Why do most secondary comprehensives still have a siblings policy?

[bibbitybobbityhat]

Any thoughts?

One reason why siblings get priority is that the admission code suggests that siblings should be given priority. If siblings did not get any priority then anybody appealing for a place at the school could argue that the school are not keeping to the school admission code.

Talkingpeace2 I think that this is a good admission criteria because it does give preference to siblings that are in catchment but gives the next priority to those pupils who are local. A good compromise, I think. It also reduces another potential problem which is the family who move into the local area to get a school place but then deliberately move to a different location. By giving catchment children priority over out of catchment siblings, parents know that "bending" the rules for the eldest child might well backfire on them for younger siblings.

I would agree that it would be sensible to prioritise siblings in catchment.

I'm not sure the London education system is especially broken. Although it varies, of course. Schools in my borough are getting better all the time and they are expanding the number of schools and places, too.

There are some 'black holes' and areas where it is hard to find a school you are confident with, but there are also cases where it is attitudes, outdated reputations and parental panic / parental competitive frenzy that are as much the problem as the system.

I'm with Bibbitybobbityhat.

As Admission says, the admissions code leads LEAs towards giving priority to siblings, but I see no compelling basis for it. In a borough like this which doesn't have catchment areas, siblings always take priority and that creates problems, particularly in oversubscribed schools where families stay in the vicinity just long enough to get the first child in and then decamp. I would like to know more about the impact of abolishing the criterion (I gather my LEA has attempted to model this) but it seems to me that, without the priority for siblings, most siblings would still get a place when considered under the 'everybody else/distance to school' criterion. The siblings who wouldn't get places would (as far as I can see) be the ones who have moved miles away since the eldest child was admitted.

I'm not sure that the London system is especially broken, but it is pretty flawed.

Where I live, my closest secondary is a hugely oversubscribed Ofsted outstanding co-ed, but although it is my closest, we live just outside the catchment.

Next closest is a hugely oversubscribed Ofsted outstanding co-ed, which accepts pupils on a scholarship system, then siblings, then lottery.

Next up (for dd) is a love it or hate it huge single sex school. This is where she is likely to go and I will be happy with that but ... my next in line is a boy.

Places 4, 5 and 6 on my admissions form might as well be mickey mouse school in la la land, for all the chance she has of getting in. Try as you might in London, you cannot generally live in the catchment of 6 secondary schools .

There have been problems caused by Academy schools introducing things like a lottery which has no distance criteria at all. The lottery at Kingsdale offers a glimmer of hope to parents further north in the borough, but leaves others in a no-man's land.

Not sure what the catchments are for Elmgreen and Harris Crystal palace now - they used to be wide, but I would guess are shrinking.

I agree with PanelMember about the siblings / out of catchment effect.

Because if you live where I do only one local school has a bus and the next nearest school is in a different county. Has been known to have Easter holidays where the whole two weeks didn't over lap never mind different half terms!
Easier for schools to have parents who know the ropes, hand me down uniform has saved me a fortune at primary. It just makes sense all round.
Awful if you live very near a school and can't get a place, but then the school should simply find a way to take more children.

I'm surprised at the variation in admissions policies on this thread!

We have two kids at two different secondaries. DS1's school prioritises:

-Looked after children
-SEN with statement naming school
-In catchment, at feeder school, with sibs
-In catchment, at feeder school
-In catchment, NOT at feeder school, with sibs
-Out of catchment, at feeder school, with sibs
-Out of catchment, not at feeder school, with sibs (that would be us then, and that's why we have two different secondaries)
-No-hopers

In practice, it cuts off after line 5. On a bad year, it cuts off after line 4!

But wouldn't the ending of sibling policies have the potential to have a negative impact on low income families?

Consider the case of a low-income family renting. The oldest child is awarded a place at school X. Imagine the family has 3 children. The younger children are likely to be attending a local school. The family's lease expires as second child is coming up for secondary transfer. The family have to move, perhaps just out of catchment for the school child 1 attends. The sibling policy isn't in existence, so they are faced with the prospect of 3 children at three different schools, all some distance from each other. The logistics of that are a bit of a nightmare, given that the family are going to have a struggle paying transport costs.

Which children will they move, from which schools? Would you want to move child 1 in, perhaps, a GCSE year, given that the options that child might be studying may not be available elsewhere?

And not all families, as other posters have pointed out, live where a variety of schools are an option - the schools might be literally miles apart.

I agree that the whole renting-for-a-year to get all your children into a school, either primary or secondary, phenomenon - is incredibly frustrating but I do think that the other options are really hard on those renting, or forced to move for a variety of reasons (illness/death/sudden loss of income/divorce).

Depends where you live whether sibling policy matters to you. Hereabouts- big city, lots of comps both single sex and mixed and grammars as well it probably doesn't matter much. All non selective schools that are "reasonable" to apply for in the local area are not too far to travel independently too. Grammars have no sibling preference of course- that would be silly.

Primaries I think need a sibling policy. It just isn't on to get young children to different schools (move out of catchment though and still expect yous sibling place- nah- that's having a laugh)

I am guilty of being too London-centric in my thinking, but as secondary school children here get themselves to school, often using trains, the tube and buses, I can't see the problem with children going to different schools.

I agree that it makes sense in primary schools. And obviously grammars do not have sibling policies. That's why I put secondary comprehensives in my thread title.

One of the very popular schools where I live had only 1 place (of 30) available in reception as every other place was taken up by siblings. However, I still support a sibling policy because at least I only have the stress of getting the first child in somewhere and don't have to dedicate another 2 years of calling 10 schools once a week to get an update on the waiting lists

(Not in UK)

So that you can hand down uniform between them?

I do think sibling priority is a good thing - apart from it being nice for the siblings themselves, a family's commitment to a school is likely to be stronger if it's the only school at which they have children: so more likely to be on PTA, governors board, go to plays and events and so on.

bibbitybobbityhat - the assumption that there is public transport to get to a school is also London-centric. I'm in the midlands and where I am there is very limited public transport. Some schools are simply inaccessible by public transport. Without a siblings policy it would be possible for parents to find their DCs in separate schools with no means of getting there.

I agree with you bibbity that the system does not work in cities, particularly London.

People live in an area where they think the schools are good - if they can afford to. This makes other areas suffer and results in a segregated community.

In some areas people cram into tiny flats for a year to get their eldest into the right school, then move down the road where property is cheaper. I know a lot of people who have done this. It's sneaky and wrong - but they don't consider there is an alternative.

Some say 'we moved here because the schools are so good we don't have to pay for private schools'. This is about more than handing down school uniforms and convenient parents evenings. For a family of 3, these people save £300,000 and meanwhile they are investing in their property.

As a by-product of this divisive system myself, I know first hand how it affects not only communities, but individual children who consider themselves as 'left behind' as their posh pals move away in year 4. Twas ever thus.

I think they are considering a lottery system in some areas - there has been a pilot in Brighton I think. And now we have Free Schools to make the system even more divisive.

gnome you have highlighted that there needs to be a different system in cities to rural areas. Rural areas need smaller schools spread out more.

Animula - It's precisely because of that sort of issue that I would want to know what the actual effect of ending sibling priority would be.

For the moment, it seems to me that tying schools' and LEAs' hands so that they have to give places to younger siblings, even when the family has moved far beyond the distance at which places would usually be awarded, is creating problems that need to be fixed. As we don't have formal catchment areas in our LEA, we can't distinguish between siblings in and out of catchment, so ending the sibling priority seems to be all that's left.

My hunch - although it is only that - is that the actual impact of ending sibling priority would be limited because so many places would be freed up to become the 'all other applicants, according to distance' places and siblings would usually get those. To cater for the scenario you describe, I would prefer a slightly broader interpretation of the social/medical need/exceptional circumstances category, so that the family can point to any compelling reasons (such as approaching GSCEs) why the eldest child could not move to a new school in the new area or why the younger children needed to be at the same school as their sibling.

Some people cannot afford private schools and do not have the £3,000,000 to invest in their properties but they still want their DC in good schools. My ED got into a part selective school due to her musical ability. My yd got in as a sibbling but she is very academic so is an asset to the school IMO.

My ds got a place too as a sibbling but I would have let him go to the local school. We live a distance away from the school and TBH could not really afford to move into the area.

We are very thankful for this opportunity for our DC. We are not rolling in money but were encouraged by my dd's teacher in Y6.

Actually, Alemci, it is your example that I find the most problematic.

We also have a partially-selective school near us (although not in the LEAs for which I chair appeal panels). The school admits most of its pupils according to the standard criteria and the farthest distance at which places are awarded under the 'all others according to distance' category is usually about a mile, so the school is very much for local children. However, an exception is made for the children admitted through the academic test, who comes from miles around. I can see the rationale for admitting local children and I can (although I know many people can't) see the rationale for admitting a proportion of very able children outside the usual criteria, but I see no objective justification for admitting siblings who don't fulfil either the 'local' or 'very able' criterion.

I can see no reason for a secondary to have a sibling policy as surely most y7 pupils can get themselves to school so the parents do not have the logistics problems that they would with primary school children?

Not a London-centric view as i got myself to school 6 miles away at secondary on the bus from a tiny village in the north west with one bus an hour - as did all my friends. My DB and DSis got themselves to a school in the opposite direction with no problem. My mum just watched us turn in different directions at the top of the roads, not really a hardship.

Yes, its nice to have continuity, be able to pass down uniform etc. but this should not be at the expense of families who live round the corner who then have to trek miles.

Exactly, CustardCake. As I've said already, I'm sceptical about the value of a sibling priority in admission to comprehensives but in partially-selective schools, where the older child is there because they have been selected on the strength of their academic or musical ability, I see no justification for younger siblings getting places on their coat-tails. I notice that academically selective independent schools don't automatically admit siblings and expect them to pass the same selection tests as anyone else.

What's this about not needing to take them? maybe in some places but we are one of very few famillies who won't have to take ds2 to comp, becuase of teh villagey catchment most people end up driving the kids in.

Carrots you sure those buses stille xist? They don't here with any reliability. Not from the outlyings anyway.

Siblings of grammar school kids still have to pass the 11+ . some schools like the one nearest us are super selective and only take the top so many scores due to over subscription. The siblings of these kids can get in in appeal if their score us lower, but they still need to pass the lea level.