New KE Admissions policy

[guest201]

Lawrence Sheriff admission policy states that 10 of the children who receive pupil premium can have a score of between 1 and 10 points below the AQS, thus giving them a slightly better chance.

[KinderSurprise]

I may be wrong, but I don't think there is a different qualifying score for FSM/PP applicants....I think it just means that if they set the qualifying score at, for arguments sake, 237 then ANYONE on FSM/PP who gets over 237, whether it be 258 242 or 237 will get a place. For everyone else, the person on 257 would get a place before the person on 248, 243, 242, 241 right down to the person on 238 and then - oh dear, no space for the person on 237 as the places have all been allocated.

What I am saying is the FSM/PP just have to hit the qualifying score (and be in the top 24 of FSM/PP ranked places) whereas the other applicants have to hit the qualifying score and be in the top ranked places. So someone who is FSM/PP would get a place if they made the qualifying score EVEN if that meant that someone with a higher score didn't get a place because the PAN had been reached. In reality, it is unlikely to push too many children out of the school, as there are not that many FSM/PP or Looked After Children who achieve the qualifying scores. Hope this makes sense...!! But I don't think it is two separate scores!

This is what I was getting at earlier in terms of what practical impact it will have on the numvers of FSM chn actually qualifying. It seems to be a starting point and a forward step but I think a better option may have been for grammar school consortiums to work with primary schools, particularly those in inner city areas with higher porportions, in order to support chn and parents in the build up to grammar tests. Right now we've been approached by KES to do just that and we are beginning a partnership with them to make chn/parents aware of the process and the levels and examination requirements as well as what chn can expect going on to study there. It's a real effort by KES to reach out to disadvantaged chn and I think it will have a much more long term impact on chn rather than adjusting entrance scores although I dont want to belittle what the grammar schools are doing here.

[Happy dad]

I may be wrong, but I don't think there is a different qualifying score for FSM/PP applicants....I think it just means that if they set the qualifying score at, for arguments sake, 237 then ANYONE on FSM/PP who gets over 237, whether it be 258 242 or 237 will get a place. For everyone else, the person on 257 would get a place before the person on 248, 243, 242, 241 right down to the person on 238 and then - oh dear, no space for the person on 237 as the places have all been allocated.

What I am saying is the FSM/PP just have to hit the qualifying score (and be in the top 24 of FSM/PP ranked places) whereas the other applicants have to hit the qualifying score and be in the top ranked places. So someone who is FSM/PP would get a place if they made the qualifying score EVEN if that meant that someone with a higher score didn't get a place because the PAN had been reached. In reality, it is unlikely to push too many children out of the school, as there are not that many FSM/PP or Looked After Children who achieve the qualifying scores. Hope this makes sense...!! But I don't think it is two separate scores!

There will effectively be different scores needed. There will be children who have achieved the qualifying score but won't be offered a place. Some children on free school meals maybe guaranteed a place if the hit the QS. The QS needs to be set below the entrance score required now otherwise what is the point, so effectively the score needed for non FSM will be higher.

It will be interesting to see if individual schools set their own QS or the Foundation sets one across the board.

[Bob1892]

I believe the looked after figures are usually exceedingly low - Okanagan issued a few stats about this a few months ago I believe ???? The same usually applies to those on FSM so I think the QS will probably be set at 5-10 points below the current QS. It's a case of higher the score above the QS the higher up you are in rank for those who are outside the looked after and PP bracket. So I don't think there will be two scores. I think there might be a lot of disappointed dc/dps out there who've achieved the QS but were not high up enough in rank to gain a place. I think this is how it will work but I stand corrected.

[Doodlemum]

Is it the case that the 30 places at say CHG in this case will be "ring fenced" for pupil premium children who meet the qualifying score? If there weren't sufficient children on that score would the remainder of the places then be available to the general quotient of children in rank order? I'm just trying to work out how this is likely to impact the scores required.

In this case wouldnt we be back to closer to the 2012 / 2013 scores, before the new aces were added?

[Bob1892]

Is it the case that the 30 places at say CHG in this case will be "ring fenced" for pupil premium children who meet the qualifying score? If there weren't sufficient children on that score would the remainder of the places then be available to the general quotient of children in rank order? I'm just trying to work out how this is likely to impact the scores required.

In this case wouldnt we be back to closer to the 2012 / 2013 scores, before the new aces were added?

I think this is exactly how it's going to work.
I think in most of the GS in Brum there are only a handful who are on FSM - no stats out there as the schools/dc never reveal that so & so are on FSM. I really think the QS could be as much as 10 points lower or even lower just to get those the quotient of PP dc into a GS. I suppose realistically they won't lower the QS too much as some dc may not be able to cope once they get in. But truthfully this is a positive way forward & what GS were all about many moons ago - but hey, that's a conversation for another time.

[Doodlemum]

Thank you Bob1892. I also agree that it is a good thing, just a bit selfishly thinking about my dd this year as she is a borderline candidate at best. I guess we just keep working with them and see how it pans out.

[rabbie burns]

Another plus for me is that children who just miss out can now take away the fact they passed their 11 plus and for many that is a real confidence booster. If my ds had not got in this year I know "passing" would have meant a lot to him.

However, there is no doubt in my opinion that this is a good thing but it will reduce the number of places for dc who do not meet the new criteria. Still, its probably why they increased places this year, so overall there will be as many, if not more, places than there were pre 2014.

[Bob1892]

Overall I don't think there will be much change in the scheme of things.
Let's take CHB for example. Previous PAN was 93 now it's 120. 2-3 will probably be looked after dc and upto 24 will be PP. So at least 93 will be outside these 2 categories. It just now means higher in rank you are above the QS then higher the chance of gaining a GS place. Most of these dc will still be needing 230+ to get into CHB. Personally I can't see CHB getting 24 PP dc every year - so there will be most likely somewhere in the region of around an extra 9-10 places for everyone else.

[rabbie burns]

All depends on the qualifying score. The lower it is the more PP and looked after young people will potentially be offered a priority place. We have no way of knowing how many of these children were just under the cut off scores in previous years. It could be like an iceberg, which we all know lies mainly under the surface!