Net Capacity and Indicated Admission Numbers
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:14 pm
- Location: Kent
Net Capacity and Indicated Admission Numbers
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
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
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.
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.
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.Are they saying "we are over full by 52 pupils" even with 180 pupils this year in year 7?
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
-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:14 pm
- Location: Kent
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).
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
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.