Dame Alice Owen's School - sibling policy?

[GlassMatryoshka]

Dame Alice Owen's School (DAO) is very much an anomaly in many respects. Amongst other things, it seems quite odd to me that a secondary school with such a competitive intake, with a good number of students commuting in from some distance away, would also have a sibling policy.

So if I could have the temerity to ask: Should DAO rethink its sibling policy?

Before responding, may I please ask that you put yourself in the mind of someone responsible for high-level policy making decisions and NOT from the point of view of someone with a vested interest, i.e. a parent with multiple DCs. Of course parents with more than one child would say it needs to be kept for a host of individual reasons - this should be patently obvious.

If I could ask that this question is considered in the broadest possible terms - both for the longer term view and in the greater scheme of things.

From that page:

However, the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 permitted selection of up to 10% by aptitude for certain subjects for which a school is a specialist college (section 102), and also permitted the retention of partial selection that existed prior to the 1997 entry, provided that the proportion selected was no higher than that in 1997 (section 100)

And:
A late amendment to the Education and Inspections Act 2006 amended the 1998 Act to limit the proportion selected to the lowest level at any time since 1997. This forced four Hertfordshire schools to lower their proportion of academic selection from 35% to 25%

So if DAO was to remove the sibling preference, it could not increase its number of pupils selected for aptitude above the current 32.5% and presumably would then go on distance for all pupils after the first few preference categories.

Meaning, @GlassMatryoshka , that there are 65 aptitude places for which your child is competing, and there would be even if the sibling criteria was removed (in fact, the competition would be higher as presumably all siblings would sit the aptitude test and - whether through genetic ability, past parental experience, good connections with local tutors etc - many would score well.)

Thank you so much - am told movement between streams & sets too so a system that broadly worked well for all abilities.

Thank you very much @PinkPanther57 and @SheilaFentiman for all those insights.

In a hypothetical scenario where DAO simply removed the sibling policy, I don't doubt that it would be more competitive for the test places. But even though my DC may be at a disadvantage, I do feel this is somehow more fair? Going back to academic DC 66 - those parents would have nothing to feel aggrieved about.

Staying with this hypothetical scenario - there would be many more distance places getting in within a bigger circle that may actually encompass more of (and potentially represent) Potters Bar. Yes, there would be those on the fringes who may have to take a view as to whether to "risk" getting in one child but not the other. But at the moment, those families are not even close to getting in and don't even get to have a choice.

And @SheilaFentiman - noted re my language. It is one of my character flaws I need to work on!

But neither the sibling (current) nor the nearest (your hypothetical scenario) child “ousted” the 66th academically inclined child. The fact that there are only 65 aptitude places “ousted” them.

So it’s not clear to me why you see one as a source of grievance but not the other.

For those curious how the allocations have worked out and recent trends, here it is. The number of siblings is trending slightly downward, as are applications.

I didn't include it but the number of students sitting the exams is not dropping. 1131 tried for the 65 academic places in 2025 and 332 for the 10 music places.

The DAO policy has been repeatedly challenged in front of the OSA and the OSA has always upheld that it follows the law. But there are of course routine consultations about the admissions policy that anyone can (and a huge number of people do) submit input on. This is well-trod ground.

You have a lot of thoughts! And you can mull over this until the cows come home, but ultimately, this is their admissions policy, and clearly, it works for them. Despite having a lot of sibling places, their academic results are amongst the best in the country. Some selective schools have a sibling policy, others don't. If you don't agree with their sibling policy, that is understandable, but getting into the nitty gritty of exactly why it doesn't suit your preferences isn't going to change the fact that this is just how it is, and you have the option of going for an academic place regardless or focusing energies elsewhere.

It's of course not lost on us that our eldest has put in the work to get a place at DAO next year and our youngest will get a sibling place, and we have offered extra praise for this. You say that if you were the younger sibling you would feel guilty to gain a place in such a way, but you have that perspective as an emotionally mature adult - its highly unlikely that a younger sibling (aged 9 or younger) would fully understand what an elder sibling gaining an academic place means for them and their future education. Having siblings at the same school is a huge benefit to families with more than one child - I for one hope the policy doesn't change!

And @GlassMatryoshka, talking about eleven-year-olds living in lifelong ignominy is both slightly offensive and makes it difficult to take you seriously. No eleven year old is disgraced by where they go to school, including the ones who follow an older sibling like a massive number of children do each year. Eleven-year-olds do not "fail to pull their weight" when it comes to school admissions and the vast majority of this country doesn't earn a place at their school at all. There is nothing more or less virtuous or shameful about getting a place based on a sibling criteria, based on where your parents can afford and choose to live, or by doing well on a test.

But I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not just trying to be deliberately provocative. Why do you (seem to) think that there is something inherently more fair about children being allocated a place based on where their parents buy or rent a home than based on where their older sibling went to school?

Unless of course it’s made a huge thing of by family. Not saying OP would but kids pick up
on things.

IIRC, most of the schools in the area have a sibling preference, so there’s no reason eleven year old siblings at DAO would feel different than siblings at other schools.

If I was a younger sibling, knowing my older sibling worked their butt off to get in...

Honestly I think you may be overthinking a bit here @GlassMatryoshka. My DC are at a partially selective school (not DAO), the eldest got in on the aptitude test and the other two got sibling places. As far as I know the younger ones don't give it a second thought! They've certainly never mentioned it.

Does DAO have stringent GCSE points requirements to stay on for Sixth Form? As it is usually at that point that academically weaker siblings may get caught out.

My DS and and 2 friends got into a school with aptitude for STEM, there were 4 siblings that followed and it was not an issue for any of them.

@Araminta1003 it doesn't look like they are hugely stringent, on paper.

https://sites.google.com/damealiceowens.herts.sch.uk/daos6thtransition/guide-to-courses?authuser=0

I guess the dc who get in via aptitude tests have had to compete with siblings too, for their family to get a look in.
If you had a dc get in via the test, would you still be against the sibling policy if your eldest has a sibling?

Goffs do an aptitude test based on language, and feeder schools are part of the admissions policy

Thank you.

Is Goffs partially selective now then too? This wasn’t case in the past.

I think schools which take up to 10% of their students on a specific aptitude test are not defined as 'partially selective' Chancellor's has a music aptitude test now for 10%.

Interesting. Thanks. What drove the policy change towards specific aptitude tests etc? Quite a sea change from the fully comp ideology & how things stood until approx early 90s (?)

That would be John Major!

Partial selection was introduced in some grant-maintained schools during the final years of the Conservative government led by John Major.[3] Grant-maintained status was introduced by the Education Reform Act 1988, and gave such schools control over their own admissions. Circular 6/93 permitted these schools to select up to 10% of their intake on the basis of ability or aptitude in music, art, drama or sport. Circular 6/96 permitted more selection. By 1997, over 40 schools were selecting up to 50% of pupils.

[Under Labour] the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 permitted selection of up to 10% by aptitude for certain subjects for which a school is a specialist college (section 102), and also permitted the retention of partial selection that existed prior to the 1997 entry, provided that the proportion selected was no higher than that in 1997

Fascinating, thanks. ‘By 1997 over 40 schools were selecting up to 50 per cent of pupils’. Wow.

Schools like Owens then effectively could effectively rid themselves of less able & effectively bar many of children of ex pupils getting places themselves. Not really the ethos of the Comprehensive & against grain/point of Grammars being abolished in first place. The pendulum swung back other way.

If I was put in charge of school admissions policy and had no skin in the game as a parent (I do have multiple children, but I'm trying to think outside of that for a moment), I would allow siblings. The reason being I value the idea of the school having a relationship with that family, whether they have 1,2,3, or more children. It feels like a more holistic and healthy approach to education to me. In addition, I think it is good for each student if their parents are not split across multiple secondaries, so it's really not just about making the parents' lives easier. When the parents are able to have a good relationship with one school, their child or children can only benefit from that. For me, that goes above just exam results, although I can see how hard that would be for number 66. But the cut off has to go somewhere for some reason.

Mmm - and DAO was at 90 academically selective places, it went down to the current 65 at the end of the 90s.

effectively bar many of children of ex pupils getting places themselves

You mentioned this before, which I do find curious - no state school has a parental preference. Even if a parent is still in their childhood home, catchment/last distance admitted changes can mean their kids wouldn’t go to their school even without any selective testing places

I think poss less pressure on places then?

There were effectively feeder primaries & those who wanted to, largely got in from what I could tell across ability spectrum. Out of PB but surrounding villages, Owens was one of a number of good schools (?) amongst Goffs, not long ago a Grammar in early-mid 80s, Chancellors. Etc. All with similar reputations. Were catchments wider?

Owens become more selective than others (?) & knock on effect, school du jour?

Anyway, no real skin in game but policy change interesting. It did feel in days of yore locals got kids to desired Comp by & large.

I guess the point is - and what the original OP was probably getting at - it’s a little annoying if you have one child you are desperate to get into the school and having to do a lot of tutoring or music practice to get a place, but the siblings take priority over your child, whatever happens (if I’ve understood the admissions system correctly). It’s not really a fair system on that front, unlike the fully selective schools like Henrietta Barnett or Latymer.

@wisteriawhite sure, but there are 65 places for the academically able, and that number doesn’t change if the other places are allocated by distance, siblings, whatever criteria. A sibling doesn’t “take up” an academic spot, they are in a different group.

Obviously if there were more than 120 siblings in one year or something, then the number of selective spots might have to be reduced in that year, but I don’t think this has ever happened (willing to be corrected if wrong)