cross sibling rule challenge

[noonynunu]

DC can share experiences and the comfort of attending the same school. What possible benefit is there in separating siblings?

So why are you in support of the x-sibling rule if you think there is no benefit to seperating siblings?

I personally think that the issue is not with the sibling rule etc. but the fact they have such large catchment areas and actually set aside places for those living further away from the school. As I have preiviously mentioned the music cut off for the Boys Grammar has been lower for the outer catchment for two years running so those living closest to the school need to get a higher music score to get a place.

If those outer catchment places were turned into distance places, applicants properly vetted, and the catchment made smaller (a nine mile catchment is excessive for such oversubscribed schools), a more local children would get in and that includes siblings.

[Mgnmum]

unfortunately the challenge to the admission arrangements only concerns the cross sibling rule, so we can discuss catchment areas etc but unless someone complains formally about them they will not be looked at.
The issue is whether the rules follow the admission codes and previously I understand, please correct me if I am wrong, when the rule was removed a few years ago it was because they ruled that they were not closely enough linked schools. The admissions code allows for schools to give priority for children and siblings from linked schools, such as infant and junior schools. When the grammars became academies the rule was brought in and wonder if they showed that they were more formally linked.
The schools are linked both through history and currently through lesson sharing, joint productions, concerts, school trips etc

I think the biggest issue though is the changing of the rules once parents already have a child in one of the schools and had made decisions on the basis of their whole family.

[Vinu]

The very fact of these local academies giving away space to other borough is out of my understanding , why such rule if any one can explain.

[noonynunu]

The issue is whether the rules follow the admission codes and previously I understand, please correct me if I am wrong, when the rule was removed a few years ago it was because they ruled that they were not closely enough linked schools.

Point 29 in this document suggests to me that there were conditions to the reinstatement of the x-sibling rule:

http://www.hertsdirect.org/docs/pdf/adm ... /osa1516wb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From the table above in paragraph 10, the effect of reinstating the cross-sibling criterion can be surmised. In 2012, which was before the crosssibling criterion was reintroduced, more than 50 places were allocated on distance at criterion 6, but afterwards only one or no place was assigned on distance.

In the joint letter of 21 May 2014, the school explained that since the 2008 adjudication, provision had been made in the admissions arrangements “to offset the effect of the cross-sibling rule on applications by families with no prior connection to the school …” I note that the school has clarified in criterion 2 that 10 per cent of the total admissions (19 places) will be available for those applicants living closest to the school who would not otherwise be allocated a place under any other criterion. Accordingly, the school believes “that in reserving 10 per cent of the places in Year 7 for applicants who live locally and who have no prior connection to the school, nor a qualification for a place under any other criterion, they have addressed the concerns upon which the decision to remove the cross-sibling rule was based, while allowing long-standing family links to be preserved.” I accept that after the previous adjudication the school amended the wording of the second criterion so as to “protect” the places available for local families although it is arguable whether prioritising just 19 of the 190 places for boys living closest to the school is sufficient. The school points out that no concerns have been raised on that aspect.

I think the biggest issue though is the changing of the rules once parents already have a child in one of the schools and had made decisions on the basis of their whole family.

I agree that removing the x-sibling rule after children have started at the school is a crappy thing to happen. It still does not really stand up as a reason for it not to be removed. When applications are made to the school they are applying for just one child, not for siblings to come in future years (although the notification of future siblings at this point would likely help the schools/council plan for school places).

Whilst I appreciate that for some the sibling priority is a factor in their choice (I would hope a secondary one at that), given that it has been removed once before, surely people must be aware that it could happen again at any time. In fact any school can remove the sibling priority at any time. I understand that Holy Rood primary removed the sibling priority a few years ago due to the apparent level of abuse on the system (happily stand corrected if this is not the case as this is what I was told by a friend with a son and daughter at the school).

[tiffinboys]

No body will chose a poorly performing school even if elder sibling is attending there. Who would want sibling rules there or put at top preference on CAF?

Sibling and x-sibling priorities are, as so many posters have mentioned, are being overly abused. Why have such rules? All parents have given some reasons of convenience and not much.

Simple distance to home from school criteria and abolishing inner/outer catchment would be lot fairer for Watford Schools than the current rules. Those who rent nearby and then move away would not be able to benefit for the younger siblings.

[WP]

Point 29 in this document suggests to me that there were conditions to the reinstatement of the x-sibling rule:

http://www.hertsdirect.org/docs/pdf/adm ... /osa1516wb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is the 2007 decision:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... %20WGS.doc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It removed the criterion for three intakes. After that the schools were free to re-instate the criterion without asking, but their arrangements would be open to objection and fresh adjudication as usual.

The new adjudication is not bound by the old one, but will take it into account. The original adjudicator decided that the criterion went against the intent of the Admissions Code, and also that it violated a mandatory provision of the Code. The Code has since been amended to explicitly allow cross-sibling criteria, so that the latter point no longer applies.

[noonynunu]

Point 29 in this document suggests to me that there were conditions to the reinstatement of the x-sibling rule:

http://www.hertsdirect.org/docs/pdf/adm ... /osa1516wb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is the 2007 decision:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... %20WGS.doc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It removed the criterion for three intakes. After that the schools were free to re-instate the criterion without asking, but their arrangements would be open to objection and fresh adjudication as usual.

The new adjudication is not bound by the old one, but will take it into account. The original adjudicator decided that the criterion went against the intent of the Admissions Code, and also that it violated a mandatory provision of the Code. The Code has since been amended to explicitly allow cross-sibling criteria, so that the latter point no longer applies.

Thanks WP. Quite an interesting read.

I particularly liked the point:

I also enquired about joint activities below the sixth form level. The information provided by the school says that “curricular collaboration, so extensive in the Sixth Form, is not possible below that level because of the concerns of parents about younger students travelling the 1 mile between the two sites through an area perceived to be rather run-down and threatening.”

Lol, is Cassio Road that rough.

Also found this interesting:

Further data provided by the local authority gives a detailed breakdown of the number of applicants living at particular distances from the school and the number gaining a place. The data shows 96 applicants living within 2 miles of the school gained a place and 78 were unsuccessful, between 2 and 3 miles 21 were successful and 38 were not, and over three miles 63 were successful and 236 were not.

[3b1g]

A fair few of them meet up after school anyway. More than a third of DS1's friends are at the girls' school. Watford Fields seems to be a popular place to go, as do the shops in town. The inter-school social life is certainly not lacking. I think the boys see the girls' school as not the same school, but certainly linked.

[Cutting42]

So why are you in support of the x-sibling rule if you think there is no benefit to seperating siblings?

Again, that was to a different question, not aimed at cross sibling but at the general question regarding sibling policy across the country. Xsibling is a choice of course and one that should be made by the parents and DC not the government or schools.

I personally think that the issue is not with the sibling rule etc.

I think we actually agree here, the issue is with the whole admissions situation and xsibling has become the football.

If those outer catchment places were turned into distance places, applicants properly vetted, and the catchment made smaller (a nine mile catchment is excessive for such oversubscribed schools), a more local children would get in and that includes siblings.

Again, I agree

[noonynunu]

A fair few of them meet up after school anyway. More than a third of DS1's friends are at the girls' school. Watford Fields seems to be a popular place to go, as do the shops in town. The inter-school social life is certainly not lacking. I think the boys see the girls' school as not the same school, but certainly linked.

"Watford Fields seems to be a popular place to go" - Bet they're well behaved when hanging around this area as one of the teachers lives in Tucker Street lol.

Wonder how they get to Watford Fields if they can't go "through an area perceived to be rather run-down and threatening". Interesting that they can get there for social meet ups but not for lessons.