Go to navigation
It is currently Sun Dec 04, 2016 4:20 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: New KE Admissions policy
PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 12:06 pm
Posts: 2093
Location: Birmingham
The policy for the new admission criteria for King Edward VI Camp Hill Boys can be found here: http://www.camphillboys.bham.sch.uk/admissions/

The main changes are:

In order to be eligible for admission to the school, candidates must achieve a minimum standardised score in the selection test (“the qualifying score”). Where the number of applications for admission exceeds the number of places available at the school, places are offered to children as follows:
1. Looked After Children / Previously Looked After Children who achieve the qualifying score by rank order of standardised score;
2. Up to 24 other children attracting the Pupil Premium who achieve the qualifying score by rank order of standardised score;
3. Other children who achieve the qualifying score by rank order of standardised score;
Where children are equal on standardised score, places will be offered to those who live nearest to the school (according to the straight-line distance between home and school.)

A Looked After Child is a child who is in the care of a local authority or is being provided with accommodation by a local authority as set out in s22(1) of the Children Act 1989. A Previously Looked After Child is a child who immediately after being looked after became subject to an adoption, residence or special guardianship order.

[color=#4040BF]Children attracting Pupil Premium are those who have been registered for free school meals at any point in the 6 years prior to the closing date for test registration (11 July 2014).[/color] The school will require evidence of Pupil Premium registration and reserves the right to withdraw the offer of a place if the offer has been made on the basis of an incorrect, fraudulent or misleading application.

I understand that this policy of prioritising free school meal children will be carried out throughout the consortium although tyhe exact number per school may be different (it is 24 children above for Camp Hill Boys)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 12:06 pm
Posts: 2093
Location: Birmingham
It is impossible to guess what the 'qualifying score' will be set at.

I can only assume that it be lower than the actual minimum score needed to otherwise gain entry, or there would be no point in the policy, thus ensuring that deserving children have a chance at entry that they would not otherwise have had.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 12:06 pm
Posts: 2093
Location: Birmingham
It is so hard so decide what makes a child 'deserving' of 'special treatment' though.
Many children and families may have mitigating circumstances.
Families can struggle financially without actually being eligible for free school meals.
A friend joked that children with four or more siblings should have priority - and it is actually true that children from larger families tend to have lower than average educational outcomes.
What about a child who has been ill, or has an ill parent, or has had a close bereavement?

It is impossible to be completely fair.

Nevertheless I do think this policy is progressive.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 12:06 pm
Posts: 2093
Location: Birmingham
Just checked and at KE Aston, 30 places will be available for boys on FSM who meet the set qualifying score.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:10 am
Posts: 482
This is a positive step as long as it is implemented correctly. For example, I understand the pupil premium will be given for pupils who have been eligible for FSM anytime in the previous six years.

Also the reality is that looked after children have very poor educational outcomes and the likelihood of places actually being taken by children in the care system are remote to say the least.


Last edited by Happy dad on Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 12:06 pm
Posts: 2093
Location: Birmingham
That's correct


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:33 am
Posts: 5
In theory I think it is very good news. It will have implications for primary schools such as the inner city one I teach at where a significant majority are on FSM and inevitably come from deprived backgrounds yet are very capable. It's certainly positive to see it specifically stated in policy but I'm not sure how much more effective in practise it will be in raising admissions for FSM chn ompared to current system.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 4587
Location: Essex
KinderSurprise wrote:
In theory I think it is very good news. It will have implications for primary schools such as the inner city one I teach at where a significant majority are on FSM and inevitably come from deprived backgrounds yet are very capable. It's certainly positive to see it specifically stated in policy but I'm not sure how much more effective in practise it will be in raising admissions for FSM chn ompared to current system.


At least it shouldn't reduce the number - and will of course be a positive step in terms of income for the schools :wink:

_________________
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.Groucho Marx


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 7:00 pm
Posts: 54
Excellent spot um, thank you. :)

It has certainly been a year of change at the KE foundation! It will also be fascinating to see what actual difference this will make for this years cohort. We may even need to change our cut off scores sticky on the top page to have two qualifying scores for each school going forward, one as per now one for those on FSM. FW have allocated 36 places. All in all, it will be 20% across all schools.....perhaps this is what the increase in PAN this year was intended for?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:59 pm
Posts: 2814
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Mummy123 and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
CALL 020 8204 5060
   
Privacy Policy | Refund Policy | Disclaimer | Copyright © 2004 – 2016