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?

UABR if you look up the criteria of the ‘failing sink’ schools their criteria will be exactly the same. (except 11 plus) Every local ‘sink’ school I looked at had that criteria, I wasn’t looking at grammars though.

Presumably the amount of pupils attending on an elite 11+ basis isn’t enough to keep the school open alone.

Then she is leapfrogging over someone who is closer.

There is no way this isn’t going to be unfair to someone. It is an oversubscribed school, no matter what the selection criteria are someone will lose out and feel miffed about it.

2 options:

• Scottish style system where everyone goes to their catchment school. You can ask to go to another but they will only take if there are spaces. No putting down schools by preference etc…
• Schools publish their oversubscription criteria and apply it to all. Which it seems this school is doing.

I feel when applying out of catchment sibling policy is unfair, others don’t. One exception twins/ multiples should be in the same school (SEN/ 11+ allowing).

I hugely support all of the above.

Children with severe SEN need to be in specialist schools that can support their needs. Nobody benefits when severe SEN children are in mainstream.

@BeeKee

And you think ReformUK would prioritise funding for referral units over the ‘fit’?

You think it’s fine for SEND children to be taken out of their local community and segregated off? You think abuse such as the SEN school in the Wirral is perfectly ok?
“Life Wirral is a school that is supposed to provide education to children with Send. A BBC investigation released on Monday showed staff calling students—directly to their faces—terrible terms such as “fucking idiot”, “retard”, “flid”, “ponce” and “batty boy”.
A staff member described how he dealt with a student. “(The student’s) been beaten into being a bit of a bitch now, which is why I think he’s going to stay behaving well.”
The school’s head of operations, Paul Hamill, talks of fantasising about drowning a pupil in a bath “like a kitten”. Hamill tells the BBC’s undercover reporter of an instance where he threw a student “all over the place” and of “fucking ragging” him.”

So, one school has been abusive and therefore, what, you don't think special schools should exist? And where did I say abuse of SEN children at a SEN school is acceptable? Goodness, lots of stretches.

@BeeKee

It’s not just one school though is it? There is pretty shocking behaviour being exposed by staff in nurseries/other institutions that are ‘supposed’ to care for vulnerable people. Winterborne View is another.

Underfunding, high staff turn over, a place where there are a great many behavioural needs altogether, lowest pay for the staff who are there.

ReformUK are not going to provide ‘better funding’ for places like this, they will be focusing on the needs of the elite.

But you’ve said that you support this ‘ethos’ - so I don’t think it’s a stretch. Or are you not considering the full implications of your ‘ethos’ because you are far more focussed on your individualism?

The idea of the 11+ exam was actually that it would separate children who were naturally more suited to continued academic education from those who would naturally be better at technical and vocational roles in life.

I'm fairly certain that you're refering specifically the children who come from low income background as the great unfairness here. Presumably you don't mean the ones who are PP because they have parents in the military, for example. I'm assuming this from the comments about 'hard working families'.

Children who come from families with a higher socioeconomic background generally have better educational outcomes. Therefore children from families with lower socioeconomic status have a lower starting position than your child.

All the children who want to go to your grammar have to sit the 11+. The pupil premium kids who come from lower socioeconomic households have managed to pass the same exam your child did from a lower starting position than your child. Therefore they're either naturally smarter or have worked harder than your child.

These are children whose parents have a low income. It's not some judgement of how hard their parents do or don't work and how much money they do or don't earn. It's an attempt to level the playing field for children who could have loads of academic potential but have something in their lives which is acknowledged to get in the way of having that potential fulfilled.

All you can see is what you've not got. Not how great it is these other children have achieved this.

It's trying to improve the position of children who are born into a less favourable situation to fulfil their potential, which they clearly do have if they've also passed the same exam your child has worked hard for.

The great unfairness here is that these children shouldn't have a lower starting position than yours in the first place.

On a national level, we decided to try and give these children the opportunity to show their individual potential rather than their opportunities being defined by the position they were born into. They're not getting a leg up they haven't earned, they've done really well in-spite of a disadvantage that your child doesn't have.

Stop wasting your time thinking about how unfair it is you perceive yourself to work harder than their parents. It's not about you, no-one cares about what you do or think, they care about trying level up the playing field for children.

Seriously, you need to pack it the fuck in with this 'normal' shit!

Having grown up when grammar schools/secondary moderns were the norm and seeing a very bright (top of the class in all exams way ahead of anyone else) but from the small council estate being told that she didn’t pass the 11+ and all her ambitions and plans went out of the window as it meant No O levels, so no A levels and then of course no degree.
But another friend (bottom of the class by a huge margin) who struggled with reading and writing but from the nice new estate of bought houses being told she passed the 11+ student something stank.

Didn’t know at the time that HT’s had final say in who went and who didn’t get told they had passed the 11+

The friend who struggled but was told she had passed of course couldn’t keep up with the work at the grammar school and her parents removed her after a term and put her into a small local private school.

Friend who was told she hadn’t passed. Felt completely stunted by the secondary modern.

Much fairer to have the comprehensive system. At least on paper it gives everyone a chance and isn’t subject to people’s opinions and prejudices

Completely disagree with you. Why should my daughter be less likely to get a place because your daughter has an older sibling there? Arguably your younger child already has an advantage over mine having parents and an older sibling who has been through the process already who can better support her in preparing for the exam.

Primary schools need sibling criteria as parents take them. Secondary don't as most children go on public transport. You mentioned family budgets - if a child who lives closer didn't get a place due to sibling criteria, than they would potentially have to spend more to get to an alternative school, so that would be worse on their budget.

You can of course be dissapointed if she doesn't end up getting a place. But it cannot be claimed that it is unfair, because it isn't.

Another adopter here, and trust me OP's attitude is widespread. I have heard it so many times from parents in my (affluent) area. Along with alarm that 'so many' LAC kids in the school might pose a risk to the others.

My oldest child, who is not adopted, got contextual university offers due to being in receipt of FSM. We got the comments then, too.

Be assured, everyone, that other than priority in school admissions (which we didnt need anyway because we are well in catchment) my LAC dd has had no handouts or privileges along the way. What she has had is a school system that doesn't meet her needs, a mental health service that has refused her support, and piles of social prejudice and racism. But at least she's not 'bottom of the pile' unlike those kids from 'normal, hardworking families'.

Absolutely this. Private schools near us boast a '100%' 11+ pass rate. These are non selective schools, so it's not that they get the most children in because they are the smartest, it's because they are allowed to prep them for the test, and for a reason I can't seem to find out (happy to be enlightened) state schools are forbidden from doing any prep beyond 1 practice test 2 days before the actual one. This I feel is absolutely ridiculous. My daughters tutor offered to provide free sessions during the school day for those children who had the ability to have a good chance of passing, but parents unable to afford tutoring. The school had to turn her down due to the rules around this which seems crazy.

It seems to vary by area and specific rules apply to specific counties.

Is this Watford?
I know a few years ago they used to have a siblings just get a place allowing them to claim that they weren't fully selective which put them onto a different classification in the school league tables at the time.

What OP is describing, which is a sibling rule at grammar schools, is hugely discriminatory to only child families. I don’t see why it’s the states issue that you have chosen to have more than one child? Secondary school children usually make their own way to school, so logistics shouldn’t come into it. I think comp places should be allocated using a lottery system, similar to Brighton’s process. Grammar should continue to be offered based on test scores and other talents.

Yep and discriminatory to oldest children, to families where they have children of different genders (most grammar schools are unisex as far as i can see), in fact to anyone except those who have 2(or more) same sex children who are all academically able. And I say that as a mum of 3 able girls who would benefit from a sibling priority system.

I'm not sure Brightons system works well in practical terms, with children criss crossing the city to get to a school on the other side of the city when they live right next to one. But I do get the concept in terms of fairness.

What OP is describing, which is a sibling rule at grammar schools, is hugely discriminatory to only child families

And those with large gaps. DS2 is so much younger than DS1 that there was no sibling in the school when he was applying. It wasn't the right school for him anyway.

State schools don’t prep for the test because most of what’s in the test isn’t in the national curriculum? Bar maths and reading comprehension content, which of course is. They would literally be teaching to the test. And would then have to miss out some of the actual curriculum.

This would obviously only apply to the minority of schools in a grammar school area.

You're awful, stop using the term normal family and kids being dragged down (by the non normal families and LAC I assume). Why on earth would having a siblings matter in a grammar school. Maybe they should stop dragging down only child familes. You keep doubling down when so many people have told you how poorly you are coming across. Wise up.

I appreciate the challenge with finding the time to support prep for it. But DD and some of her friends are finishing their work part way through a lesson and then being told to read quietly while others finish - they are getting through the work quicker so there is capacity within their day, even if it was self led study in small groups, or timetabled sessions with an external tutor. It wouldn't make much of a difference to us - we can pay for tutoring for the year rather than have a summer holiday. But it frustrates me that some of DD's bright friends won't get this opportunity due to their family circumstances. The school didn't phrase it as they didn't have time though, they phrased it as they were not legally allowed, which is very different

i don’t think schools are legally allowed either?

In the situation that you describe, your daughter and her friends that are finishing their work early and having the opportunity for self led or other study would have an unfair advantage to the children that hadn’t finished their work early, for probably a lot of different reasons. And the school would be facilitating that advantage.

Timetabled sessions with an external tutor would put a burden on the school in finding a room, DBS checks etc

But as PP says, it’s probably more about a state school not directly facilitating one group of pupils over another (whether at their school or not)

Surely we want all children to reach their maximum potential, whatever that may be? Whether that's supporting a child who is struggling or stretching a more able child? Ultimately the children of engaged and financially able parents will get them that advantage anyway, why not give that advantage to other able children? Tbh it's nor even giving them an advantage, it's just stopping them being disadvantaged compared with other able children, levelling the playing field to some extent for those PP children who most posters on here have advocated for being supported.

They have a variety of private music teachers coming in, sports specialists etc. Space and DBS isn't an issue.

Schools bring in specialists to meet specific needs, to give children support and opportunities relevant to their needs and abilities. That isn't seen as giving an advantage, it's filling a gap which the school can't meet on their own to maximise a child's learning opportunities.

Ultimately the grammar school system is very flawed. Good concept aimed at improving equality for able children, which has ultimately had the opposite effect.

@Bushmillsbabe

My experience of single sex grammar was not great, although this was many years ago. Bullying occurred at my non-selective primary, but it was was mainly boys/quite easy to brush off. In an all female selective environment it was far more devastating. Whispers about appearance, being suddenly ignored, subtle social isolation. If you watch Educating Essex : it was Carrie/Ashleigh - but worse in a single sex environment.

My DD appears to be far more confident, secure in herself and is achieving in a good comp. I think it’s good that she experiences the full range of personalities that she’ll need deal with in adult life. I think she’d crumble with the competition/social demands in a single sex grammar.