aspirations. Attending a grammar school might help those children see another way in life.

Long, emotive stories are very compelling (we have all read Oliver Twist), but it doesn't mean this makes a good or effective policy or achieve the end to which the means is justified.

Grammar schools are necessarily selective. The purpose of these schools is to nurture children who are smarter than others and would be more likely to go on to do the kinds of jobs we need smart people in. It therefore makes the most sense to prioritize purely based on which children get the better test scores and do away with anything else.

As I said further up the thread, efforts to make the playing field level never work in the intended way, as it's always the parents with more resources who find a way to get their child the best regardless. It's well intentioned but misguided in my view. Again, this is totally normal and to be expected as people do not love or care about or have the same obligations to other people's kids compared with their own. Every parent who isn't a crap parent does the same even if they make the right noises