Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Original poster

Why is their a sibling category at secondary school allocation?

93 replies

Hulababy · 04/03/2014 16:48

I am curious, nothing more.

But I am not sure why a sibling category would be relevant at secondary level, as once a child is 11y they are more than capable of making their own way to and from school without parental involvement.

Not all LEAs/schools do have the sibling category, but why do seem feel it is necessary?

Anyone know the answer?

OP posts:
Teddingtonmum1 · 04/03/2014 18:49

I'm in Richmond and looking at the info that came in the post with my big fat no's is the allocation numbers and in every school 30-50 % is siblings its a huge number so hence we have be pushed out of every school nearby as I only have 1 and been given a crap academy where funnily only 35 out 185 went to siblings can't think why ....

Marmitelover55 · 04/03/2014 19:06

My DD1's single sex comp uses fair banding and has a sibling policy too. Some girls come from miles away, although it is actually our nearest school. I think it is good to have a sibling policy or else the very geographically diverse community would be even more diverse. As someone else said, it allows the school and families to build a better relationship.

I am also glad because DD2 is in year 5 with a bulge class and thankfully we should get a place for her next year without all of the stress we went through with DD1

Mintyy · 04/03/2014 19:08

Marmitelover - but how would you feel if your dd2 had been a ds?

newgirl · 04/03/2014 19:17

I think sibling rule is good for community - they share same open evenings, fairs etc and walk together. You get to know same families.

But I agree if you move out of catchment sibling loses that. Even with rented, house moves it is surely mostly ok to stay near.

Marmitelover55 · 04/03/2014 19:19

Mintyy - I think this would have changed my choices and I would (reluctantly) have put a different mixed school in first place, as this option would have been better for us as a family.

FamiliesShareGerms · 04/03/2014 19:24

I completely agree that the sibling rule should only at within a defined area (which could be bigger than the catchment for entry at Yr 7 to allow for genuine house moves etc).

It's another symptom of the "foot in the door" that penalised those who happen to come along a bit later system that I really dislike

TalkinPeace · 04/03/2014 19:30

I never lived in catchment
my kids are at the same school because of the sibling rule
if it did not exist they might be at schools in opposite directions as neither of them was ever going to my catchment school

mixed sex schools its better to keep families together

if you want ANY sort of segregated school (by 11+, god or gonads) you should be forced to pay for it

and if you have moved from when your elder sibling got in, the address should be based on where you are now, not where you were then

Nocomet · 04/03/2014 19:31

I'm experience the it's just lovely having the DDs share experiences and familiar situations.

Also there is a small chance one or other of them will look at their phone and get a message.

From the schools point if view it must be easier if a fair percentage of parents know the ropes.

maillotjaune · 04/03/2014 19:32

I can see the logic of siblings who live far away coming after non-siblings in catchment but how would it work if there were no defined catchment?

The school DS1 is going to uses distance as the criteria after the usual looked after / SEN / siblings but there's no actual catchment so presumably the school or LA would need to set an arbitrary distance for siblings that was not used for other children.

BitOutOfPractice · 04/03/2014 19:32

Not everyone lives close to the school. Maybe the kids can't get there alone.

BitOutOfPractice · 04/03/2014 19:33

"by 11+, god or gonads" - that's brilliant talkin

EvilTwins · 04/03/2014 19:34

As a teacher, I think it's a good policy. It's nice to build up relationships with families, and to get to know them and their circumstances. I teach in a school where a lot of children live in fairly chaotic homes. Building up trust with parents over a period of time is a very positive thing. I currently teach a lovely boy in Yr 10, I taught his older brother a few years ago, and he told me yesterday that his younger brother will be coming up in September. This sort of thing makes the school a real part of the community.

I also think it's for convenience - as a parent, I would hate it if my kids were in different schools - two sets of parents evenings, presentation evenings, school plays and so on. And there would be the comparison thing - what if one child went to a school you were happier with? Surely you'd feel that the other one was getting a rough deal? I think it's a sensible policy all round. Mind you, I have twins, and the sibling policy doesn't apply in the same way, so perhaps it won't benefit me at all.

Blu · 04/03/2014 19:38

I can see that it is vital in areas of non-existant public transport, although parents I know in those circumstances generally do lift shares and take turns, so maybe there are parents leaving the village in both directions and things can be shared out. But that shouldn't be left to chance, there needs to be a sibling policy!

Here in London where schools are close together the sibling criteria does affect people's choice making and I think puts pressure on the co-eds. The co-eds are very popular, but some parents who would actually slightly prefer a single sex school will opt for the co-ed simply to avoid another nailbiting secondary transfer for the sibling of the other sex.

ShoeWhore · 04/03/2014 19:44

I think it's good for community - also I'd really like my dcs to go to the same school and have that shared experience.

Blu · 04/03/2014 19:45

On balance I think a siblings category is a good thing - but I think it's a bit much in a school like Graveney if a child who gets in to the super-selective / grammar stream can then be a gateway for siblings who may well not be of super-selective ability. There are few enough places for people who actually live in the area without all the non-selective places being taken by two selective-class-worth of siblings, many of whom may well live miles and miles away.

You begin to wonder what's in it for the school when they introduce a policy like that.

TalkinPeace · 04/03/2014 20:00

child who gets in to the super-selective / grammar stream can then be a gateway for siblings who may well not be of super-selective ability

if you want segregated schools, PAY FOR IT
all children should have equal state school chances in their area

11+, God or gonads = pay for it ( as I've said for a long time )

ILikeToMoveItMoveIt · 04/03/2014 20:04

Interestingly, in Suffolk they are looking to downgrade the 'sibling out of catchment' to come below 'living in catchment' at primary level.

It is causing all manner of huffing and puffing for people who believed their younger children had automatic places out of catchment.

ComeIntoTheGardenMaud · 04/03/2014 20:24

... I think it's a bit much in a school like Graveney if a child who gets in to the super-selective / grammar stream can then be a gateway for siblings who may well not be of super-selective ability.

Quite, Blu. I suspect you and I live in the same or neighbouring boroughs. I have witnessed instances just as you mention, where the oldest sibling gets a place and then a younger sibling who would otherwise not have qualified either on distance or ability grounds gets a sibling place.

FamiliesShareGerms · 04/03/2014 20:41

I didn't realise Graveney applied its sibling policy to those who get in through the super selective stream.

Original poster
Hulababy · 04/03/2014 20:44

"all children should have equal state school chances in their area"

But they don't if they are a sibling. A younger sibling as an unfair advantage over other children. So it isn't an equal chance.

OP posts:
ComeIntoTheGardenMaud · 04/03/2014 20:53

Yes, they do, FamiliesShareGerms.

mellicauli · 04/03/2014 20:59

The thing is that the difference is so very obvious between siblings. As my nephew found out who got to go to the rubbish school, got beaten up on the way home, had his money stolen by other pupils and lived in fear while the staff were completely disinterested in his plight. His brother had got to go the wonderful school & was finishing his A Levels and moving on to a Russell Group Uni. (No siblings in 6th form rule). (They moved, of course)

Mintyy · 04/03/2014 20:59

They do indeed Families.

But in the case I know, the first sibling got in to the Sixth Form. The sibling didn't even go through the whole school. Now their younger sibling gets a place and they live a good 3-4 miles away.

I have friends whose eldest dc are in a very much over-subscribed co-ed school out of catchment on account of their mild sen (dyslexia). And their siblings, still outside of catchment, will go there with no sen.

As the parent of 1 girl and 1 boy I just cannot buy that siblings need to be given priority at all, because single sex schools are still very prevalent.

I don't understand Talkin's assertion that you should have to pay for segregation by gonad? What if you live in an area where the segregation by gonad is already a given?

Tansie · 04/03/2014 20:59

Personally, I think that if a DC moves out of catchment, and there's another willing DC on the waiting list who thereby moves up on the admissions criteria, that 1st DC should have to relinquish their place at the end of that KS to make room for the wait-lister. That would go some way towards stopping the 'one DC in, 3 to automatically follow though I now live miles away'.

Or, tiggy, there should be a lottery Wink

Mintyy · 04/03/2014 21:01

Exactly, Tansie.