Cross sibling rule at Watford Grammars

[Cutting42]

Why should one sibling have to sit the exam to gain a place to support a sibling who doesn't?

Completely unfair IMO. My dc are of differing academic abilities, not wildly so but enough for one to be suited to a v academic school and one not.

That's also the view the government took a few years ago when they tried to abolish all sibling places at partially selective schools to match fully selective schools. However in Watford there is a much higher than usual preponderance of partially selective schools. In fact 7 out of 9 (78%) schools fall into this category where the national average is 0.013% of schools being partially selective, there are only 34 partially selective outside Watford in the whole country.

With the situation in Watford it was not fair to limit siblings places like this as you would have had a situation where a huge number of children were at different schools from their siblings with an increase in traffic and general transportation not to mention other practicalities, after school activities etc. It was decided that the schools could decide themselves if they wanted to maintain the sibling policy and of course they all did. Now they are all Academies so they would have done it eventually anyway.

I think your view holds up for fully selective but where we have a halfway house it makes sense for a sibling policy to be active and schools agree.

[Middlesexmum]

Sorry but the practicalities/extra traffic is a TERRIBLE reason for having the x-sibling rule. Most secondary school aged pupils travel to and from school themselves and in any case, it's completely missing the point. It should be wholly about whether the child is right for the school, irrespective of whether they are a sibling or not.

[Cutting42]

Sorry but the practicalities/extra traffic is a TERRIBLE reason for having the x-sibling rule. Most secondary school aged pupils travel to and from school themselves and in any case, it's completely missing the point. It should be wholly about whether the child is right for the school, irrespective of whether they are a sibling or not.

You may not agree with it and they are clearly not the only reasons but when you are talking about potentially 3000 children/journeys displaced and trying to go to separate schools it is significant. I am talking about all sibling places here not just the grammars and it was quoted by the schools and government (Brown) at the time as one of the reasons.

In theory you may be correct that in an ideal world we should match the child to the school but these are schools with a very wide range of children from special needs to gifted and talented, they also take children of any ability from close by. These are not QE like schools that only academic children can succeed in but schools with a broad range of subject expertise. Children can and do succeed there who did not pass the exam that year but received a sibling or distance place (it was only cross siblings that were forbidden, same sex have always been permitted)

Nothing is stopping you choosing different schools if you feel your children are better served by that. The sibling places have no direct impact on the academic and music places as those numbers are fixed. The biggest impact is to the local community places which are by distance not ability so don't affect someone choosing the most suitable school by academic, musical or sporting (Queens) ability.

[3b1g]

...these are schools with a very wide range of children from special needs to gifted and talented

Cutting42 makes some excellent points, but as the parent of a child with both special needs and exceptional giftedness, I have to point out that these two descriptions are not the opposite ends of a 'range'. Children with special needs have a wide range of academic ability, the top end of which extends well into the gifted and talented category.

Sorry to veer off topic.

[Cutting42]

...these are schools with a very wide range of children from special needs to gifted and talented

Cutting42 makes some excellent points, but as the parent of a child with both special needs and exceptional giftedness, I have to point out that these two descriptions are not the opposite ends of a 'range'. Children with special needs have a wide range of academic ability, the top end of which extends well into the gifted and talented category.

Sorry to veer off topic.

Then I apologise, I am not experienced with special needs and probably should not have used that example but I was not sure how to describe opposite ends of a range.

[3b1g]

I'm not sure either. 'Less academically able'? 'Lower end of the ability range'? I have noticed that my son is now referred to as 'highly able' by the school, rather than G&T, so these labels seem to change fairly frequently.

[new2me]

Appropriate terms for children on the lower end of the ability spectrum would be mild learning difficulties, moderate learning difficulties and severe learning difficulties. Children with mild learning difficulties are usually educated in mainstream school. Children with moderate learning difficulties can be in mainstream schools or may attend MLD (moderate learning difficulties) schools. There are also SLD schools for those with more complex needs.

[Mgnmum]

sorry still off topic but i think what 3b1g is trying to get across is that special needs does not necessarily mean less academically able. Not all with learning disabilities are of a lower IQ. some have very specific needs that may be behavioural or physical such as blindness or deafness. They still have special educational needs but are not of lower IQ.

On topic my personal view re the cross sibling rule is that either all local schools need to remove sibling rule or the cross sibling rule should stay. Why should a family with mixed gender offspring have to go through the whole stressful more than once if they opt for one of the watford grammars, while those with single gender offspring only have to do it once.

[decaff]

The reason why the xsibling rule was removed was simply because the School Adjudicator ruled that the schools were separate schools and should not be considered as 1 for a cross sibling rule. Rule was also removed as it was deemed unfair on local children. You can read the ruling on School Adjudicator website (sorry I do not have time to put a link in). Furthermore schools should not have rules which are unfair to local children. Now while some local children will benefit from x sibling rule many other children will gain entry under this rule from areas like Harrow, Stanmore Pinner etc,. while boys living more than 330m girls 450m away are denied places. I am aware that the general feeling is that since rule was abolished academic standards are believed to have dropped but we will not see this until GCSE results from 2014. However both schools are still fantastic schools.
I know several people who missed out under removal of x-sibling rule who were very upset but ironically all their children I know gained entry to grammars or other selective schools mostl under academic/music entry. Whilst this I am sure is not always the case. Also having joint admissions policies gives places to parents employed at both schools ie a teacher at Watford boys can achieve a place for his/her daughter at Watford Girls. Interestingly enough I don't believe any other local selectives give priority to children of staff.
I feel the xsibling rule was removed for good reasons and the lack of distances places this year highlights this. Parents can challenge this rule again and any local parents with younger children I feel should consider this. Information is available on School Adjudicator Website there is a deadline to raise objections for entry in 2014. Good luck to anyone who does this.

[Hera]

Teacher priority is only for the school the teacher teaches at. So a teacher at Watford Girls would not get their child into the boys under that criteria. I fully support the cross sibling rule which just puts the schools on a par with the mixed selectives. You could argue why should a child living 800-1000m as it was last year have priority over a child living 1200m. The distance has gone down about 300m this year from last for say the boys. They are all such small amounts.