Go to navigation
It is currently Sun Dec 11, 2016 2:21 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:37 pm
Posts: 52
Location: Watford
Draft rules for next year's intake include cross sibling rule:

http://www.watfordboys.org/index.php?op ... &Itemid=10


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 2:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 8:26 am
Posts: 1326
Location: Watford, Herts
They are also re-instating priority for children of members of staff.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 4:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 2:01 pm
Posts: 6696
Location: Herts
Bizarre! They take stuff away for a few years and then bring it back? DG


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 5:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 8:26 am
Posts: 1326
Location: Watford, Herts
Daogroupie wrote:
Bizarre! They take stuff away for a few years and then bring it back? DG
Because now they can - they didn't give it up willingly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 6:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 5:16 pm
Posts: 21
Had a feeling they would once they became an Academy. Currently have a DS at the boys and DD has just sat the test. So, feeling slightly frustrated, but trying to be positive.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 12:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:06 pm
Posts: 176
Red Dog wrote:
Had a feeling they would once they became an Academy. Currently have a DS at the boys and DD has just sat the test. So, feeling slightly frustrated, but trying to be positive.



I hear you, I have opposite, dd in WGGS and waiting for results for ds to wgsb, very annoyed as I know some of the parents who called the adjudacators in and got the cross sibling policy removed in the first place. It was done on the basis they had a better chance to get their kids in by reducing the number of sibling placements. However it backfired. The extra places went to distance rule instead and meant that parents with diff sex children were disadvantaged compared with parents with single sex kids.

I resent having to do this twice but I did it with my eyes open, could have chosen different schools but ultimately the schools are excellent and worth the extra effort


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 5:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 5:16 pm
Posts: 21
I do feel sorry for the schools because they were forced to withdraw the rule and I can understand - to a certain extent!- why those parents felt they had to do what they did (we all want the best for our DC), but it all seems so farcical now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:23 pm
Posts: 332
I'm very pleased they're changing back even though I don't plan to send my ds there! Nicer for families not to be separated.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 3:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 2:50 pm
Posts: 534
The proposed change to the admissions arrangements for the Watford Grammars may well mean that they never get down to allocating any sibling places for the schools. It relates to all staff, not just teachers and includes staff at both the girls and the boys schools. Could this not mean that out of the 125 community places they may only allocate down to number 3. So you get looked after children, the 10% living closest and then kids of staff. All siblings will have to apply under the exam criterion too? Am I reading this right?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 8:26 am
Posts: 1326
Location: Watford, Herts
bel wrote:
The proposed change to the admissions arrangements for the Watford Grammars may well mean that they never get down to allocating any sibling places for the schools. It relates to all staff, not just teachers and includes staff at both the girls and the boys schools. Could this not mean that out of the 125 community places they may only allocate down to number 3. So you get looked after children, the 10% living closest and then kids of staff. All siblings will have to apply under the exam criterion too? Am I reading this right?

That's possible in theory, but they had this criterion (chidren of permanent employees at either school) in their arrangements until 2007, and between 2004 (oldest data I have) and 2007 neither school admitted more than 5 children under this criterion in any year.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest


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