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?

OP - AIBU?
The world - yes!
OP - but but but

Op which county are you in? I have never known any Grammar school to fulfill it's quota of pupil Premium and children in care. What I mean is that if they reserve 20 places it's highly unlikely that even 10 would fill. This thread doesn't ring true.

The things I wish I could say, but would get banned for. It has nothing to do with hardworking families. You could have 2 very hardworking parents in shit jobs that you would refuse to do, still having to claim free schools meals for a multitude of reasons that we don't know about. Hardworking has nothing to do with a LAC. This whole thread is revolting and your replies just get more and more entitled.

What I want to say but can't..... .... ...... ...... ........ ..... ... ..... ..... ...... ...... ..... .... ...... .......... ... ...... ....... .... ....... ...... ....... ........ ......?*£%^&

@LookingforMaryPoppins think you’re being a bit melodramatic here.

Dont know any grammar that has sibling priority- and if yours did your elder dd might not have got in?

also don’t know any grammar school without pp or in care as priority groups. For those near us (Bexley/Kent) those admission rules have been in place for some time and only a tiny number each year from those groups get in.

hand wringing about ‘normal families who value education and work hard’ not getting equal access to grammar schools is nonsense.

It means they are a much, much higher chance of being educationally disadvantaged.

They are much more likely to have ACEs (adverse childhood experiences).

They also don't have disposable income for extra curricular experiences, or to pay for a daily train to get to school.

I know, which is why myself and other amazing Care Leavers are trying to change an corrupt system and lead by example. Unfortunately change takes time and we need to learn from the lessons of the past to save the future. All children no matter their circumstances deserve equal access to opportunities to an education whether that be vocational or academic. The opportunity to have a stable and safe adulthood.

But you don't want to improve education for all. And you don't care about pupils who are just above the PP threshold. You just want your daughter to have a better education than poor children. You think she is more worthy because she comes from a "normal" family.

You can pass uniform down to people who are not siblings. And ease of transport is irrelevant, given you seem like you live pretty far from the school.

The cost of trips is not allowed to be inflated to subsidize other pupils. The discount that some schools offer for PP comes from direct funding to the school.

You're pissed off, and worried for your daughter, I get it. But you're also "punching down" in a really unpleasant way. It's good that you've done so anonymously because I don't think many would look on what you've said in a positive light.

Now that is incredibly unfair, when other children work so hard to get in. What area is this?

Agree - well said!

You said your oldest gets the train? So ease of transport doesn't apply, it's not as if this is primary and you are driving them in 2 different directions. Your youngest can get public transport to whichever school she gets. You haven't mentioned which area this is but I presume there are other grammars she can apply to?

If she is bright she will do well anywhere.

Had the sibling policy been in place for your oldest, she may have not got a place. There are pros and cons to every policy, but a sibling priority system has no place in secondary schools, especially grammar

And also how does this work? You've got 25 really bright kids in a class and 5 siblings who are average at best, do they have their own work set or are they just made to feel shit for not keeping up?

I agree. I can't tell you how many frustratingly sad stories I've known over the years, how many opportunities lost.
This resentment of having a child's Geography field trip paid for, or given a free revision guide is just beyond my ken. Absolutely appalling.

Wait until op hears about contextual uni offers!

Yabu, that's unfortunately just life... Especially if applying to a selective school. Life isn't fair. The sun shines on the righteous and the unrighteous alike. You win some, you lose some. If you feel that passionately about your daughter getting in to a certain school, then you need to move house. That's the reality of it.

I think that’s quite unlikely though as a significant number… siblings will for the most part have both similar genetics (re intelligence, such of it as is hereditary) and similar environments (parents who have the ability and capacity to help with homework, Bond work books, books in the house etc etc)

Bloody hell. She'll faint.
Or the trips we run (for free!) to take PP students on open days to RG universities.

I think they are a terrible idea. Neither DH or I grew up in a grammer area, and we moved to Bucks when our girls were 1 and 3, it didn't even occur to us to look at secondaries at that point. The first we really knew about it were when DD1's friends older siblings were prepping for the 11+, and by then we were really settled. Now DD1 is year 5 and going through the stress of prepping for 11+ - her choice after looking round secondaries both comp and grammer. The difference is so big and she has her heart set on a specific grammar school, so we will do our best to support her to get there as its something she wants. I'm happy wherever she goes - I went to a 'sink school' and got top grades, so it's really not us driving it. However, a part of me is watching her go through all the stress and extra work and wishing it wasn't even an option for her to have to consider at the age of 9, it's so much pressure at such a young age!

I am not.... I think all children should have the opportunity of a decent education - is that so wrong?

Surely we should be looking at raising the standards for all, not dragging everyone down?

I was also thinking this - it's unfair to offer to them, and then they struggle to keep up. As well as being unfair on those who got much higher scores than them. The whole thing is a bit rubbish really. And I don't agree with it. But my DD1 wants it, so we put our morals aside...

I can PM you the area if you’d like. I share way too much to put it on the thread.

No need for sibling priority then if they'd all get in on their own merits. Although
I went to a grammar school and can think of a few families with one at grammar and one at secondary modern. It wasn't uncommon at all.

No there isn’t a bigger picture.

if the school is in an area of high deprivation it should be taking more PP/LAC. National PP is 28% - you’re saying high deprivation but they’re only taking 16% PP. They aren’t prioritising places for these pupils in an unfair way - they aren’t even reflecting their demographic (and yet parents like you think your children should be getting the train into the school and taking places off local children).

School trips can only charge the cost per pupil so subsiding is against the school funding agreement. What may be happening is the school is using PP grant to cover the cost of educational visits for pupils on PP which is a research proven good use of the grant.

if you give me the name of the school I can check both their proportion of PP/LAC and how they use their PPgrant.

Very few secondaries and even fewer grammars have the sibling priority any more and it is very obvious why this is the case for grammars. Parents make these decisions re uniform and transport when they choose schools.

You are right - we should be creating an educational system that delivers excellence for all. BUT THIS IS NOT WHAT YOUR POSTS ARE ABOUT. You complained that PP and LAC children got priority over privileged children, that non grammar schools were sink schools , that PP families were lazy and not normal.

You do not care about the education system - you only care about giving your children the advantage you feel they deserve over groups of children who, across the country, underachieve and do not receive the best chances.

And that’s fine but then don’t expect the education system and tax payer to fund what you think your children deserve over others. You need to do this by living in a different catchment where the schools aren’t ‘sink schools’ or pay private if you don’t think state schools can offer a quality education.

And please read the room. We live in a society (reflected here) who wants to offer the most vulnerable children in our society the chance of an excellent education because we know how important it is to these children. Maybe take a moment to reflect if this is what you want your children to grow up hearing.

How is trying to level the playing field for a few very disadvantaged children dragging everyone down? How?

Yes but having a sibling rule for a selective grammar is the opposite of that

the so called sink school should be improved

But that’s not what your posts are about. Read them. Where do you say this?