Watford grammars siblings

[WP]

Does anyone know if/when this cross-sibling rule might be reviewed in the future?
I might need to rely on it in a few years time.

Any review by the schools adjudicator would be triggered by someone objecting to the schools' arrangements. There's an opportunity for that to happen each year. On the other hand, the wording in the Admissions Code that the adjudicator cited last time has since changed. It now mentions cross-sibling rules as a possibility, so they're probably safer than before.

[K1w1mum]

Does anyone know if/when this cross-sibling rule might be reviewed in the future?
I might need to rely on it in a few years time.

I think now the schools are academies they can set their own admission criteria as long as they don't up the selective %.

[Mgnmum]

I dont think they will change for the foreseeable future as I think it is having the desired effect, which is to probably ( not definitely) get as many academic children in as possible. Although not all children in a family have the same academic skills, genetics do play a role, as does parental influence. so if you get your eldest in on the test score, then the schools would prefer to have their siblings which are known quantity rather than a child who gets in on distance alone who they have no knowledge about the academic backgrounds, or as demonstrated in this forum, whose parents have bought their place by moving house

[2unfair]

There has been playground bragging by some boys that they got in as cousins as they were all living under one roof like 'brothers and sisters'. The head of the place of worship challenged for this.This has come directly from a neighbours son who started in sept 2013. I did try to talk to WGB but they were not saying yes or no that it has happened/is happening.
It's confusing as to how 19 boys got an offer of place on distance that has been reduced by almost 100m.
There are also communities out there who marry first cousins therefore birth certificates may share same surnames.

[fluffybudgie]

Hi, thank you for your replies. My DS did not get a cross sibling place at 6122.8m and we are number 3 on the list, although the school have had to accept an additional child so we now have to hope that 4 cross siblings or siblings turn down a place. There are approx. 94 sibling/cross sibling places this year. I have been reading through all the other postings and this forum offers so much support and advice - it is excellent. So my plea is, if you have any advice for an appeal please let me know. I know the cross sibling rule disadvantages children living near by but from my perspective I really wanted my children to be at linked schools so they are offered the same opportunities in their education. My DS is already thinking he is a failure compare to my DD, even though he got a really good mark in the consortium test which in previous years would most probably have got him an out of area academic place. But not this year with the surprising number of children with really high marks. Good luck to all of you in the same situation as us, waiting for the next round of allocations and movements on the waiting lists.

[tiffinboys]

Not in your area, but really think that both these Watford schools need to thoroughly review their admission arrangements. It is mockery if catchment places are from mere 200 or so meters, due to sibling/cross sibling policies. The first child or the only child in the family would have almost no chance to get in these schools, unless on academic route. So I think that these schools would be better off substantially increasing ability places and restrict siblings/cross sibling places, to give more chances to children on merit rather than just being sibling/cross sibling or muscle to buy property very very close to school. Increase in ability places will also help in reducing/eradicating unfair practices e.g false addresses/temporary accommodation / false fostering of cousins etc.

[Kingfisher]

I am with you, tiffinboys. It looks like this rule is being exploited to the detriment of local families. Scrapping the rule looks like the only answer. Then everyone gets in on merit, like the local indies.

[3b1g]

I don't think the schools are allowed to increase the number of specialist places over 35%.

[LED]

There has been playground bragging by some boys that they got in as cousins as they were all living under one roof like 'brothers and sisters'. The head of the place of worship challenged for this.This has come directly from a neighbours son who started in sept 2013. I did try to talk to WGB but they were not saying yes or no that it has happened/is happening.
It's confusing as to how 19 boys got an offer of place on distance that has been reduced by almost 100m.
There are also communities out there who marry first cousins therefore birth certificates may share same surnames.

I think the main cause for the drop in distance is the temporary use of the flats nearest to the school to get an address within 200m of the school for the purposes of the application. There aren't that many houses within 200m, so "separate" families sharing houses/addresses is probably just a handful of cases.

[WP]

So I think that these schools would be better off substantially increasing ability places and restrict siblings/cross sibling places, to give more chances to children on merit rather than just being sibling/cross sibling or muscle to buy property very very close to school. Increase in ability places will also help in reducing/eradicating unfair practices e.g false addresses/temporary accommodation / false fostering of cousins etc.

They would probably like to do that but (as 3b1g has said) increasing selection is forbidden by law (specifically section 100 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, with an amendment in the Education and Inspections Act 2006).