11 Plus Exams Forum

WP - what's your view regarding the last sentence of para 2.22 of the Revised code:

"Some schools give priority to children on the basis that they have an older sibling at another school with which they have close links (such as where two or more schools are located on the same or adjoining sites); again this should be made clear in their admission arrangements."

Obviously the requirement not to disadvantage remains at para 2.24:

"As with other oversubscription criteria in giving priority to siblings, admission authorities must ensure that their admission arrangements as a whole do not unfairly disadvantage other families."

It seems that subject to complying with 2.24 that a cross sibling rule is permissible once more for the Watford Grammar schools?

Or can it be read that you are disadvantaged if you live close to the school and a sibling who lives further away gets a place? The ambiguity in the code can be read to suit the persons circumstances. It then becomes a question of who has the will to appeal.

watford87 wrote:WP - what's your view regarding the last sentence of para 2.22 of the Revised code:

"Some schools give priority to children on the basis that they have an older sibling at another school with which they have close links (such as where two or more schools are located on the same or adjoining sites); again this should be made clear in their admission arrangements."
[...]
It seems that subject to complying with 2.24 that a cross sibling rule is permissible once more for the Watford Grammar schools?

It does provide some support for cross-sibling criteria, where the old version had none at all. However the adjudicator's decision was:

I determine that for admissions in September 2009, September 2010 and September 2011, oversubscription criterion 4 shall be deleted from the admission arrangements for the school.

That would seem to block them for this year and the next, even though the code on which she based that decision has been replaced. No doubt the schools are consulting their lawyers.