2010 Admissions Public Meeting
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
I think if the schools in question were secondary/comprehensive schools then I think you have a valid argument. The problem is that I understand they are selective grammar schools which by definition means that the primary criterion for entry needs to be based on ability not distance or residence in a particular local authority. Either that or simply convert them from Grammars to non selective comprehensives, but I don't think the government or LEA would find much support for that.People find it quite unfair that children come from outside the county to school in Rugby, where there is a shortage of secondary school places. The knock on effect of this is that children from Rugby who want to go to school in Rugby (which is not an unreasonable request) end up being allocated a school in Coventry.
It quite the norm for children to travel long distances to grammar schools; my son goes to KE 5-Ways in Bartley Green Birmingham from Wythall (in Worcestershire) which is about 9 miles, however lots of children travel very much further such as Solihull, Kidderminster, Droitwich and even Warwickshire.
All the Birmingham KE Grammars (and LEA Grammars) select pupils purely on the basis of the entrance tests with no account being taken of distance from the school (except in the case of ties)
Interestingly, KE 5-Ways is located right on the Birmingham county boundary with Worcestershire so if the criteria was changed to prioritise partly on distance rather than ability this might tend to favour Worcestershire parents.
I think you have a valid case to campaign to Warwickshire LEA to provide sufficient Secondary/Comprehensive Schools in Rugby, but I personally think that campaigning for the particular selective Rugby grammars to move to a hybrid ability/distance based halfway house would set a dangerous precedence.
But Warwickshire have long used such hybrid criteria, haven't they?KenR wrote:I think you have a valid case to campaign to Warwickshire LEA to provide sufficient Secondary/Comprehensive Schools in Rugby, but I personally think that campaigning for the particular selective Rugby grammars to move to a hybrid ability/distance based halfway house would set a dangerous precedence.
If I understand rightly before the Greenwich Judgement of 1991, the grammar schools in Rugby were only for children from Warwickshire- I may be wrong. What I am trying to say is that these schools have always operated with catchment areas, unlike many other grammar schools who simply take the best kids regardless of where they live. The lines have to be drawn somewhere and the county boundaries are the logical place. Also regarding the shortage of secondary school places it goes without saying that if the 20% to 30% of places that are taken in the grammar schools by children from outside Warwickshire were taken by children from Warwickshire then there would be this number of "extra" places available which would go a long way to ease the shortage of places. Unfortunately for all of us it is very difficult to be objective when personal interests are at stake.
I don't really know what to say on here - we very nearly bought a house in Kilsby and can well understand how parents must feel when they discover that their area is no longer in catchment 
Equally I am aware that there is a problem with there being enough secondary school places in Rugby and unfortunately standards in Coventry schools are not as good.
Not sure what the answer is to these problems
Equally I am aware that there is a problem with there being enough secondary school places in Rugby and unfortunately standards in Coventry schools are not as good.
Not sure what the answer is to these problems
Hi Guest201
The problem is that this would encourage Warwickshire (and any other LEAs that wished to follow this route) to create just sufficient secondary place to fullfil the requirements of the local population. However this school population would also include a fair proportion of sink secondary schools as well as the top grammars.
This creates real problems for the parents of children allocated to those sink schools who desperately want to move their child (for reasons of bullying, lack of progress, unhappiness etc) but are not able to consider schools in other LEAs. This would be a throw back to the bad old days of the 60s and 70s when there was little or no choice regarding schools.
Putting the Greenwich Judgement to one side for the moment, I can understand that at first sight having a policy which restricts entry to Warwickshire Schools for Warwickshire residents might seem to be an attractive solution to the problem. At a stoke you have created additional capacity within the Warwickshire boundaries.The lines have to be drawn somewhere and the county boundaries are the logical place. Also regarding the shortage of secondary school places it goes without saying that if the 20% to 30% of places that are taken in the grammar schools by children from outside Warwickshire were taken by children from Warwickshire then there would be this number of "extra" places available which would go a long way to ease the shortage of places. Unfortunately for all of us it is very difficult to be objective when personal interests are at stake.
The problem is that this would encourage Warwickshire (and any other LEAs that wished to follow this route) to create just sufficient secondary place to fullfil the requirements of the local population. However this school population would also include a fair proportion of sink secondary schools as well as the top grammars.
This creates real problems for the parents of children allocated to those sink schools who desperately want to move their child (for reasons of bullying, lack of progress, unhappiness etc) but are not able to consider schools in other LEAs. This would be a throw back to the bad old days of the 60s and 70s when there was little or no choice regarding schools.
Exactly. If you say, my son should go to Lawrence Sheriff because we live in Murray Road, his friend is going, and I want him to go there because it's a very good school, that's fine, but then LS becomes a different school. That isn't because Rugby children are in any way not bright, but simply that if you reduce the competition you reduce the standards.
You also end up reducing the standards at the secondary modern schools as the children who would have been top there go to the grammar schools. So it's not such a good deal if your child ends up going to one of these. And, as Ken R says, your choices are greatly reduced if you're not happy.
You also end up reducing the standards at the secondary modern schools as the children who would have been top there go to the grammar schools. So it's not such a good deal if your child ends up going to one of these. And, as Ken R says, your choices are greatly reduced if you're not happy.
I have been on holiday to the Lakes and have come back to a wonderful cluster of posts on the forum.
I oppose the old system (that allowed all previous admissions, including the cohort that starts next week) and the proposed system of 50:50 - as both systems exclude children from North Warks and West Warks. It seems unfair to me, that children from certain areas of Coventry and Leicestershire (to name just two examples) can apply to the East Warks GS, but others from North and West Warks cannot.
I live in North Warwickshire and my DC will not be eligble to apply for the East Warks Grammar Schools. However, by taking the train I would expect a home to school travel time of a reasonable 30 mins. I will attend the 11 Sept meeting to stress this point. As an aside I do also realise displaced children from Rugby are allocated places in North Warks comprehensives. Consequently, I feel all children in Warks (N, E, S and W) should also be allowed to apply for GS places in any Warks Grammar School.
I am sorry to say that my reasons are a selfish, because, as with most parents the education of our DC is both imperative and emotive
I oppose the old system (that allowed all previous admissions, including the cohort that starts next week) and the proposed system of 50:50 - as both systems exclude children from North Warks and West Warks. It seems unfair to me, that children from certain areas of Coventry and Leicestershire (to name just two examples) can apply to the East Warks GS, but others from North and West Warks cannot.
I live in North Warwickshire and my DC will not be eligble to apply for the East Warks Grammar Schools. However, by taking the train I would expect a home to school travel time of a reasonable 30 mins. I will attend the 11 Sept meeting to stress this point. As an aside I do also realise displaced children from Rugby are allocated places in North Warks comprehensives. Consequently, I feel all children in Warks (N, E, S and W) should also be allowed to apply for GS places in any Warks Grammar School.
I am sorry to say that my reasons are a selfish, because, as with most parents the education of our DC is both imperative and emotive
If you live in an area where there are grammar schools then the comprehensives effectively become secondary moderns, therefore the comprehensive schools in Rugby could be considered secondary moderns. Whereas in Northamptonshire as there are no grammar schools there should be a truly comprehensive system, (this is the root of the complaints by NAF) the fact that the bright kids are not going to school in Northamptonshire is converting these comprehensive schools into secondary moderns. In times of league tables etc. you have to understand the reasoning behind the objection by NAF. Optimist rightly points out that her reasons are selfish, as are the reasons of all concerned. BTW I saw a few Rugby parents errecting a very high barbed wire structure on the Warwickshire-Northamptonshire "border" late last night and there has been talk of check points being set up!!!!!!
