Partially selective schools

[HP]

Thanks Guest, much appreciated. It will be interesting to see how this one takes effect. Have 2 more to go for Watford consortium. Haven't abandoned VR just yet not too worried about 2008 but 2010 could be another matter. There's even time by then for the government to have brought out another Admissions Code

HP

[Guest]

Isn't Watford Grammar School for Boys the school that deleted the siblings criterion on receiving the draft admissions code in October? If this is the case there must be awful lot of angry parents around there who would have not applied to the school believing it was changing. What will the authorities do now?

I don't think it was Watford Grammar School for Boys. As far as I am aware the admissions criteria did not change significantly for those applying this year.

[Guest]

Rickmansworth School have published their admissions criteria for September 2008 entry in the Watford Observer. As far as I can see, like the Girls Grammar they've made only the three minor changes required by mandatory provisions of the new code:
a) priority for looked-after children
b) removing the children of staff criterion
c) requiring siblings to be enrolled at the time of admission rather than application
The code also requires them to reduce their proportion selected to the lowest it's been since 1997 (10% music + 25% academic), but again like the Girls they seem to be ignoring that.

[Guest]

THe Herts partially selective schools seem all to be ignoring the admissions code with respect to siblings. I understand the school that the DFES based the admissions code on (Graveney School, Wandsworth) has made the decision to drop the siblings criterion from this September, perhaps the Herts schools are working together.

[HP]

THe Herts partially selective schools seem all to be ignoring the admissions code with respect to siblings.

With respect to the sibling rule, if you read the admissions code then you will see that dropping the sibling rule for partially selective schools is a "should" not a "must". To clarify "should"means that it would be good practise "must" is a legal requirement.

The code also states that to keep the sibling rule then partially selective schools need to demonstrate that local applicants are not disadvantaged ...the schools adjudicator has previously ruled that 10% of intake be based on proximity to the school, and this has been in practise for several years.

So, as the law stands, the Herts Consortium are not operating outside of the new admissions code in their entrance criteria for 2008.

HP

[Guest]

The code also requires them to reduce their proportion selected to the lowest it's been since 1997 (10% music + 25% academic), but again like the Girls they seem to be ignoring that.

I think that is fair enough since (if I understand it correctly) the change to 25% was forced on them one year and removed following an appeal the next year.

[Guest]

The code also requires them to reduce their proportion selected to the lowest it's been since 1997 (10% music + 25% academic), but again like the Girls they seem to be ignoring that.

I think that is fair enough since (if I understand it correctly) the change to 25% was forced on them one year and removed following an appeal the next year.

You may be thinking of Parmiter's and the Grammars, but even that's not quite right. From the 2005 governors' report for the Boys Grammar:

Following the decision of the adjudicator on 10 July 2003 the school was instructed:
(a) to delete the selection by musical aptitude
(b) to reduce the percentage admitted on the grounds of academic ability from 35% to 25%
Following advice from the adjudicator, the music criterion was reinstated (by means of an in year variation) subject to changes being made in the method of selection under this criterion.
Following a judgment in the High Court on 8 October 2003 the adjudicator's decision to reduce the percentage admitted on the grounds of academic ability from 35% to 25% was quashed. There followed a second adjudication on 23 February 2004 which determined that we should reduce the percentage admitted on grounds of academic ability from 35% to 25%.
These changes were made to our criteria for entry for September 2004.

During the academic year 2003 - 2004 the governors (in discussion with the governors of Watford Grammar School for Girls) sought to improve our admissions criteria and proposed to increase the percentage admitted on the grounds of academic ability to the 2002 figure of 35%.

The February 2004 adjudication forced Parmiter's and the Grammars down to 25%, but left DAO and Queens at 35%.
Parmiter's and the Grammars added 10% by locality and put the test percentage back up to 35% the following year, and objections to these criteria were rejected by an adjudication in September 2004.

Rickmansworth were reduced to 25% in the July 2003 adjudication, but didn't participate in the appeal. They attempted to raise it back to 35% for the September 2006 entry, but this was reversed in an adjudication in September 2005. They finally managed it for the September 2007 entry, having been at 25% for 3 years.

Ref: adjudication decisions for Herts

Note that adjudicators are not bound by previous adjudications, and the new Code has also changed the rules.

[Guest]

Also, Rickmansworth faces a different situation from the other partially selectives, reflected in the adjudicator's different treatment of them. The other schools receive objections from neighbouring comprehensives about the 'skimming' effect. For Rickmansworth there is no local comprehensive; local children not offered a place there face long journeys, often past the gates of Rickmansworth school (and often to the comprehensives mentioned above). Their objectors tend to be the primary schools those children come from. Their sibling criterion is probably the most vulnerable.

[Guest]

Regarding the proportion of selection, I came across a relevant exchange in a committee debate on the new Code. Mr. Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) asks

I am aware of one school that was required by the adjudicator to lower the proportion of children admitted through partial selection, but that determination was later overturned by the courts. In the meantime, however, the school had had to lower its entry requirement for one year. The following year, it reverted to its original criteria with their higher level of selection. Will the code require that school to use the year of the lower entry requirement as a reference, or could it ignore that year for the purposes of the code?

(This sounds to me like Parmiter's and the Watford Grammars.) The minister, Jim Knight, replied:

The penultimate point that I would make in response to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton concerns cases where the adjudicator reduces the percentage of selection and the school then increases it the following year. He asked which percentage would apply for the purposes of the new code and law. We think that the relevant percentage would be the reduced percentage, in accordance with a change that we made at the end of the proceedings on the Education and Inspections Bill

Of course his opinion might not be binding on a judge, but it does seem to follow a literal reading of paragraph 2.71 of the Code.

[Guest]

The Office of the Schools Adjudicator has just added 2 more adjudicators to the existing 8. I imagine they expect to be busy.