Why do most secondary comprehensives still have a siblings policy?

[bibbitybobbityhat]

Any thoughts?

Selection on ability in a comprehensive school is a contradiction in terms.

We have a school that does this (since it because a Foundation school). It is wonderful to give children with special gifts a place at a school to further that special gift - a music school for instance. But for a school to offer that child a place at their comprehensive is not really helping them reach their full potential. And this school gets paid for by the poorest taxpayers in one of the poorest areas of London.

The whole system is cr*p, we know it, the government knows it and the children left behind in the 'sink' schools most certainly know it.

Not forgetting the teachers who have to work in the schools that nobody wants to send their kids to.

The system (such as it is) is certainly very unsatisfactory in many areas and impossible to explain to a keen 10 year old who just wants to go to a decent school with some friends from her primary. I wonder if we live in the same area Abendbrot. Does your foundation school begin with a K?

This policy discrimates against only children - they may be in a feeder school, live within the catchment area and still not get a place as the places are filled already with 'siblings'

No it doesn't begin with K bbb - I think there are lots of areas like ours, with just the same problem. It is bound to happen with the system being the way it is.

As I said before, I am a byproduct of this system and I had a cr*p education. I got some qualifications, but levels were low. There are a lot of us about - many of my peers got their qualifications after they left.

Something has to change, and it's either a lottery system or a no sibling rule. But now we have free schools I fear nothing will change for the schools 'left behind'.

Yep, Custard, it just goes on and on. Single sex schools, faith schools, special schools, private schools, foundation schools, and now free schools. With these divisions it is no wonder that Inner Cities have no sense of community. None of the kids know anyone in their street because of this, unless of course you are the lucky one who lives in an area with a small catchment and actually gets into it.

We really need to question why it is that some schools are extremely oversubscribed and a school half a mile down the road has empty places.

We don't have any of this crap tbh.

No Grammars, no single sex schools, no failing schools and no free school malarkey.

Decent schools, that people go to and then the comps. Easy.

Abendbrot do you really think specials schools belong in that list? Surely something different again?

bb I know which area you are talking about. My dcs are much younger than yours though. If the single sex schools you mentioned begin with H then I thought that a shared sibling policy was afoot.

abendbrot I couldn't agree more

All I want is for my dcs to go to a decent state primary and a decent comp, with their mates from primary school.

And please don't get me started on faith secondary schools

Peachy this is definitely an urban issue - rural areas should really have a different admissions criteria.

Regarding special schools, the vast majority of disabled adults say they would have preferred to go to a mainstream school and I do believe that if schools got off their high horse and accepted ALL children equally (in this ideal world that I can only dream about) there would be very little need for disabled children to be educated at different schools. Some children may need a different kind of classroom layout, some children may need a loop system - but ultimately everything is possible if you want it to be.

mollymole -it doesn't discriminate agaonst only children any more than it discriminates against the oldest child in any family

My 2 siblings and I went to 3 different schools in 3 differnt directions, about 5 miles away.

abendbrot depends on SN

(this is my field LOL)

My field is ASD; many of the children I work with and indeed my own simply do not function in a large group of any size.

However when referring to physical disabilities absolutely, and for others on a child by child basis.

Hewre we mainly have the base system- my preferred option for mine. DS1 and ds3 attend Sn provisions alongside MS schools and dip in and out with support as theya re able; for ds1 that means most classes, ds3 very few to none. But they still share trips, playtime etc. DS3 shuts down entirely in a class over 12 though. Sadly it's not always possible for chidlren with a few specific disorders toa ttend MS schools but I agree with decent provision most can and maximising that is a valliant aim. I suspect sensory issues are they key to who can and cannot, but we are so early on with that; we now have the concept of the quad of impairments but that will take a while to become established.

(sorry LOL)

Peachy LOL! I was going to mention ASD in my post but I though others would know more about it.

As you say sensory issues are the key to determining whether children thrive in a group setting. But despite this there is no reason why children with sensory issues shouldn't be on the same site which gives them the opportunity of sharing resources. And with some it may of course help them to have gradual exposure to the outside world. Mainstream schools should be designed to allow for calm classrooms for few children. Everyone benefits from inclusion if it is approached in a realistic and practical way. My experience of some schools is that they think you should be grateful that they have let your child attend.

And to tie it in with the OP - divisive education is a hangup from our glorious past - the class system. Nowadays we pretend there is no class system, but it is alive and well in our schools admissions criteria. Until all children have an equal chance of getting into their local school we will continue to have a segregated society.

Oh well Panel. They are in the school now. TBH my son is very good at music as it so happens so as far as I am concerned they are all good for the school.

Believe me if we could have afforded to move we would have done. some of my friends did this. I would do the same again for my DC as anyone would. You have to do what is best for your children and most people would do the same thing.

i actually worked at the local school for several years and that was another factor as it can be quite tricky for your own children in that situation if you are a member of staff.

Another friend of mine's daughter is also attending the school (cousins go there) and all the girls she found difficult in her primary school go to the local school so she is so relieved not to be there.

I do take the point about the local children though. The school is in a very affluent area so they probably could easily afford private education.

'My experience of some schools is that they think you should be grateful that they have let your child attend.

'

Oh God yes! It took the Vicar to get ds3 a place at the school attended by his 2 siblings even with spaces AND catchment- VA system. Now he attends a Base in a lovely but odd place (imagine a large council estate dropped into the middle of a rural affluent county- yes that!) and thrives. Since moving he has acquired speech, continence.... his absences are more common which is why he can't go MS much but he likes the kids and the time he does share with them. And wonderfully rather than the crap we got in MS, they like him.

DS1 is in a simialr comp Base: 2 kids a year intake. I met a teacher from tehre as I am studying ASD at university and she was on the course, otherwis eno hope- treated like a special secret. Other parents all work in field or are very affluent and able to afford appeals etc. Ridiculous.

Lets get rid of any sense of community altogether hey? Turn every aspect of our lives into some sort of competition.

Brothers and sisters at the same school - common sense of history, older can walk younger home. Connections between younger and older pupils - really lovely. The school benefits from parents understanding their system and vice versa.

I think you are missing the wider social/emotional benefits.

Yes, bases (same as 'units' I guess) are a good compromise. It's a step in the right direction. I think financially they make sense too.

"I do take the point about the local children though. The school is in a very affluent area so they probably could easily afford private education."

Well, no, very few people can afford private education and very few people can afford to move to an affluent area to be within a catchment. I live in an affluent area (by sheet good luck) but could neither afford nor want to send my dc to private school!

But what very often happens, as has been described several times on this thread, is that a family will rent a flat or house within a good school catchment for a year, get the first child in, then move to a bigger house in a more affordable area, whilst continuing to send their first child and all the rest of the family to the school.

Many families at my local school with the tiny catchment do not live within the catchment but did at the crucial time when they were applying for their first child.

If secondaries did not have a siblings policy then probably more local children would get a place at small catchment schools.

Very London-centric OP, for me trying to send the dcs to different schools would be extremely difficult. Public transport is crap.
It's a nightmare at the moment as one is at High school and one is at Primary which is a feeder school but they still manage to have different holidays!
It would be awful if this were to continue

What happens in London is that people avoid school fees and put their extra income into their property. So they are prepared to pay the extra mortgage costs, and instead of taking their dcs out of the state system so the 'poor' can benefit, they are investing that into their property. It's a no-lose situation for them. Good school plus ever increasing house prices.

Custard I think that in areas where there are several schools within a short distance from each other there should be some kind of lottery. This will diffuse the house price madness. I believe that after a while people will get over the fact that their children might have to go to school with someone that's working class, not white, not had a tutor, etc etc.(!) And the private option would still be there for those that want to maintain their selective lifestyle.

The difficulty as I see it, Daytoday, is that "sense of community" means different things to different people and it's far too simplistic to suggest that sense of community means always giving priority admission to siblings. It is at least arguable that admitting siblings who live miles from the school and far outside the area from which the school usually admits destroys that sense of local community, not enhances it - especially if more local children are being squeezed out in the process.

TBH most people do get their children into the school who live locally. I spend my whole life taxiing my DC to the people's houses in that area. However some pupils live a distance from the school and it is a very good school. Most of the schools in this county are good so there are other possibilities.

However my dd did get in on her musical ability and possibly personal qualities as she was interviewed and is now in Y13. I believe the sibbling policy may be different now.

I am not going to feel bad about this. We haven't rented a flat in the area as some people have talked about on this thread and we have not broken any rules. We are very thankful.

I was trying to stress the point that we are not particularly affluent and it contrasts with quite a few people at the school. I think if my DC had gone to the local school they may not have done so well even though it is still a good school but very big.