cross sibling rule challenge

[noonynunu]

We still live in the house that my dd lived in when she gained her place at wgsg... However we do not live close enough for my youngest to get into wgsg, her elder sister should be in year 13 when we apply so we wont get a sibling place for her.

If you got your DC1 into WGGS from the house you are currently in, why do you not think you will get your DC3 in?

[Cutting42]

I think that while the grammars are comprehensive schools they should have cross sibling admission. I have experienced the previous ban on cross sibling and had to have both DC take the exam whilst friends with similar aged DC got "freebies" at SCD, Parmiters, Ricky etc. National policy on partially selectives was that cross sibling was forbidden however this was predicated where the partially selective school was one school amongst many full comprehensive alternatives. Watford is extremely unusual in that it has a majority of PS making alternatives very distant for many, the government agreed and allowed an exception for Watford (can't remember the details on how this is done so I am slightly paraphrasing).

Not having enough distance places is a different question and I agree there should be more of them, addressing that has to be a full review of the schools admission policy on distance. If you get a place on distance, you only retain that place as long as you live in the qualifying house or remain withing qualifying distance. In the USA if you get a place in a state college or high school you can stay there only as long as you live in that state or city, you move, you lose your place mid year if necessary. The 3 month rental at the appropriate period makes a mockery of the process.

[Vinu]

I think that while the grammars are comprehensive schools they should have cross sibling admission. I have experienced the previous ban on cross sibling and had to have both DC take the exam whilst friends with similar aged DC got "freebies" at SCD, Parmiters, Ricky etc. National policy on partially selectives was that cross sibling was forbidden however this was predicated where the partially selective school was one school amongst many full comprehensive alternatives. Watford is extremely unusual in that it has a majority of PS making alternatives very distant for many, the government agreed and allowed an exception for Watford (can't remember the details on how this is done so I am slightly paraphrasing).

Not having enough distance places is a different question and I agree there should be more of them, addressing that has to be a full review of the schools admission policy on distance. If you get a place on distance, you only retain that place as long as you live in the qualifying house or remain withing qualifying distance. In the USA if you get a place in a state college or high school you can stay there only as long as you live in that state or city, you move, you lose your place mid year if necessary. The 3 month rental at the appropriate period makes a mockery of the process.

Completely agree with you

[noonynunu]

I think that while the grammars are comprehensive schools they should have cross sibling admission. I have experienced the previous ban on cross sibling and had to have both DC take the exam whilst friends with similar aged DC got "freebies" at SCD, Parmiters, Ricky etc. National policy on partially selectives was that cross sibling was forbidden however this was predicated where the partially selective school was one school amongst many full comprehensive alternatives. Watford is extremely unusual in that it has a majority of PS making alternatives very distant for many, the government agreed and allowed an exception for Watford (can't remember the details on how this is done so I am slightly paraphrasing).

Not having enough distance places is a different question and I agree there should be more of them, addressing that has to be a full review of the schools admission policy on distance. If you get a place on distance, you only retain that place as long as you live in the qualifying house or remain withing qualifying distance. In the USA if you get a place in a state college or high school you can stay there only as long as you live in that state or city, you move, you lose your place mid year if necessary. The 3 month rental at the appropriate period makes a mockery of the process.

Whilst many will agree with you, the basis for the challenge is likely to that the admissions criteria must not disadvantage those living closest to the school. The schools being challenged are the Watford Grammars. Do you think the points you have made demonstrated that local children are not being disadvantaged by the x-sibling rule particularly given that children living 300 meters from the school are loosing out on places to x-siblings living 3 miles away?

Whilst you base the argument for cross silbing priority on the fact that SCD, Parmiters, Ricky etc. offer places to all siblings, would you say the issue with regards to local children gaining a place at these other schools is as bad as it is for the Grammars? Bear in mind that a boy who lives 2 miles from the boys grammar will ensure a place for their sister at the girls grammar 3 miles from where they live. At the other schools you have mentioned, a boy who lives 2 miles from the school will ensure a place for their sister who will also live 2 miles from the school (approx. distance).

Without a doubt the abuse of rental properties and distance allocations are other issues that should be examined and efforts made to resolve them. However, the schools appear to have little interest in doing so.

[thumbelina]

"the admissions criteria must not disadvantage those living closest to the school" - this is respected since both schools ensure that the closest 18/19 are safely guaranteed places at either school.

if those who object would like larger distance intake then perhaps the repercussions of that should also be considered.

plse take some time, esp the impact at the girls school. The intake during the last couple of years has been different - some might dare to say much improved.

the problem is and always has been the fact that the 18/19 are largely taken by people who rent.

[ToadMum]

'Much improved' how, out of curiosity?

[noonynunu]

"the admissions criteria must not disadvantage those living closest to the school" - this is respected since both schools ensure that the closest 18/19 are safely guaranteed places at either school.

I wonder if this very point is the basis for the challenge. So as a comprehensive school you feel that having 18 or 19 local children out of 180 is sufficient? Again some will agree with you here, however, evidently someone doesn't hence the challenge.

I am curious to know just how many of the children who have paved the way for their siblings to gain priority places, gained their own place after renting in the inner catchment to gain a distance place, benefit from the lower academic pass mark or to gain an advantage over those with the same exam score. There are certainly a lot more than 18/19 rental properties changing hands next to the grammars and I suspect there are a lot more than 18 or 19 children moving back out of the area after they have started at the schools.

[noonynunu]

plse take some time, esp the impact at the girls school. The intake during the last couple of years has been different - some might dare to say much improved.

As Cutting42 had 2 children who gained places while the x-sibling priority was removed, perhaps they are best placed to comment on this point?

When you say different do you mean a more comprehensive intake, after all it is a comprehensive school?

the problem is and always has been the fact that the 18/19 are largely taken by people who rent.

I'm pretty sure the problem that is being addressed by the challenge is more to do with the fact that children living 300 meters from the school are not getting places when siblings living 3 miles away are.

Do you really think it unreasonable that some local parents feel it is unfair that they are fighting for one of 18/19 places at a local school that has an intake of 180/190. These schools are meant to be comprehensives yet it is proving easier for people to get their children into Bucks Grammar Schools than it is to get them into the Watford Grammars.

[Cutting42]

Whilst many will agree with you, the basis for the challenge is likely to that the admissions criteria must not disadvantage those living closest to the school. The schools being challenged are the Watford Grammars. Do you think the points you have made demonstrated that local children are not being disadvantaged by the x-sibling rule particularly given that children living 300 meters from the school are loosing out on places to x-siblings living 3 miles away?

I am not sure I agree these are related points. The local admissions are set to 10%; that and the abuse of the distance qualification is the issue, not xsibling per se. If the % was larger and/or if the abuse was stopped the impact would be lessened. However there will always be a line and someone just the other side of that line will be aggrieved.

Whilst you base the argument for cross silbing priority on the fact that SCD, Parmiters, Ricky etc. offer places to all siblings, would you say the issue with regards to local children gaining a place at these other schools is as bad as it is for the Grammars? Bear in mind that a boy who lives 2 miles from the boys grammar will ensure a place for their sister at the girls grammar 3 miles from where they live. At the other schools you have mentioned, a boy who lives 2 miles from the school will ensure a place for their sister who will also live 2 miles from the school (approx. distance).

This is more about fairness and consistency. For all comprehensive schools in the country we are allowed for our subsequent children to be offered a guaranteed place at the school or linked school that their elder sibling is currently attending regardless of sex. In Watford this applies at every other school as well. So why should it be forbidden at the Grammars unless you only have one sex? Why should that be an advantage? One of the objectors to the xsibling a few years ago previously did it because they thought it would increase their chance of getting their eldest into the school on distance, get one in the rest will follow (all DS btw so they were not impacted by xsibling). Someone with both DD and DS probably would not have pursued that course of action.

[Cutting42]

As a general comment, although I am in favour of xsibling, I totally sympathise with all who struggle with the inequitable system in Watford. We tore out hair out on many occasions and stressed just like you all do with choices and the wish to do the best for our DC.

At the heart of the problem I believe Watford should never have been allowed to have so many partially selective schools giving virtually no real choice unless you are academically gifted/tutored to the nth degree or live within 200 meters of the school gates. It is a ridiculous system and I am so glad we are not facing it again, twice was more than enough.

Good luck to all.