Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Secondary education

Connect with other parents whose children are starting secondary school on this forum.

Dame Alice Owen's School - sibling policy?

159 replies

GlassMatryoshka · 21/10/2025 13:15

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.

OP posts:
SheilaFentiman · 05/11/2025 09:09

Dear goddess, what a wall of text!

To pick you up on one early point before I read the rest:

say there was a younger sibling in a household within the 22 closest, they would get assigned under criteria 2,

Please remember it isn’t the 22 closest households, it’s the 22 closest applicants. So in one year, a child in the 40th closest house might be the 22nd in closest applicants, but their younger sibling 2-3 years later might be the 24th closest and therefore get in only on sibling criteria, even if the family haven’t moved.

SheilaFentiman · 05/11/2025 09:29

wisteriawhite · 05/11/2025 07:16

Where do the Islington kids fit into this? I’ve heard people say it’s much less competitive if you are coming in on one of those places?

At least 20 children from Islington must be admitted each year. If 20 haven’t already been admitted under siblings, LAC or music, then the balance of the 20 must come from the academic aptitude test (ie they would have to go below the lowest “general” admission-qualifying ranking to the next highest Islington child(ren) if insufficient Islington children were in the top 65)

SheilaFentiman · 05/11/2025 09:30

So I don’t think that makes it significantly less competitive, really.

SheilaFentiman · 05/11/2025 09:36

Given how vocal you have been on this thread, (to which I very much welcome,) perhaps you would like to share what your stake in this is and thus your frame of reference? I've stated mine. It may help the discussion to know. We may not always agree, and that is perfectly fine. But at least we can try to understand each other better.

Given you have already asked this and PP hasn’t answered, it’s somewhat pushy to ask again, IMO.

SheilaFentiman · 05/11/2025 09:48

@wisteriawhite from DAO’s FAQs

The Governors maintain 2 exam result lists in rank order, one for Islington, and the second for all Local Priority Areas. This ensures that a minimum of 20 places overall are allocated to Islington children each year.

SheilaFentiman · 05/11/2025 10:06

I don't know how many of those 22 closest distance places are typically represented today by long standing families with "deep roots". After almost 50 years at Potters Bar, possibly close to none?

What does this mean?

BTW, I find it patronising for you to talk about “ruffling feathers”, as if you are the Great I Am on this and the rest of us haven’t bothered to think about admissions until you chose to come along and “enlighten” us with your verbosity. This is despite you admitting your own naïveté in thinking a 50/50 test/local policy would be good, when such a policy change would not be permitted under the Admissions Code.

GlassMatryoshka · 05/11/2025 14:55

@SheilaFentiman I really don't mean to come across as patronising, although I can see my words have failed me again... And my social graces definitely have a lot of room for improvement :(

Despite this, I hope that you (and others) can look beyond my terrible delivery, at the message being passed on by a poor choice of messenger.

OP posts:
SheilaFentiman · 05/11/2025 15:20

Honestly, your posts are so rambling, I'm not that clear what your message is.

The two options are:

DAO retains sibling priority, meaning 65-70 places go to siblings each year, roughly.

Or DAO does not retain sibling priority, which means that a pretty high number of the 65 aptitude places go to siblings, far fewer go to 'new' applicants, and then the remaining places go on distance, making houses near DAO even more expensive (and probably meaning that those with more than one child move nearby if they have the means, so they may end up being 'double qualified' on distance and aptitude).

Neither system is "the most fair system anyone could think of" - arguably, a lottery is the "most fair" but has its drawbacks of children criss-crossing an area and having longer commutes and more travel miles and more LA budget for school transport etc etc.

You (I think) prefer the latter. Though you have previously mentioned you felt my interpretation of your posts was simplistic - ultimately, an admissions policy has limited room to be complex (DAO's is probably one of the most complex already!)

I prefer the former, because I think siblings being at the same school is a good thing. I do agree with the PP who thought that the sibling places were (somewhat) selected by stealth as it's likely many would pass the aptitude test if they were allowed to sit it. But I still think a sibling policy is reasonable.

(I do agree DAO shouldn't win any 'comp of the year' awards against fully non-selective schools, though!)

SheilaFentiman · 05/11/2025 15:47

Oh, and to pick up on this:

Or to bring this closer to education, how would it look like to imagine top universities doing this? "Since your older sibling got in, we could use more of your kind around here."

"Top" (indeed, all) universities are 100% selective, though. All candidates must reach the exam grades that the university has set for them (which may or may not be contextual)

ETA by parallel, top universities would hardly say "nice house, great location, your parents must be rich, we could use more of your kind around here"

wisteriawhite · 05/11/2025 17:51

Re Islington - surely The Governors maintain 2 exam result lists in rank order, one for Islington, and the second for all Local Priority Areas. This ensures that a minimum of 20 places overall are allocated to Islington children each year.

The number of kids applying from Islington would be far less than all the Local Priority Areas combined (it's one London postcode versus a pretty huge area) - so it would be easier, I think?

SheilaFentiman · 05/11/2025 17:56

wisteriawhite · 05/11/2025 17:51

Re Islington - surely The Governors maintain 2 exam result lists in rank order, one for Islington, and the second for all Local Priority Areas. This ensures that a minimum of 20 places overall are allocated to Islington children each year.

The number of kids applying from Islington would be far less than all the Local Priority Areas combined (it's one London postcode versus a pretty huge area) - so it would be easier, I think?

Yes, probably somewhat easier - though some of the 20 Islington spots will be taken up by siblings of current Islington pupils/LAC/EHRC before it gets to the aptitude places.

wisteriawhite · 05/11/2025 18:07

Of course re siblings, that goes for all the places.

But all things being equal, it would be significantly easier for eldest children trying to get in from a cohort within a single London postcode than from all the boroughs of Hertfordshire, Barnet, Enfield combined wouldn't it? The competition would be way lower as the overall application numbers are much less - and they HAVE to take a certain number from Islington.

PinkPanther57 · 05/11/2025 18:13

Could the Govt abolish all the selectivity & send it back to being a regular Comp in theory?

SheilaFentiman · 05/11/2025 18:13

Of course re siblings, that goes for all the places.

Not quite the same for all places - because there are 65 academic places, no matter how many Priority Area siblings there are - but there might be, say, only 10 of those academic places for Islington if there are 10 Islington siblings/LAC/EHRC/music

SheilaFentiman · 05/11/2025 18:15

But all things being equal, it would be significantly easier for eldest children trying to get in from a cohort within a single London postcode than from all the boroughs of Hertfordshire, Barnet, Enfield combined wouldn't it? The competition would be way lower as the overall application numbers are much less - and they HAVE to take a certain number from Islington.

Yes, probably, but I don't know the proportions.

SheilaFentiman · 05/11/2025 18:15

PinkPanther57 · 05/11/2025 18:13

Could the Govt abolish all the selectivity & send it back to being a regular Comp in theory?

I would have thought only if they changed the Admissions Code to disallow any selectivity at any school (other than the 10% on aptitude)

SheilaFentiman · 05/11/2025 18:22

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/year7islingtonplaces#incoming-3191254

The data layout is confusing but I think I have it right below:

For each of the past five admission years (2021–2025 entry), please provide:

  • The lowest academic rank of an applicant from the Islington Priority Area who was offered a place at Dame Alice Owen’s School for Year 7 entry.
  • Please also include the total number of Islington applicants admitted under the academic criterion in each of those years.

2025
30 (Lowest Islington academic rank)
14 (Number of Islington offered applicants admitted under academic)

2024
10 (Lowest Islington academic rank)
5 (Number of Islington offered applicants admitted under academic)

2023
12 (Lowest Islington academic rank)
10 (Number of Islington offered applicants admitted under academic)

2022
12 (Lowest Islington academic rank)
10 (Number of Islington offered applicants admitted under academic)

2021
26 (Lowest Islington academic rank)
8 (Number of Islington offered applicants admitted under academic)

SheilaFentiman · 05/11/2025 18:26

So if you live in Islington, are the eldest and want to be pretty sure of a place, you would want to rank in the top 15 applying from Islington (rather than the top 65, which is actually more like 110-140 after parents decide on other schools, as a wider area applicant)

GlassMatryoshka · 15/11/2025 00:40

If I may, I'd like to offer a "blue sky" proposal. This is a view from within a vacuum, with the benefits and limitations as such. I acknowledge it may not be realistic under current legal constraints, but as DAO has existed for centuries, I don't think some broader thinking beyond our lifetimes would go amiss. This is just some food for thought. It is meant to be considered in its entirety as a single meal. All are welcome to chew on it or spit it out as they please.

1. Wean off the DAO foundation money. The current school as we know it in Potters Bar is a migratory outcome of land use in Islington. And it would not be what it is today without the cash influx from this inner London pipeline. But there comes a point where we need to ask if this is like pouring more sugar into an already sweetened cup of tea. It is still a state funded school, it is not going to starve.

At this point in its history, I think a better use of the foundation money is to make another DAO school. Replicate somewhere else what has been done in Potters Bar. Regardless of whether people agree with the notion of a partially selective school, one cannot deny that there is a demand for it. If it took about 40 years to make the school at Potters Bar into what it is today, why not sprinkle that fairy dust in 40 year cycles to make more DAO schools in the future?

2. Remove the sibling policy. This is a very competitive school to get into. In light of this, a sibling policy is akin to a privileged back door. I think we mentally transfer this idea as an automatic entitlement which comes from a comp bias. But DAO is no comp. If the sibling policy were to be removed, (perhaps not immediately but phased sometime in the future,) I suspect this would still remain a heavily oversubscribed school.

Knowing what the rules are, parents would act in accordance. Test-based families who are still keen would get all their DCs to take the tests. Distance-based families, of which there would be more than currently, would form a spectral range depending on how far from the school they are. Those very close to the school may feel relatively "safe" for younger DCs. Those further away may have to take a view on whether it is worth risking it. If it is essential for all their DCs to attend the same secondary, then don't apply here - go to a normal comp.

If this all seems ruthless, I would say it is not much more than what it already is for first time DCs. The main difference is that it does not reward subsequent complacency.

3. 50/50 test/non-test places. I hang on to the (perhaps fanciful) notion that an ideal split for a partially selective school should be evenly divided between those who got in via test and non-test. I like the "healthy deadlock" principle of neither side being able to be a majority on their own.

There will be those of you who think of this as a naked attempt to officially establish more selective spaces than currently. I wouldn't say this is untrue. But I would also urge you to read the previous posts on this thread to understand what the demographic breakdown of the school actually is - a majority of kids from test-based "selective families". A removal of the sibling rule and a capping of test places at 50% would in fact be a reduction in the number of kids from "selective families" compared to what it is today. And it would do so cleanly and openly.

4. Remove the Islington minimum quota. Even if many of those highly-prepped kids from Islington would've gotten in anyway, this is a blatant preference system that nonetheless rankles. If the school could do the above (- detach itself from the foundation money, remove sibling places, and create a 50:50 split,) there shouldn't be a need to have a separate Islington admissions list. For historic reasons, Islington could be kept in the catchment to take the tests, but simply put on the same level playing field as the other catchment areas. They shouldn't need to get any special treatment above this.

When the school at Potters Bar can fully cut its umbilical cord to the DAO foundation money, it could rename itself something like "Potters Bar Academy (a former DAO school)" or similar. The next DAO-school-in-progress could then don the magic Dame Alice Owen name as it receives the foundation money to help build it up. I would hope such a passing of the baton would act as an antidote to resting on the laurels of the success of the prior.

OP posts:
Moominmammacat · 15/11/2025 11:30

Why would it turn away money?

SheilaFentiman · 15/11/2025 11:32

Were you in the debating society at uni, OP?

I honestly see no point in indulging in blue sky thinking of your nature.

It is not allowed under the Admissions Code for DAO to have 50% selective places.

The Brewers’ Company (who administer the DAO foundation) cannot be made to set up a new school. Also, with £1.5m a year of grants made - some of which goes to broader school programmes such as music or theatre, and not just to DAO school - there isn’t enough money to fund the building of a new school. And my understanding of the Admissions Code is that any such new school (or existing Islington school that was given the money, perhaps) could not introduce selective entrance other than the “usual” 10% for music/language aptitude etc etc.

PinkPanther57 · 15/11/2025 13:56

GlassMatryoshka · 15/11/2025 00:40

If I may, I'd like to offer a "blue sky" proposal. This is a view from within a vacuum, with the benefits and limitations as such. I acknowledge it may not be realistic under current legal constraints, but as DAO has existed for centuries, I don't think some broader thinking beyond our lifetimes would go amiss. This is just some food for thought. It is meant to be considered in its entirety as a single meal. All are welcome to chew on it or spit it out as they please.

1. Wean off the DAO foundation money. The current school as we know it in Potters Bar is a migratory outcome of land use in Islington. And it would not be what it is today without the cash influx from this inner London pipeline. But there comes a point where we need to ask if this is like pouring more sugar into an already sweetened cup of tea. It is still a state funded school, it is not going to starve.

At this point in its history, I think a better use of the foundation money is to make another DAO school. Replicate somewhere else what has been done in Potters Bar. Regardless of whether people agree with the notion of a partially selective school, one cannot deny that there is a demand for it. If it took about 40 years to make the school at Potters Bar into what it is today, why not sprinkle that fairy dust in 40 year cycles to make more DAO schools in the future?

2. Remove the sibling policy. This is a very competitive school to get into. In light of this, a sibling policy is akin to a privileged back door. I think we mentally transfer this idea as an automatic entitlement which comes from a comp bias. But DAO is no comp. If the sibling policy were to be removed, (perhaps not immediately but phased sometime in the future,) I suspect this would still remain a heavily oversubscribed school.

Knowing what the rules are, parents would act in accordance. Test-based families who are still keen would get all their DCs to take the tests. Distance-based families, of which there would be more than currently, would form a spectral range depending on how far from the school they are. Those very close to the school may feel relatively "safe" for younger DCs. Those further away may have to take a view on whether it is worth risking it. If it is essential for all their DCs to attend the same secondary, then don't apply here - go to a normal comp.

If this all seems ruthless, I would say it is not much more than what it already is for first time DCs. The main difference is that it does not reward subsequent complacency.

3. 50/50 test/non-test places. I hang on to the (perhaps fanciful) notion that an ideal split for a partially selective school should be evenly divided between those who got in via test and non-test. I like the "healthy deadlock" principle of neither side being able to be a majority on their own.

There will be those of you who think of this as a naked attempt to officially establish more selective spaces than currently. I wouldn't say this is untrue. But I would also urge you to read the previous posts on this thread to understand what the demographic breakdown of the school actually is - a majority of kids from test-based "selective families". A removal of the sibling rule and a capping of test places at 50% would in fact be a reduction in the number of kids from "selective families" compared to what it is today. And it would do so cleanly and openly.

4. Remove the Islington minimum quota. Even if many of those highly-prepped kids from Islington would've gotten in anyway, this is a blatant preference system that nonetheless rankles. If the school could do the above (- detach itself from the foundation money, remove sibling places, and create a 50:50 split,) there shouldn't be a need to have a separate Islington admissions list. For historic reasons, Islington could be kept in the catchment to take the tests, but simply put on the same level playing field as the other catchment areas. They shouldn't need to get any special treatment above this.

When the school at Potters Bar can fully cut its umbilical cord to the DAO foundation money, it could rename itself something like "Potters Bar Academy (a former DAO school)" or similar. The next DAO-school-in-progress could then don the magic Dame Alice Owen name as it receives the foundation money to help build it up. I would hope such a passing of the baton would act as an antidote to resting on the laurels of the success of the prior.

I think in the past it was a whole lot simpler & fairer, in that they effectively took children of all abilities & were a true Comp. Although still with the Islington criteria. The John Major Conservative policy changed that in the early 90s.

Presumably, the Govt could remove the selectivity in theory & this could be challenged again? Goffs Grammar status removed etc. It sounds that DAOS had an over arching plan to effectively become a Grammar school again in Potters Bar.

I don’t have skin in game but did feel for those local alumni I met who effectively couldn’t send their own kids & Grandkids from local primaries.

PinkPanther57 · 15/11/2025 13:57

SheilaFentiman · 15/11/2025 11:32

Were you in the debating society at uni, OP?

I honestly see no point in indulging in blue sky thinking of your nature.

It is not allowed under the Admissions Code for DAO to have 50% selective places.

The Brewers’ Company (who administer the DAO foundation) cannot be made to set up a new school. Also, with £1.5m a year of grants made - some of which goes to broader school programmes such as music or theatre, and not just to DAO school - there isn’t enough money to fund the building of a new school. And my understanding of the Admissions Code is that any such new school (or existing Islington school that was given the money, perhaps) could not introduce selective entrance other than the “usual” 10% for music/language aptitude etc etc.

Out of interest how much is in this fund? Was it all from a DAO legacy?

SheilaFentiman · 15/11/2025 14:05

PinkPanther57 · 15/11/2025 13:57

Out of interest how much is in this fund? Was it all from a DAO legacy?

Edited

The foundation owns a retail/residential centre, for one - I assume the £1.5m is from rents and dividends on investments

www.brewershall.co.uk/charity-education/dame-alice-owen-foundation

PinkPanther57 · 15/11/2025 14:13

SheilaFentiman · 15/11/2025 14:05

The foundation owns a retail/residential centre, for one - I assume the £1.5m is from rents and dividends on investments

www.brewershall.co.uk/charity-education/dame-alice-owen-foundation

Thank you, I wonder how much it generates PA (?) I wonder if other legacies effectively last as long. Did the other Worshipful Cos also provide funding for schools etc (?) Will look up.

She was married to a wealthy brewer but asked the company to continually effectively provide. How amazing after all these years still honoured.