Siblings no longer guaranteed place at selective schools

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 4:52 pm

To Loulou

My local partially selective school has approx 100 sibs, 75 children sitting tests with an admissions number of 200. The staff children criterion has recently been dropped, hence there would be around 25 places available for local children. I suppose the question is whether this would be enough local kids for the government.

gill b · Post by **gill b** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 4:55 pm

Claire Ward is wrong .Read the detail-she is just claiming a cheap win in a battle yet to be fought.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:09 pm

Exactly my earlier point, very misleading information. Howcan she get away with this?

Wrong Planet · Post by **Wrong Planet** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:22 pm

gill b wrote:Claire Ward is wrong .Read the detail-she is just claiming a cheap win in a battle yet to be fought.

I agree - the battle is yet to be fought.

However paragraphs 2.20 and 2.21 do seem to allow for some continuation of the sibling rule beyond 2008 for schools that select MORE than 10% by ability/aptitude. It's not clear to me from paragraph 2.21 what adjustments the schools must make to their existing arrangements to satisfy this. If it is as simple as re-allocating the staff places to local children then I don't think there would be a major impact on the school. But I suspect there will be more to it than that.

Wrong Planet

loulou · Post by **loulou** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:38 pm

My local partially selective school has approx 100 sibs, 75 children sitting tests with an admissions number of 200. The staff children criterion has recently been dropped, hence there would be around 25 places available for local children. I suppose the question is whether this would be enough local kids for the government.

Thats a good question and I expect the answer sits in a grey area rather than being set in stone. How many of the siblings at your local school have brothers/sisters who gained a place on entrance exams? If its around 50 which effectively means 50 less places for local children, there could be grounds for complaint from local parents. It will probably require a test case to go to adjudication for there to be a definitive answer to the problem. Rather than giving clear direction it almost seems that the govt have blurred the boundaries with this new paper. 2008 could be an interesting year!!

Will this affect your children?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:32 pm

Loulou and wrong planet

2.2 states the older sibling needs to be on roll at the school before the beginning of the 2008 school year. After this there will be no sibling criterion for those entering the school.

Yes I have been affected, my first child is at a partially selective school and I have another in year 6. The school is unsure of its position regarding the entrance test.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:36 pm

Sorry I forgot to answer your other question. I would say most are siblings with older brothers and sisters who passed the test, since the numbers of local children have always been so limited.

Wrong Planet · Post by **Wrong Planet** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:53 pm

Anonymous wrote:Loulou and wrong planet

2.2 states the older sibling needs to be on roll at the school before the beginning of the 2008 school year. After this there will be no sibling criterion for those entering the school.

Yes I have been affected, my first child is at a partially selective school and I have another in year 6. The school is unsure of its position regarding the entrance test.

I assume you mean section 2.22. My interpretation of that section was that siblings of the intake up to 2008 can continue according to the same rules as now and that section 2.21 refers to the arrangements for siblings of the intake after 2008.

Wrong Planet