Sibling rule in reverse?
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
Sibling rule in reverse?
I've tried to figure this one out for myself, but got very confused. Hopefully there's someone out there with experience/understanding of the following hypothetical scenario:
Son 1 narrowly missed out on 11+ (read elsewhere for the sorry story). Son 2 is 1 year below, but is considerably more able and should pass 11+. On past data he would get a place in Chesham High even though we are some distance away. If Son 2 then passes 12+ (a month or so later), will he then be considered as a Sibling? That would considerably increase our chances, given our location.
Quite a few 'ifs' in the above but would be grateful if anyone can tell me if it's even worth considering.
The key sentence in the admissions policy is![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_confused.gif)
Son 1 narrowly missed out on 11+ (read elsewhere for the sorry story). Son 2 is 1 year below, but is considerably more able and should pass 11+. On past data he would get a place in Chesham High even though we are some distance away. If Son 2 then passes 12+ (a month or so later), will he then be considered as a Sibling? That would considerably increase our chances, given our location.
Quite a few 'ifs' in the above but would be grateful if anyone can tell me if it's even worth considering.
The key sentence in the admissions policy is
Assuming Y8 entry is a 'casual' application, then the day of admission will also be No.2 son's first (or even second) day in Y7, so he will be 'attending the school'! Potentially a legal minefield so precedence would be most helpfulA pupil in a secondary school will only count to provide a priority to a sibling if he or she is attending the school in Y7 to Y10 at the time of allocating (February 2008) a school place to the sibling (for the main point of entry) or Years 7-11 at the time of admission for casual applications).
![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_confused.gif)
Hi Hertsdad
On the face of it, and IMO, you would seem to have a case ... but proof of the pudding, and all that!
I think it's worth a try. If your son passes the 12+ and then fails to secure a place because the school is full, he should be prioritized on the waiting list as having a qualifying sibling and you could still appeall. I'm prepared to be corrected on this, though!
Best of luck to your son for the 12+, and please do let us know how you get on!
On the face of it, and IMO, you would seem to have a case ... but proof of the pudding, and all that!
I think it's worth a try. If your son passes the 12+ and then fails to secure a place because the school is full, he should be prioritized on the waiting list as having a qualifying sibling and you could still appeall. I'm prepared to be corrected on this, though!
Best of luck to your son for the 12+, and please do let us know how you get on!
-
- Posts: 9235
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 8:10 pm
- Location: Buckinghamshire
Hi hertsdad
You have been thinking this through, haven't you?
There is no legal minefield though, I am afraid.
Your DS1 will have to wait to take the 12+ in April 2009. He cannot be treated as a Casual/In Year Admission because he has previously sat the 11+. This quote is from the Bucks Late Transfer booklet for Immediate Admissions (the red is my highlighting):
http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/bcc/content/i ... 1894605007
The question of sibling priority in your "reverse situation" came up a year or so ago. We referred the poster to Bucks Admissions to confirm our advice, and I don't recall them coming back with the official answer.
However, as I said then, according to the rule that you have rightly quoted, the answer has to be yes, your DS 1 would be covered by the sibling rule if he passed the 12+.
Some good news for you there, at least.
Best wishes
Sally-Anne
You have been thinking this through, haven't you?
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Your DS1 will have to wait to take the 12+ in April 2009. He cannot be treated as a Casual/In Year Admission because he has previously sat the 11+. This quote is from the Bucks Late Transfer booklet for Immediate Admissions (the red is my highlighting):
Later in the same document it restates the point:This is the earliest time that children who are moving into the area can be tested under the Late Transfer Procedure for immediate
Year 7 – 9 admission, providing they have not previously sat the 11+ test.
You can view the whole document here:Where a child has taken the 11+ during the previous academic year, parents can only apply for September admission in the following year. Late Transfer arrangements for Buckinghamshire are that pupils cannot move mid year unless they are moving school due to a change of residence or there are exceptional reasons why they cannot continue to attend their current school, which are supported by the headteacher of that school.
http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/bcc/content/i ... 1894605007
The question of sibling priority in your "reverse situation" came up a year or so ago. We referred the poster to Bucks Admissions to confirm our advice, and I don't recall them coming back with the official answer.
However, as I said then, according to the rule that you have rightly quoted, the answer has to be yes, your DS 1 would be covered by the sibling rule if he passed the 12+.
Some good news for you there, at least.
Best wishes
Sally-Anne
Twas me!
I was the reverse sibling person/query!
It didn't work for us. Son sat 12+ as daughter was sitting 11+. Daughter 11+ got first choice. Son 12+ got second choice.
Apparently the sibling rule only follows from the September that they are on school roll. Although my daughter had a place she wouldn't start until September so the place doesn't begin until then !!!!!
Another flaw in our wonderful system......
It didn't work for us. Son sat 12+ as daughter was sitting 11+. Daughter 11+ got first choice. Son 12+ got second choice.
Apparently the sibling rule only follows from the September that they are on school roll. Although my daughter had a place she wouldn't start until September so the place doesn't begin until then !!!!!
Another flaw in our wonderful system......
Sorry Sally-Anne - I meant to PM this!
![Embarassed :oops:](./images/smilies/icon_redface.gif)
I was just a bit puzzled about the rules relating to children who have already sat the 11+ and was wondering if a successful applicant who had not got in on transfer appeal could subsequently apply as an in-year applicant if the oversubscription rules had actually changed in their favour?
Thanks
Marylou
![Embarassed :oops:](./images/smilies/icon_redface.gif)
![Embarassed :oops:](./images/smilies/icon_redface.gif)
![Embarassed :oops:](./images/smilies/icon_redface.gif)
I was just a bit puzzled about the rules relating to children who have already sat the 11+ and was wondering if a successful applicant who had not got in on transfer appeal could subsequently apply as an in-year applicant if the oversubscription rules had actually changed in their favour?
Thanks
Marylou
If I understand the scenario correctly, Marylou, there is now a sibling at the school (whereas there wasn't before), or the family weren't in the catchment area before, but have now moved into it?
If so, then all that happens is the position on the waiting list is re-ordered.
It is also possible to request a fresh transfer appeal if there is significant new information that wasn't available to support the case before. (Admissions decide what counts as "significant"!)
If so, then all that happens is the position on the waiting list is re-ordered.
It is also possible to request a fresh transfer appeal if there is significant new information that wasn't available to support the case before. (Admissions decide what counts as "significant"!)
Etienne
All
Thanks for the prompt response (asked a similar question on the Herts board a couple of days ago and haven't had a reply yet - not a patch on the crowd over here!).
I wasn't thinking of an in-year application, for the reason Sally Anne gives. I thought that, as the 12+ was sat after the Y7 allocations were made, DS1 would effectively be 'at the school'. It would appear that our cunning plan might not work, though, based on njg's reply. Might be a strong basis for an appeal, mind.
Back to the drawing board...
PS Started writing this before Etienne's entry - our situation is different to Marylou's in that DS1 failed the 11+ so isn't on any waiting list (yet - could be after 12+)
Thanks for the prompt response (asked a similar question on the Herts board a couple of days ago and haven't had a reply yet - not a patch on the crowd over here!).
I wasn't thinking of an in-year application, for the reason Sally Anne gives. I thought that, as the 12+ was sat after the Y7 allocations were made, DS1 would effectively be 'at the school'. It would appear that our cunning plan might not work, though, based on njg's reply. Might be a strong basis for an appeal, mind.
Back to the drawing board...
PS Started writing this before Etienne's entry - our situation is different to Marylou's in that DS1 failed the 11+ so isn't on any waiting list (yet - could be after 12+)
-
- Posts: 9235
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 8:10 pm
- Location: Buckinghamshire
Not quite - she hasn't taken it yet!hertsdad wrote: our situation is different to Marylou's in that DS1 failed the 11+ so isn't on any waiting list (yet - could be after 12+)
![Surprised :o](./images/smilies/icon_surprised.gif)
![Mad :x](./images/smilies/icon_mad.gif)