LSS and RHS consultation 2012

[fed up]

I have just heard that RHS governors have decided NOT to reverse the order in which pupils are offered places for 2012 admissions. This means that, if LSS do nothing too, things will be pretty much the same in 2012 as they are in 2011. At least it's fair whether you have a boy or a girl. Whether it's fair according to where you live is a whole different issue.....

[Ed's mum]

http://www.rhswebsite.co.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thank you for that update. This is a link to the school website that discusses this issue and has further downloadable details.

[mitasol]

The response to the consultation was very small, however, given that all respondees opposed the proposed alteration to the arrangements (reversing the order of priority), the governors felt that it would not be right to go ahead with the proposed change.

People always write in if they disapprove but tend to think it unnecessary if they do approve.

[Ed's mum]

It's quite incredible that ALL people opposed the change though.

[fed up]

I think they were hoping that the change was so subtle people wouldn't realise what was happening. It looks like few people did, but those who worked it out weren't happy. I would have written in approval had it been the same for boys.
Oh well, back to square one!

[Concerned]

I responded as a priority area 1 parent (Northants). I would challenge that I opposed the change, I bluntly pointed out that they were now not abiding by either of the determinations. Below is a copy of my correspondance:

I note from your consultation document that you are planning to reorder the selection criteria so that the 50% places are allocated within Eastern Warks and then the following 50% within the priority area. Does that not put you directly in breach of the first determination which required Rugby schools to reduce their impact on Daventry schools?

I suppose I am very surprised and disappointed that your very firm stance, despite myself and other giving you ample evidence to retain the pre 2010 arrangements, has reversed leaving my daughter a possible casualty of your knee-jerk reaction to the NAF objection.

How can you be satisfied your criteria stand up to the recommendations of the initial determination and the subsequent one from Dr Passmore (quote below) when the other two selective schools are retaining last years criteria?

“… I would hope that the three admission authorities will keep this under review and consider whether the proportions should be adjusted in any way in future to give greater priority to Rugby and Eastern Warwickshire residents and those not in Warwickshire, but nearest to Rugby.”

Opposition or pointing out a dis-jointed, flaky approach?

[fed up]

It's a good reply, Concerned. The whole thing is flaky!

[Sassie'sDad]

I feel very sympathetic to all those disappointed with the decision "not to reverse the order of priority" and was going to make exactly the point Mitasol made but she got there first.

As for Academy Status, the information available from the school seems comprehensive. If one reads it in conjunction with published minutes of Governors' reports, it is clear how painfully the school has been under funded and therefore teaching staff and basic resources has been affected. Full marks to the school for its improving and excellent results.

It seems a great pity that Warwickshire girls do not get as good a deal as Warwickshire boys*. I cannot explain the broken thread to Tesco's web site Rugbymum. The point I was intending to make (on that thread) was that given the critical significance of funding to the perceived advantage to LSS of becoming an Academy is much less clear cut than the same case for RHS. If I failed to make the point it was because dd was dragging me away, needing attention.
*This is something Warwickshire could choose to put right but no doubt they will plead austerity.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12712079" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;