Why do most secondary comprehensives still have a siblings policy?

[bibbitybobbityhat]

Any thoughts?

Good point cat64. Most sibs pretend they don't know each other at school.

I currently have 3 children at one school but in 3 years I will have 3 children at 3 different schools. That is going to be tricky.

If you are lucky enough to live near enough to walk I can see it wouldn't be a problem. Not all of us have that option.

So many schools now have different admission criteria, surely schools themselves and the LEA Admissions authority, can judge what makes sense in their area? Clearly in rural areas where siblings could end up miles apart with no public transport, and in different counties with different holidays, then a sibling policy makes absolute sense. (But then, is there the intense competition for over-subscribed places in areas like that? I don't know).

I can see no particular justification for a sibling policy at secondaty level in Inner London, except perhaps with twins.

Sibling policy isn't as bad as the feeder primary problem in my experience. In our area parents with children in year 5 or 6 start manufacturing some problem they have with their primary school so that they can pretend to get the hump and move their child 10 miles down the road to the feeder primary for the sought after secondary school. Each year parents anxiously look at the birth rate to see how far the schools admission area will radiate.

For the good comp here you have to have gone to the feeder school for 2 years

Where we live siblings only take priority if you live in catchment.
All other 'in catchment' children take priority before out of catchment with siblings at the school.

I find it particularly bizarre that the siblings policy applies to selective schools. So it's desirable siblings are together unless, of course, one fails the 11+?

So if there is no sibling policy (playing devils advocate) then you will find families will not move at all. So people will stay put . . . Catchment will still dictate.

When I talk about 'community' I am talking about the children's idea/experience of it. Not just whilst there there, but as adults too.

Actually, round here, the sibling policy no longer applies in many schools, due to it being impossible to define "sibling" - share one parent? share two parents? share step parents? step siblings? live together? live together 4 days a week? live together 3 days a week? Live in the same house but at different times of the week?Your half brother's half sister? Used to live together? parents wents lived together for 10 years? parents lived together for 2 years? Parents went on holiday together? Parents ARE partners but have separate households? Lived together until last week? Planning to live together until the divorce goes through? Ex step daughter of your current step father? ex step daughter of your future step father? Parents engaged?

Purely by chance, in the hour and a half since I posted the message above, I have been interviewed by a market researcher who defined "siblings" as " children who celebrate their birthdays in the same house"

Where I live only catchment siblings have priority over other catchment children. As we live out of catchment I was well aware of the possibility of the 2nd child not getting a place. As it happened she very nearly chose not to go there anyway, decided she would, and there are spare places this year (very unusually).

In response to posts about buses and rural schools as it is a rural school my children go to, the vast majority of children arrive by free school transort. My children use the school organised private buses for children out of catchment (we pay for it). Its quite a sight at the end of the day seeing the waves of buses leaving school.

Am bumping this old thread as I just wondered if anyone had any more thoughts on this subject, especially today of all days .

My eldest got her secondary school offer yesterday and we are reasonably happy. It was our 3rd choice school but is single sex and as our second child is the opposite sex then we will have to go through the admissions process again in 3 years time.

Meanwhile, an aquaintance who has a child with sen has got a place at a hugely overscribed school which she is not in the catchment for. In two years time her other child, no SEN, will also be offered a place.

Another vastly oversubscribed school in our area has no catchment but offers places by lottery. I can't be certain of the exact figures but lets say you have about a 1 in 10 chance of getting a place there. Except, of course, if you are a sibling of a child who got their place in the lottery a couple of years ago.

I can't help thinking that the siblings policy makes no sense in those two cases and cannot really be justified in an borough where a significant proportion of the secondary schools are single sex anyway.

I wonder if anything can be done?

Actually I think some school do have the policy that a statemented child's siblings are exempt from the sibling rule.

But personally, if you have a child bad enough to get a statement then I think it's a very small perk to have both children at the same school, compared to what you have to put up with most of the time. And the siblings of SEN children also have to put up with a lot, possibly seeing their sibling get extra attention, other children commenting negatively etc. so if it gives them a small bonus then that's fine by me.

Is it really a big deal? we have a big age gap so will never have the advantage of a sibling policy but I think it is fair. There are far more greater injustices in our education system, I don't think the sibling policy is anything to get upset about.

Actually dewe that's changed and siblings must include sibs of those offered SEN places. It was deemed to be disability discrimination as it denied SEN children the chance of being at school with their siblings and hence their right to proper family life. Rightly so IMO.

But what about the right of brothers and sisters to have "a proper family life" by having their siblings at the same school?

Not sure what your point is bibbity? If all the other kids on your area get to go to the same school as their big brother/sister then it's obvious that the kids with an older sib with SEN shouidl also get to go to school with their sibling.

If it's not the norm in your area for siblings to go to the same school then there's no discrimination is there, cos everyone's being treated the same.

Why don't you get my point? Some of the schools in my area are co-ed, some are single sex - why should siblings automatically get a place at all?

A maintained (state) school can chose what criteria they want to use from a government list if the school is over subscribed. Most chose siblings (so families aren't madly dashing all over the place) and catchment area. The government had just consulted on changing the admissions and appeals codes so if you go to WWW.education.gov.UK you can probably see the consultation response and what they're going to do as a result.

I am not sure of the official basis on which most schools prioritise siblings at secondary level. It makes sense at primary because few peimary children can make thier own way to school, but the majority of mainstream secondary pupils are presumably independent regards travel.

I can see why lots of families like their children to go to the same school and feel strongly about it, and why some aren't bothered, and why some choose all the other things that separate children out - grammar school / single sex or whatever. But those are all 'nice to haves' on the context of the local authority's obligation to provide school places. I don't really understand the imperative to provide a sibling place for a family who have moved out of catchment over and above a child who lives right next to the school.

I think I saw someone on another thread say that Graveney are consulting on re-introducing sibling priority for out of catchment selective places - why? selective grammars don't offer sibling places, and if they agree that change it will mean even more pressure on places allocated to local children on distance.

As I say, I understand why parents feel strongly about having children at the same school, but objectively, not why this translates into a priority admissions criteria.

As it goes I don't think it's really necessary at secondary age for siblings to attend the same school, so I think it is a bit daft so many secondary schools have siblings as a priority (she said have just got dc2 into same school as dc1 whichwill make my life SOOOOO much easier ).

However in an area where sibling priority is the norm, it is clearly disciminatory (and has been proven so) for that priority to exclude siblings where the first place has been given due to SEN rather than the usual distance criteria.

Not sure whether you agree or not bibbity thats all!

'Meanwhile, an aquaintance who has a child with sen has got a place at a hugely overscribed school which she is not in the catchment for. In two years time her other child, no SEN, will also be offered a place.'

Are you sure? Didn't happen for us. Our schools all still have distance + attending feeder school well ahead of Siblings on the priority list.

Actually I quite like having them at different secondary schools, but it would have been nice to be able to pass on the uniform, get used to one school system rather than three, and only have one set of random Inset days rather than three!