Grammar School Vacancies

Guest55 · Post by **Guest55** » Thu May 21, 2009 9:18 pm

The 2010 consultation gave this map:

http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/moderngov/Pub ... ndix14.pdf

Sally-Anne · Post by **Sally-Anne** » Thu May 21, 2009 9:35 pm

T.i.p.s.y wrote:IAS+IA to 5.769 miles

What does this mean? Is it everyone in catchment and those in catchment with siblings from a radius of 5.769 miles or the above and then anyone out of catchment from a radius of 5.769. When I lived in Chesham they were changing the catchment area and Dr C's would not be in the catchment.

It means:

1. All siblings in catchment (of children currently in Years 7 - 10 at the school;

2. Plus all catchment children to 5.769 miles from the school gates, according to the distance measurement software used by Admissions.

3. No out of catchment children.

Chesham is still in catchment for Dr Challoners, and there are no proposed changes to that.

T.i.p.s.y · Post by **T.i.p.s.y** » Thu May 21, 2009 9:43 pm

Did I imagine that in 2006 there was a proposal to omit most of chesham from the Dr C catchment? If not why did the proposal not go ahead?

Sally-Anne · Post by **Sally-Anne** » Thu May 21, 2009 9:58 pm

There was indeed such a proposal - in fact the "dividing line" was actually drawn part way through Chesham Bois, meaning that many children who lived within walking distance of Challoners would have no longer been in catchment.

The proposal was opposed vociferously by quite a large number of parents, and Bucks CC dropped it.

The most recent proposal actually extends choice for many people, rather than curtailing it, which is why it has provoked far less controversy and has now been approved.

T.i.p.s.y · Post by **T.i.p.s.y** » Thu May 21, 2009 10:34 pm

Thanks Sally-Anne.

zee · Post by **zee** » Thu May 21, 2009 11:24 pm

If I remember correctly (and I may not), the proposal 2 or 3 years ago was to have a two tier catchment for Challoner's, so Chesham would still be in catchment, but only after all those in the inner/priority catchment were allocated. And I think one of the objections was that it was completly inconsistent with the way it works anywhere else in Bucks.

Or did I dream all that?

Sally-Anne · Post by **Sally-Anne** » Fri May 22, 2009 11:39 am

Yes Zee, you are quite correct - the "long version" of the proposals was that there would have been Catchment Area 1 and Catchment Area 2 for DCGS. I just didn't see that Tipsy particularly needed that information in my reply, as it is (hopefully) past history.