Go to navigation
It is currently Fri Dec 09, 2016 5:45 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu May 20, 2010 12:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:14 pm
Posts: 16
Location: Kent
What are they?

the Grammar school have said the PAN is 180. With this the number of pupils are 1256 in the school.
They say the Net Capacity is 1204 and the Indicated Admission Number is 180

Are they saying "we are over full by 52 pupils" even with 180 pupils this year in year 7?

thanks


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 20, 2010 12:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:56 pm
Posts: 8228
I'd ask them what they mean by net capacity and indicated admission number and whatever else you are needing to know.

You would think that net capacity meant the max number of children they can accommodate in the school - so why doesn't it end in a zero as they say their PAN is 180 per annum.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 20, 2010 12:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:26 pm
Posts: 7063
The number of pupils admitted to a school is based on the net capacity of the school. This is a physical measurement of the facilities that are available. From the net capacity, which equates to the total number of pupils that it is deemed the school can hold, the IAN is derived. The IAN (Indicated Admission Number) is there for guidance, and influences what the actual PAN is. The precise admission number can be modified by agreement, if there is a good reason.

Quote:
Are they saying "we are over full by 52 pupils" even with 180 pupils this year in year 7?
Yes. This can happen if, for example, they have expanded the 6th form by admitting children from other schools, or if there's been an extra class for exceptional reasons in the past, or if they've lost a lot of appeals (perhaps a multiple appeal at stage 1), or if the PAN has changed at some point.

In terms of prejudice, a high Number on Roll affects communal areas in the school (e.g. causing overcrowding in corridors and shared facilities).

It is a consideration, but I would have thought the number of children in each class in year 7 would be the main concern.

_________________
Etienne


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 20, 2010 1:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:14 pm
Posts: 16
Location: Kent
They are saying in Sept 2010

y7 180
y8 207 (extra class this year)
y9 181
y10 179
y11 179
y12 180
y13 150

= 1256


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 20, 2010 1:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:26 pm
Posts: 7063
So 27 out of the 52 is explained straight away.

You can ask at the hearing how a situation has developed to the point where the NOR is 52 above PAN.

The school must also explain exactly what problems a high NOR causes.

If you’d like to get into the finer points of net capacity, you can find out all about it here – but it’s not exactly light reading! http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/netcapacity/

But the main focus, I would suggest, is usually on what prejudice would be caused by admitting another child into the relevant year group (year 7).

_________________
Etienne


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 21, 2010 9:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:56 pm
Posts: 8228
The school has given you the current numbers in each year group. Why don't you ask them how many were in that year group when it commenced Year 7 (if you see what I mean). You may well find that they admitted more than 180 every year.

It's surely good that the Year 8 is bigger than 180 as you can argue that if they managed it that year they can do it again.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 21, 2010 9:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 3:43 pm
Posts: 523
Location: Twells
mystery wrote:

It's surely good that the Year 8 is bigger than 180 as you can argue that if they managed it that year they can do it again.


It could be argued that because they have done it before they won't do it again. If it is the school I think it is, they heavily opposed taking on an extra class as it stretched their resources to the limit but were forced to by KCC.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 21, 2010 9:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:56 pm
Posts: 8228
Why is it KCC that forced them? It's an independent appeals panel isn't it? If it's the school I'm thinking of, yes it stretched them but what harm have the children in that year group, or the rest of the school, really come to? Has an analysis of results achieved shown that they dipped?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 21, 2010 10:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 3:43 pm
Posts: 523
Location: Twells
I am only repeating what has been said on this site and another "There were 32 successful appeals in 2009, reflecting the pressure on places at the school, but putting massive pressure on the resources of ***** who vigorously opposed any additional boys being offered places."

I am sure that the quality of teaching has been maintained as it is a very good school with a very good head, but there is surely a limit to the physical resources available, as there is a finite amount of space for them to work with, particularly as they are shoehorned in between another school and a leisure centre.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 21, 2010 11:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:56 pm
Posts: 8228
I really don't know. It 's up to the school to argue it well, and the appellant to argue it well, in front of the independent panel.

Funny thing is that all those other year groups have got pretty much 180 boys in them if we are talking about Tunbridge Wells Grammar School for Boys and I thought, maybe mistakenly, that boys got in on appeal every year. Their PAN is 180, and I thought they took in 180 through offers on 1 March and waiting lists before appeal, so with appeals numbers should be above 180 in more than one year group. Maybe they have a high drop-out rate?

Still worth asking what their numbers were for each of these year groups when they each started in September as year seven children, what the exact physical space argument is, and whether they have any evidence of poorer attainment as a result of taking in some bigger year groups.

Good luck.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

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