Dartford Grammar School (DGS) New Admission Criteria

[Pincopalla]

Hi there, as some of you may know, DGS have recently changed their admission criteria to reduce the number of places allocated to OOC applicants (50) compared to IC Applicants (130 places).

Do you know if they considered adding the sibling priority rule during the consultation process? I seem to remember that most local grammars (WGS, WGSG, BGS, C&S, Beths, Townley) have this in their admission criteria, except for DGS and DGGS. Of course, siblings would need to pass the relevant 11+ entry test.

Under the Admissions Code a school that ranks places can’t also apply the sibling rule. So no the school can’t consider this unless they changed their admissions to be like lots of other Kent schools and just a pass.

Many thanks LilacPoet

You are basically saying that DGS is a super-selective (unlike all the Bexley grammars), hence the sibling rule will be deemed illegal under the Admission Code 2021.

However, I am not convinced that DGS can be considered a super-selective as they don't just use merit in their selection criteria.

I give an example: in the case of DGS, for 2024 the cut-off score was 386 (Zone A) and 404 (OOC), with the 180 places allocated equally between the 2 groups. Several OOC applicants with higher scores than Zone A applicants (i.e. those with scores between 187 and 403) have missed out on a place, despite their higher merit in the Kent Test. As you know this is going to get much worse next year, as 130 places (out of 180) are now allocated to applicants from Zone A, so presumably the cut-off score difference will increase from about 20 points to perhaps 30+.

I don't see pure 'merit' being rewarded by the current admission criteria at DGS. This is very different from, for example, St Olaves / QE / Henrietta where the only criteria used is merit (all applicants are tanked by their test score and no consideration is given to any other aspects, including home address / distance from the school / catchment area).

In this context, as merit is not the only criteria used (in fact, going forward, where you live will be a lot more relevant than your score, with 130 places allocated to Zone A applicants at DGS), I believe that the School Admission Code, paragraph 1.9, does not apply here and therefore introducing a sibling priority rule would be possible / legal. In fact, it would allow families not to split their same-gender siblings, often travelling (or, worse, being driven) in different directions as they are attending different schools (sometimes in different LAs, i.e. Bexley v Kent). Surely this would be a positive for the students, their families and the schools as well.

All Bexley grammars (plus WGS, WGSG) have the sibling priority rule and, for the reasons I explained above, I believe DGS is a lot closer to these grammars (in terms of ethos / connection to the local community / selection criteria) than to St Olaves (which is a true super selective).

Would you still disagree with me and believe that the Admission Code would not allow the introduction of the sibling rule at DGS?

Thanks.

It isn’t about whether it is a super selective (which isn’t defined), it is that the Dartford Grammars ranks on score. The other schools require a pass of a fixed grade.

@Pincopalla you do know that you can object to a schools admissions policy once the new policy is determined each year? The deadline being around the middle of May. Presumably you did this this wrt to DGS this year, but the Office of the Schools Adjudicator failed to find in your favour?

No, I didn't know I could object, but thanks for letting me know.

The aim of my post was to try and understand the ethos / motivations behind such different admission criteria for DGS/DGSG compared to the other local grammars (WGS, WGSG, St Olaves, NW, BG, C&S, Townley, Beths).

Especially as the recent change of allocating more spaces to Zone A applicants at DGS seems to move the school's focus away from merit and more in favour of the local community.

Hence, my question: why not allow sibling priority as well?

@LilacPoet I appreciate there's no definition for super-selective schools, but I disagree with your comment regarding DGS ranking on score. How would you explain that to the tens (perhaps hundreds) of OOC applicants that scored above 386 and were never offered a place)? A fairer reflection of their admission criteria would be that they mainly allocate places on catchment area, as they ringfence 140 places (73% of the total) for local kids.

How would you explain that to the tens (perhaps hundreds) of OOC applicants that scored above 386 and were never offered a place)? A fairer reflection of their admission criteria would be that they mainly allocate places on catchment area, as they ringfence 140 places (73% of the total) for local kids.

I would explain that the local children feel cheesed off that places are going to out of county children. They are not 'ring fenced' from their perspective. Dartford Grammar schools don't offer just to local children, they offer to those who were ranked by score. Local children who scored below the cut off are not able to access the school. All the other schools you list the child gets a pass and then if they have more applications than spaces allocation is on their oversubscription criteria which are often distance or sibling. The OOC children can attend their local schools or move.

A school that ranks by score and one that has a pass are hugely different which you repeatedly don't want to listen to because it is inconvenient as you don't live near the school.

The school is not able to amend the Admissions Code. The Admissions code says that if a school ranks on score they cannot then have other criteria.Both twins can't get in to a grammar school that ranks if for example one scores 400 and the other 360 and the qualifying score is 380. The only time the school that ranks on score have another criteria is if they need a tie-break for the last place if it is an identical score, this is most usually distance.

It seems fair to me. It's exactly how the admissions for Tonbridge Grammar work.
135 in catchment places and 35 trustee (out of catchment places) for whom the cut off score ends up being higher.

What makes less sense is having children travelling miles to school, or having a sibling link come into play when admission is based on 11+ score

@Pincopalla out of interest how wide is the catchment for Dartford Grammar?

@LilacPoet I am sorry you are turning my enquiry into a personal attack, especially as you don't know about my personal circumstances. I am therefore ignoring your comments regarding what is inconvenient to me.

Regarding your other comments on the DGS admission policy, well, please let me point out to you again that 140 places (out of 190) are indeed ringfenced for local applicants (that is about three=quarter of all places). Even more, some very local students (i.e. living in the Bexley LA) fall out of the catchment area (as they are not in Kent), hence frankly this not so much about the local community (i.e. distance from the school) and more about protecting Kent students.

I am not arguing whether this is right or wrong (different people will have different views, mostly depending on how convenient it is to their personal circumstances), but it is a matter of fact (please read the admission criteria if you are still unsure).

As a result, DGS (or Kent Council) cannot claim that school places are allocated on the basis of score, when 'de facto' the most relevant admission criteria is whether or not applicants live within the catchment area.

Now, in this context, the School Admission Code would deem illegal the introduction of a sibling priority rule, hence I must assume that the school has chosen not to apply it.

Just for comparison purposes, in Bexley the top 180 scorers in the 11+ test are allocated a place in their own school of choice (out of the 4 grammars in that LA). That would be (on average) 45 places per school, which is comparable to the residual places left at DGS after taking care of the Zone A applicants. Well, all Bexley grammars have a sibling priority rule in their admission criteria, despite about 25% of places potentially allocated by ranking scores (very similar percentage to DGS).

That's all. As I said before, just trying to understand DGS ethos / objective in having such admission criteria, and whether they have considered adding the sibling rule (which would be allowed under the School Admission Code, for the reasons I explained above).

it is not a personal attack it is answering the question.

The local places are still ranked by highest score. Lot of locals who pass the Kent test still don’t qualify.

There reason they don’t do sibling policy is the Admission Code that applies to every school in the country.

@LilacPoet No offence taken regarding your comments on my personal circumstances.

On the School Admission Code, we are going to have to disagree, as it would be silly to ignore that 75% of places at DGS are allocated on the basis of a catchment area (hence, ringfenced for the benefit of the local community).

Many thanks for the conversation.

If you believe the Admissions Code has not been applied correctly then you should let the Local Government Ombudsman know.

@LilacPoet That's not what I said.

What I said is that the School Admission Code does not forbid DGS / DGSG to have the sibling priority rule within their admission criteria, hence they could add this if they think it would be consistent with / supportive of their ethos / objectives.

Hence my initial question, trying to understand what DGS want to achieve (i.e. serve more the local community, if we look at the most recent change in their criteria).

Thanks for the conversation.

Schools don't have to have sibling priority anyway... my daughters are at a Comprehensive that doesn't.

@TickingAlongNicely That is not correct.

Bexley Grammar, Chis & Sid, Townley, Beths, Wilmington Grammar, Wilmington Grammar for Girls: these are all relatively local to DGS / DGSG and they all have a sibling priority rule.

Thanks.

However none of these rank by score. All are just a pass.

It is good to see they include Pupil Premium children in their oversubscription criteria. Hopefully this will increase the percentage on children in receipt of FSMs to nearer the national and LA average.

They can CHOSE to have a sibling rule. It is not a legal requirement to do so. Just because other schools have a sibling rule, doesn't mean that school has to do so.

@LadyLapsang I agree with your comment.

@TickingAlongNicely Exactly, they could if they wanted to. I wonder why they haven't done so, considering all the other local grammars have.

@LilacPoet I think we had this conversation already.

I see you're getting exactly the same responses on the other forum @Pincopalla.

All they time they admit by rank they cannot chose to do so as they would be a breach of the Admissions Code which is governed by law in particular the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. If they get rid of rank then they could.

It doesn’t sound like “they could if they wanted to”

It sounds like they can’t, if they have an element of ranking by score. Whilst you might see this as a smaller element than distance, it doesn’t sound like that matters for meeting the Code.

I think schools should aim to serve the local community and I don't think it is unreasonable for 'superselectives' to have a catchment. As I said above TGS does exactly the same - in fact number of out of area places is going to be reduced to allow an increase in pupil premium places. The difference between cut offs between in area and out of area score is usually around 20 points - ie. 375/80 vs 395/400, so it is not as if they are letting lots of local children with 'low' passes in at expense of out of area children.

How far are you from DGS? I assume you have other good alternatives?