Partially selective schools

[WP]

It is simply too late. I have a child in one of the Herts partially selective schools. Parents at the school put alot of time and energy into trying to prevent the changes from happening, we were told that if the new admissions code was passed as law the schools concerned will not be able to fight it. Now everyone is resigned to the changes.

It was already too late when the campaign on the Admissions Code was going: the Education and Inspections Act 2006, which contains this provision, received the Royal Assent on 8th November 2006. The Schools Minister had agreed to this amendment on 24th May. No-one noticed at the time, it seems. Even the amendment's proposer (Martin Linton) thought that no selective school had yet raised the proportion of selection after having it lowered.

[WP]

where does this leave DAO as they are still selecting 85 out of 240.

Through an accident of history, DAO and Queen's School are unaffected. They can continue to select 35%.

Of course it's possible that some adjudicator in future years might decide that 25% selection is working so well at Rickmansworth, Parmiter's and the Watford Grammars that it ought to be some sort of benchmark for the area.

[Guest]

where does this leave DAO as they are still selecting 85 out of 240.

The admission number at DAO is 200.

[Watford87]

What I really do not understand is why the schools are not fighting this.

Parmiter's May 2007 newsletter contains a short note saying they've conceded in the face of the amended Act.

Spotted on the WGSG website today that 2008 admission rules now reflect the 25% based on selection reduced from 35% as required. The extra 10% has gone onto the Community Spaces which now account for 65% of total intake - up from from 55%. This suggests that once siblings/cross siblings are in that there should be more local children that will get in based upon proximity. OK for locals but more difficult for clever children living further away relying upon getting in on the test - previously there were 63 spaces now only 45 spaces.

Assume that WGSB website will reflect the same soon.

[WP]

Spotted on the WGSG website today that 2008 admission rules now reflect the 25% based on selection reduced from 35% as required. The extra 10% has gone onto the Community Spaces which now account for 65% of total intake - up from from 55%. This suggests that once siblings/cross siblings are in that there should be more local children that will get in based upon proximity. OK for locals but more difficult for clever children living further away relying upon getting in on the test - previously there were 63 spaces now only 45 spaces.

Assume that WGSB website will reflect the same soon.

You're quick: they only updated it yesterday. Parmiter's have put their revised arrangements up on their website too. The Boys are doubtless the same, but they're always much slower in updating their website.

Yes, the extra places will increase those admitted under the final criterion (distance) in each case, but I still think you'd have to be very close indeed. WG refused to answer this question, but WB told me that 10% wouldn't normally reach Cassiobury Park Avenue.

The cut will make the choices more difficult this year for Herts parents (who can give only 3 choices). Already very few parents at my children's school dare put both Parmiter's and one of the Grammars on their forms. Hopefully in the future they'll shrink their catchment area, or reduce the proportion for the outer area, but they wouldn't be able to do that this year as an in-year variation.

[Watford87]

Spotted on the WGSG website today that 2008 admission rules now reflect the 25% based on selection reduced from 35% as required. The extra 10% has gone onto the Community Spaces which now account for 65% of total intake - up from from 55%. This suggests that once siblings/cross siblings are in that there should be more local children that will get in based upon proximity. OK for locals but more difficult for clever children living further away relying upon getting in on the test - previously there were 63 spaces now only 45 spaces.

Assume that WGSB website will reflect the same soon.

You're quick: they only updated it yesterday. Parmiter's have put their revised arrangements up on their website too. The Boys are doubtless the same, but they're always much slower in updating their website.

Yes, the extra places will increase those admitted under the final criterion (distance) in each case, but I still think you'd have to be very close indeed. WG refused to answer this question, but WB told me that 10% wouldn't normally reach Cassiobury Park Avenue.

The cut will make the choices more difficult this year for Herts parents (who can give only 3 choices). Already very few parents at my children's school dare put both Parmiter's and one of the Grammars on their forms. Hopefully in the future they'll shrink their catchment area, or reduce the proportion for the outer area, but they wouldn't be able to do that this year as an in-year variation.

Yes, Parmiters win the prize for keeping their website most up to date with even the form required for applying for 2008 admission.

Although Cassiobury Park Avenue is a long road I suspect that 20% proximity would reach it. Pure speculation; who knows how many siblings there will be. But with the removal of the staff children criterion as well who knows how far the proximity rule might extend.

[WP4]

Although Cassiobury Park Avenue is a long road I suspect that 20% proximity would reach it. Pure speculation; who knows how many siblings there will be. But with the removal of the staff children criterion as well who knows how far the proximity rule might extend.

I meant that the nearest part of Cassiobury Park Avenue was said to be outside the usual 10% radius. Of course the 20% radius would be larger, but the effect is hard to predict given the uneven distribution around there (e.g. the park, and the housing development near the Metro station).

Staff children accounted for 2-5 children per year in 2004-6. In those years the numbers with brothers and sisters were 61+34, 28+42, 41+35+ (not all those with sisters got in in 2006). (These figures from last year's Moving On book.) So one might expect 40-50% to get in on the sibling criteria, leaving 15-25% on distance.

[Guest]

Yes, the extra places will increase those admitted under the final criterion (distance) in each case, but I still think you'd have to be very close indeed.

Do people think that this will make the retention of the sibling criteria for future years more likely? Presumably it would convince any schools adjudicator that the schools are admitting more local children?

[WP]

Do people think that this will make the retention of the sibling criteria for future years more likely? Presumably it would convince any schools adjudicator that the schools are admitting more local children?

One would expect so, though the cross-siblings criterion between the Watford Grammars may be harder to defend. But it's hard to predict how the adjudicator will interpret the vague sentence

Accordingly, the admission authorities for those schools that admit more than 10% of their intake by selection by ability and/or aptitude, if they intend to give priority to siblings, should ensure that their admission arrangements as a whole do not exclude families living nearer the school.

They obviously admit children living near the school, but equally obviously others will be excluded in favour of more distant siblings and children admitted via the test. In 2004, the adjudicator decided to test fairness to local families by asking whether a certain proportion (10% at that time) would be admitted by distance alone. The new code gives a lot of weight to local schools for local children, so the balance may have shifted since then.

[WP]

Does the adjudicator look at the arrangements as a whole? Or just the criterion which has been referred?

In general, the adjudicator is required to consider the arrangements as a whole, but is only empowered to uphold, reject or partially uphold the specific objection (i.e. vary the criteria objected to).

This is no longer true, thanks to section 47(2) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, which adds a new subsection 90(5A) to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. Now once the arrangements have been referred to the adjudicator, he or she may make appropriate changes to any aspect of the admission requirements. In recent adjudication decisions, adjudicators have been invoking this subsection, amending or deleting other criteria that they consider non-compliant, unfair or unclear, and their amendments are binding for up to three years. They are doing this even in cases where they reject the original objection. It seems the schools were wise to avoid the adjudicators.