Go to navigation
It is currently Sat Dec 10, 2016 10:52 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 11:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:54 pm
Posts: 154
I read on another website that the Schools Adjudicator has just upheld the complaint against all 5 King Edward Grammar Schools in Birmigham. The complaint was against the use of Pupil Premium as a priority.

It seems parents of non-pupil premium children can breathe a sigh of relief. One "pass mark" for all. Fairness for all students in a test that is claimed to be resistant to tution and tuition is not required.

Many parents felt it was unfair, but did not want to say so in public.

It seems this was won on a technicality and the actual issue was not adjudicated The schools may fight on and win the battle. Time will tell.


Last edited by gideon on Thu Jun 12, 2014 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 3:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 7:59 pm
Posts: 659
Just a small point...the title of the thread is very misleading. I thought the thread was about a complaint against KES, the Independent school in Edgbaston. Better to refer to the King Edward Foundation or KE Consortium of a grammar Schools rather than KES :shock: .

Anyway that's interesting news.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 4:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:54 pm
Posts: 154
Sorry, I do not think one can link to other 11+ sites, unless an Admin says otherwise.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 4:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:10 pm
Posts: 8206
Location: Buckinghamshire
The decisions are available on the gov.uk website. https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ons&topics[]=all&departments[]=office-of-the-schools-adjudicator&official_document_status=all&world_locations[]=all&from_date=&to_date=

The conclusion is hardly a ringing endorsement of the objector's (note: single not multiple) point of view:

Quote:
Conclusion
15. The funding agreement for King Edward VI Aston School in place at the point of determination did not allow the school to give priority in its admission arrangements to boys eligible for the pupil premium and therefore the school did not comply with the Code in its determined admission arrangements for 2015. I conclude that I must uphold the objection. The funding agreement in place now does allow the school to give priority to boys eligible for the pupil premium.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 4:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:21 pm
Posts: 11954
So Gideon's post is misleading? It can change admissions poicy to give PP students priority but just not for 2015?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 4:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 7:59 pm
Posts: 659
gideon wrote:
It seems parents of non-pupil premium children can breathe a sigh of relief. One "pass mark" for all. [b]Fairness for all students in a test that is claimed to be resistant to tution and tuition is not required.[/b]

It seems this was won on a technicality and the actual issue was not adjudicated The schools may fight on and win the battle. Time will tell.


gideon wrote:
Sorry, I do not think one can link to other 11+ sites, unless an Admin says otherwise.


Fair enough.

I highlighted the above point re fairness and tuition as a friend of mine, whose Year 5 child is at a local state primary, was telling me that her child's class is having tuition and exam practice each week at Camp Hill boys school, in school time. If true (I don't know as my Year 5 child isn't involved) then clearly their stance has changed :wink: .

Thanks for changing the thread title too :) .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 4:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 12:54 pm
Posts: 483
Reading the adjudication for KEVIHS (I think there are identical adjudications for all the KE schools), I see that it was a matter of the timing of the change by the governors. The funding arrangements are now suitable for this new arrangement.

What this means for 2015 entry is unclear, but certainly there seems to be no reason why it should not apply for 2016 entry. I think we will have to wait on what the schools have to say on this for 2015 but there is no impediment to apply the pupil premium ruling in the future.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 5:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:54 pm
Posts: 154
Yes, all decisions are identical (including Rugby High). It is amazing nobody bothered to check the funding arrangements. This was simple enough. They only applied to change funding after the complaint was lodged.
They ended up with egg on their face.

Can they do it for 2016? The adjudicator did not address the other part of the objection. My understanding is that this will be decided with Lawrence Sheriff School, who as a VA school sought permission last year. Now it rests upon a paragraph 1.8.

My gut feeling is it will be allowed. Privately a lot of parents are unhappy, so public opinion may stop it. The national papers may pick it up and try and stop a two tier scoring system.

The law should be changed to allow state schools to prepare for the 11+.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 7:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:37 am
Posts: 408
Does that mean the other B'ham grammars will still impose the pupil premium on those going for 2016 entry.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:54 pm
Posts: 154
Optimist wrote:
Does that mean the other B'ham grammars will still impose the pupil premium on those going for 2016 entry.


They have to undertake a pointless consultation (which they ignore) to change their policy, and publish their policy and then people can object if they think the code has been violated. It's not a done deal for 2016. The Governors meet on Monday to discuss their incompetence!

Many non-pupil premium parents object - not on this forum as they would be attacked (as I am ;))But they say it's not fair if there are 2 qualifying scores. At the most they would accept it as a tie breaker.

There are other issues....

1. Bham claim the tests are resistant to preparation, preparation is not required and the test identifies innate ability.
2. If the above is true, why are pupil premium students at a disadvantage?

The argument is they are mutually exclusive and the stance lacks honesty.

Privately, the schools admit preparation helps and admit they have no evidence the tests are resistant to preparation and test innate ability. They have been asked to stop making the claim. Durham is now upset as this is how they market the tests.

There is a potential violation of the admissions code. This will be clearer with Lawrence Sheriff School (LSS). In many ways, LSS is the test case and will be adjudicated within a few weeks.

LSS is more complicated as there is another potential violation as WCC ask if English is an additional language on the11+ application form - this appears unlawful.

The application form threatens legal action against 10 year olds if they discuss content. It also threatens parents. Yet parents do not see the paper and there is no duty of confidentiality with parents. If a parent refuses to sign, does it mean the child cannot take the tests? This is unlawful. It's not in the policy. The adjudicator is considering these issues. The problem is WCC have the same test on 3 days, far apart, They stubbornly refuse to set the additional date the next day. They state publicly children cannot remember content and then threaten children if they discuss content it is claimed they cannot remember.

Rumours are the Warks test ........ Rumours are content will be .......
The Head of ........ (I won't spread rumours why).

Edited by moderator
Too much rumour-mongering.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 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