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.

I do understand your point, however, on the comparidon with Bexley, one can also argue that it's still not entirely based on merit. My son narrowly missed out on the top 180 and he initially couldn't understand why kids in class who scored 50 marks less than he did got into BGS while he was the waiting list until l explained to him. Although we are in the borough, we were outside the catchment for BGS. However, he got into DGS OOC purely on his score. In my opinion children shouldn't have to travel too far to school. Also, l find that living far away from the school makes it even more challenging for parents to participate in the school community.

Dartford Grammar school’s GCSE results will go down in years to come if they reduce the highest achiever intake by 50%. They currently top Kent due to the superselective candidates. If you look at Judd and Skinners, there is a direct correlation between results going down and taking fewer OOC.
Which then means St Olave’s in Orpington will become even more popular as it will remain superselective and now people in South East and South London are applying to Sutton grammars instead because they still have a lot of superselective places.

@Bcurious Of course, Bexley Grammar (and all the other grammars in Bexley LA) are not entirely based on merit, as distance to the school plays a very big part. Just similarly to DGS, DGGS, WGS and WGSG (all in Kent), where being part of a catchment area (i.e. Area A) plays a huge role. BUT apart from DGS and DGGS, all Grammars mentioned above have the sibling (priority) rule, to make sure that students from the same families are not scattered across several schools, quite often in very distant locations from one another (creating logistical issues for the families and quite often additional disruption to the public, via increased traffic load, etc.).

Although I see the benefits for a student to live nearby their school, I am not convinced the LA or any School should have a say on how far is reasonable for a student to commute: this is a decision that should be taken by the family and the student(s) and not by the School or the LA. Also, discriminating by distance (or by catchment area) does not take into account public transport connections (i.e. driving to Dartford from a nearby village at peak hour can take a lot longer than commuting by train from OOC), hence the current system has indeed more than one flaw.

There’s no way that you could have a school criteria system that worked on “time to get to school” though. It would leave itself open to so many appeals. Distance “as the crow flies” is an unchangeable fact, not reliant on time of day, train timetables, traffic patterns etc.

And the LA do not “say” how far it is reasonable for a student to commute. You can apply from 100 miles away and, if the school isn’t full, you will get a place. Distance (or catchment) is a ranking criteria not a reasonableness criteria

@Araminta1003 Thanks for your contribution.

The admission criteria was changed last year for DGS, so from Sep 2025 they will have a significantly reduced intake from OOC (from 90 students down to 50). For comparison, the OOC cut-off for an offer in 2024 was 404, whilst the Zone A cut-off was 386. Of course, this gap will increase significantly in 2025, as the OOC cut-off will go further up and the Zone A cut-off will come down.

Out of interest, would you be able to publish some data showing that Judd and Skinners' results have been (negatively) affected by taking fewer OOC students? Thanks

@SheilaFentiman Of course not, but that doesn't make the 'distance to school' criteria a good one... especially if a school if trying to 'recruit' the brighter kids.

Btw, in the case of DGS, they are not using 'distance to school', but they have arbitrarily chosen a catchment area (within Kent), which means that if you live in 'Longfield and New Barn' (8 miles away by car and 1hr+ by train) you are in catchment, but if you live in Bexley (3 miles away) you are OOC.

@SheilaFentiman Please let's try to have serious (practical) conversation based on the status-quo and what really happens: we all know these schools are heavily oversubscribed, and depending on how schools set their oversubscription criteria they will incentivize (or discourage) certain behaviors.

I am sure you are aware of what parents are willing to do to give their child a better chance to get into these schools, and usually this would be at the advantage of a) parents with financial means, b) comparatively less bright student.

Are we sure this is what we want!?

But it doesn’t sound like this grammar is trying to get the absolute brightest kids (based on test score) that it possibly could. It has never been a fully distance blind super selective.

It is trying for the brightest catchment children and leaving some spaces for the brightest OOC children - who on average will have a higher score than the IC cohort, although plenty in both groups will score above the OOC cut off.

Your concern was, I think, that the OOC allocation was getting smaller - but it was always there in principle.

As was said upthread, other grammars in the area have a pass mark after which criteria such as sibling and distance/catchment is applied. So they are looking for “bright enough” then normal school criteria.

Please try not to be patronising in your replies. Thanks.

You claimed the LA were saying what a reasonable commute was for a parent and pupil, when no LA has ever done any such thing, and you have the ovaries to ask me to be serious and practical?

Righty ho.

@SheilaFentiman I do completely agree with you, this is why I don't understand why DGS does not allow the sibling (priority) rule.

If it is trying for the brightest catchment children and leaving some spaces for the brightest OOC children, then why not have the sibling rule (within both Zone A and OOC), which would meet their ambition to have 'bright enough' students mainly from the local community.

Would you not agree that it would make sense?

You were told upthread and a month or two back why they cannot do that. I pasted the relevant section of the admissions code into my post and you said you were going to contact the authorities to check.

Did you do so?

Quoting to save you looking back a page!

@SheilaFentiman I am sorry you have taken my statement the wrong way... the reality, whether you admit it or not, is that by setting up admissions criteria with such a positive bias in favour of 'local' applicants, Schools and LAs are indeed having a say on where their students (and families) would need to live in order to have a reasonable chance to be offered a place. I have no intention of being patronizing, but please try to understand the practical consequences of giving such a strong advantage to local students. As I said, parents with means WILL relocate. Parents without means (but with very bright children) will lose out. Talk to an estate agent if you don't believe me. Thanks.

I don’t disagree that parents move for good schools. That happens in grammar and non grammar areas. But it’s nothing to do with commuting time, and never has been and never could be. 2 miles on foot is slower than on a bike which is slower than on the bike of a parent’s motorbike. So commuting time is not an objective measure and therefore - using your patronising parlance - was not a serious or practical argument to raise.

HTH.

@SheilaFentiman I also said at the time that the conclusion you reached was wrong, of course in my opinion.

Did you ask the DfE or the school yourself? Where does your conviction come from?

I have read the School Admission Code in detail and I have concluded that it does not prevent DGS from adding the sibling rule. It does prevent St Olave's, for example, in doing so because it ONLY uses merit as their selection criteria, but DGS doesn't by giving priority to Zone A students, hence equally they could (legally) give priority to siblings.

Well no, I didn’t ask the school or the DfE myself, because I don’t live in Kent and am not impacted by this change. You are the one asking the question and being told by many posters who regularly post on the Code that you are wrong. Feels like more of a you problem to do the checking.

And lo! Here you are saying that YOU will check with the relevant authorities.

So why didn’t you?

@SheilaFentiman I am not sure why you are being aggressive and confrontational with me... I am just highlighting the inconsistencies of a system (a set of criteria, in this case)... with the hope that things might change in the future, for example by allowing the sibling rule at DGS.

This would be, in my view, perfectly legal and consistent with the school's ethos (bright enough students, mainly from the local community.

And I am not sure why you are being patronising and dismissive of the POV of others, insisting you are right in the face of patient explanations of the issues from many posters, But here we both are.

😉

Asking this again.

Please stop being confrontational - you are making me feel uncomfortable now.

You said to me several weeks ago that you would take a very sensible course of action to check your thinking, and (I assume) you have not done so. Or perhaps you did and found out the authorities agree with the posters on this thread.

Whether you feel uncomfortable or not, you aren’t going to resolve this situation without checking if the outcome you want ie a sibling preference IS allowable.

Up to you if you want to make that check or carry on tilting at windmills on MN.