Go to navigation
It is currently Fri Dec 09, 2016 3:24 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 11:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 8:55 pm
Posts: 14
Thank you for the interest to continue the discussion. However, I think it is best if someone else starts a topic in the General section.

If I were to start one to give my thoughts on the DGSG decision, it would have to be entitled "How Bexley residents shot themselves in the foot by requesting that a Kent grammar change its admission criteria from 'feeder schools', giving equal chances to all Bexley residents who don't mind their child going to a Kent school, to 'catchment area' giving higher priority to residents within 1 mile radius, thereby reducing the overall numbers/chances of places for Bexley children and doing a huge service to independent schools at the same time".

Does the decision give an advantage to Kent children? Sure does! Does it look fairer to them? You betcha. Are Bexley residents overall losers in this situation? You got it. Is it fairer to them? It must be, since it was Bexley residents who requested the change! Can Bexley residents still get places in DGSG? Yes, it's just that the majority of them now have lower priority, but hey, it's what they wanted ;)

They did right one wrong though - independent schools were disadvantaged by the existence of the feeder schools and stood to benefit from catchment. However, they had been ineligible to raise a formal objection, so thanks to the obliging 'eligible parent' from Bexley, the independents' complaints got to be heard and the wrong - righted!

I was stumped reading the adjudicator's decision, not by his decision, but by the whole situation. As it was clear that Bexley residents on the whole would be disadvantaged (at their request!), the adjudicator even looked to extend the catchment area further into Bexley. Was there no interest from Bexley to do that or did they have less compelling arguments than Kent? I don't know. But it sure seems Bexley LEA were not unhappy to lose a few grammar places and Kent LEA were happy to gain them. Clearly that must have fit well with their projections for school place requirements and they did not want there be be any unforseen knock-on effects.

http://www.schoolsadjudicator.gov.uk/up ... 0Girls.doc


[quote]

30. Most of those representing the independent schools indicated their approval of this new approach at the meeting but I allowed all those present some additional time to consider the document in detail. One school subsequently commented that it was a “very pragmatic and effective compromiseâ€


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:28 am
Posts: 1123
Location: Bexley
Could one of the mods please move Cosmopolite's latest thread to the one in Kent - DGGS oversubscription criteria. Thanks.

Cosmopolite, please read the DGGS thread from start to finish to establish the facts.

I was THAT parent and I can assure you I worked hard on this case so that local kids would benefit, ie those in the immediate area and those in the north Kent area.

I would also like to add that I was at the meeting - you were not. I heard how devastated that the head at DGGS was to learn that her proposed criteria would discriminate against immediate Dartford residents or those living opposite the school gates. This had not been her intention and she was only too pleased to amend the criteria to something more agreeable once this had been pointed out to her.

For the record, I objected to the new proposals, so please get your facts right.

After immediate local kids on both sides of the boundary and Dartford parishes had been catered for, a third of places would still be available for other girls. However, DGGS, being supselective on this criterion, meant that the highest scorers would be promoted over other girls regardless of distance to the school.

I objected to this as the other girls in the categories above would not face this scoring issue (DGGS had stated that it had not been implemented it before as there had always been places left over to accommodate the 'other girls'). How can one criterion be superselective when the others are not? I didn't agree. I wanted the last category to be on distance. If the school was based on rank order throughout, that would be different.

I tried my best. I was overruled. I worked my socks off. And for the record I did not do this for my dd or girls living in this area. I worked for a compromise and agreed to something that placed my dd in the last category and therefore little chance of a place. No self interest here.

Mods, apologies for the tone, but I'm very annoyed that someone who clearly has no idea about what has happened in 2 counties feels the need to slate someone who is working hard to adopt fair rules for all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 3:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 8:55 pm
Posts: 14
Firstly, Tracy, I wasn't aware of your involvement in this. I did not read the DGSG thread. A reference was made about the DGSG decision, so I looked it up on the adjudicator's site as an independent source. I don't believe I have slated you personally, however if you felt offended, I never meant it that way and I apologise.

I believe that my comments about the DGSG decision are very relevant to the Bexley discussion for at least three reasons. Firstly, they directly relate to the numbers of grammar places for Bexley children, which is the topic of this discussion. Secondly, they address the issue of OOB applications, which seems to be the biggest point of contention in the discussion. Thirdly, I referenced Bexley LEA's actions which have effectively reduced grammar places for Bexley children, again directly related to the topic.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 5:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 8:26 am
Posts: 1326
Location: Watford, Herts
More broadly, after decisions in Poole, Dartford and elsewhere, feeder school arrangements (often used to evade the Greenwich Judgement) seem no longer to be tenable now that the Admissions Code forbids naming independent schools. The Chief Adjudicator makes this point in his 2008/2009 Annual Report:
Ian Craig, Chief Schools Adjudicator wrote:
41. The new requirement that feeder primary schools must not include independent schools has highlighted anomalies over the interaction between this and paragraph 2.16 (a) of the Code which outlaws `conditionality'. Some adjudicators are now of the view that any feeder school relationship, with some limited exceptions (for example linked infant and junior schools in close proximity) risk imposing the form of conditionality that the Code seeks to avoid.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 12:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:59 am
Posts: 2001
I didn't want to comment earlier as I thought this topic was no longer appropriate on the Bexley thread but as it has been moved...

I felt that it was legitimate and commendable that Tracy challenged the arrangements. However, if you go to the adjudicator you may not get what you expect as the adjudicator is bound to consider all aspects of the admission arrangements.

The complaints from the officials at the Indies may not have been eligible but the parents of children at Indies were eligible to make a complaint and a challenge to this part of the proposed admission was IMO, inevitable.

Quote:
Who can object?
You are eligible to object if:

* (selection) you are the parent or guardian of a child who is of compulsory school age receiving primary education and living within the school's published consultation area (the relevant area); and
* (admission number) you are the parent or guardian of a child who has attained the age of two but has not attained the age of five or whose child is of compulsory school age receiving primary education and living within the relevant area; and
* (Unlawful/ Failure to comply) you are the parent or guardian of a child who has attained the age of two but is not above compulsory school age and who has been, is or will be eligible to apply to the school whose arrangements are the subject of the objection.


I'm not sure I can comment on whether Bexley residents are better or worse off simply because a few additional lines of complexity have been added to the arrangements. I haven't seen any figures, perhaps you have?

This adjudication was not bound and should you wish to challenge it, you are at liberty to do so. It's not clear exactly where you are going with this but as an eligible parent you are entitled influence and challenge any proposals or decisions made by admission authorities.

The Bexley residents are doing just that and in my opinion it is wise to start early before the consultation document is released. (Warks amended the admission arrangements considerably in light of the consultation but then received complaints that the new arrangements had not been consulted on.) If you are dissatisfied then you have recourse to exactly the same processes but it serves no purpose to come to the party too late and then decide you're unhappy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 7:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:28 am
Posts: 1123
Location: Bexley
Mitasol,

Can you advise please.

As it stands I'm meeting with the Director of Children's Services - I think that's what her title is :lol: - to express my views on the way the issue of selectivity was established within our borough in this year's tests.

I know the council is unhappy too that less and less Bexley kids are being deemed selective and is looking at ways to redress the balance.

So next week I will be voicing my opinions and suggesting alternatives to both the selectivity and admissions procedure.

My understanding is that from my complaints/suggestions and other people's, changes will be made. It will be at this point that people will be able to challenge this with the adjudicator if they wish.

These is my questions.

As I will no longer have children going through the system, ie they have been through the 11+, will I be able to challenge:

1. the selectivity criteria (I am not aware of anyone being able to do this)?

2. the proposed admissions criteria?

Mitasol, any help you can give will be greatly appreciated. Would like to be as aware as soon as possible before the party starts!

Thanks


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 7:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:59 am
Posts: 2001
Hi Tracy,

I think that you have already started the process by contacting the LEA to express your dissatisfaction. These comments will be taken into consideration when they formulate the upcoming admissions consultation documents. These should be due out shortly.

At this stage you will be able to object to anything you are unhappy with.

I would expect that even though you have no children going into school you are still an eligible parent.

Tracy, I'm not an expert! :oops: I've just been following the action.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 8:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 8:26 am
Posts: 1326
Location: Watford, Herts
Tracy wrote:
My understanding is that from my complaints/suggestions and other people's, changes will be made. It will be at this point that people will be able to challenge this with the adjudicator if they wish.

These is my questions.

As I will no longer have children going through the system, ie they have been through the 11+, will I be able to challenge:

1. the selectivity criteria (I am not aware of anyone being able to do this)?

2. the proposed admissions criteria?

The rules are set out in regulations 26 and 27 of the The School Admissions (Admission Arrangements) (England) Regulations 2008. A local parent of a child between 2 and 15 may object to "any aspect of a school's admission arrangements does not comply with any mandatory requirements in the School Admissions Code".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 8:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:28 am
Posts: 1123
Location: Bexley
Thanks mitasol and wp.

I thought I might be the position of starting something yet being unable to finish it.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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