Go to navigation
It is currently Sat Dec 03, 2016 9:46 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 12:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:20 pm
Posts: 1706
Location: Warwickshire
Following a recent legislative change the Lawrence Sheriff Admissions policy has changed to give priority to pupils who are eligible for the Pupil Premium.

The new policy is:

I. Children in the care of, or provided with accommodation by, a local authority(under Section 22 of the Children Act 1989) and children who were looked after, but ceased to be so because they were adopted (or became subject to a residence order or special guardianship order) who achieve the qualifying score or above
11. 50% of places will be allocated to children living in the Eastern Area of Warwickshire* using the following method of prioritisation:
a. Pupils living in the Eastern Area of Warwickshire who would be eligible for the Pupil Premium who achieve the qualifying score or above
b. Children living in the Eastern Area of Warwickshire* who achieve the qualifying score or above
III. The remaining second 50% of available places will be allocated to children living in the priority circle (the centre of which is the Rugby Water Tower) who achieve the qualifying
score or above using the following method of prioritisation:
a. Pupils who would be eligible for the Pupil Premium, living in the priority circle (the centre of which is the Rugby Water Tower), who achieve the qualifying score or above
b Children living in the priority circle (the centre of which is the Rugby Water Tower) who achieve the qualifying score or above.
IV. Children living in the priority circle who have been considered by the Committee of Reference and placed on the reserve list
V. Other children who meet the qualifying standard for the school.

The order of priority of the two areas had already changed from the 2013 policy
II. The first 50% of the remaining places will be allocated to children living in the priority circle (the centre of which is the Rugby Water Tower) who meet the qualifying standard for the school.
III. The residual 50% of places will be allocated to children living in the Eastern Area of Warwickshire* who meet the qualifying standard for the school.

The 2013 -> 2014 policy change would have the effect of making less places available to children from the inner area (who previously got a share of the 50% places available to the wider circle for the higher scorers in the test, and then another 50% of the available places). Thus the qualifying score would be expected to rise (in practice this seems to have happened in 2013 anyway with the score being set at a level where places were offered on offer day outside of the qualifying area).

The new pupil premium changes are not likely to have any great effect on children in the inner area, but this may mean that pupils from the outer circle who qualify for the pupil premium (worth approx. £900 per year per pupil to the school) will obtain places with lower scores, thus potentially increasing the score required by other candidates from that area (although probably but not as much as they would be reduced by the reversal of the priority areas).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 1:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 1:47 pm
Posts: 2151
Location: Warwickshire
Are other grammar schools in Rugby - and Warwickshire - likely to do the same?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 2:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:20 pm
Posts: 1706
Location: Warwickshire
They would have to consult on it with interested parties - which includes parents - so if you have children already at the schools you would be notified if they had any plans to do the same. It would also be added to the school's website and the Warwickshire County Council site.

So far no indications that the others plan to follow suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 3:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:17 pm
Posts: 60
I read about this in The Mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... laces.html
In this article, Peter Kent, head of Lawrence Sheriff, said just one parent had so far objected to the change, but the school hoped to regain the ‘socially diverse mix’ it had 15 or 20 years ago.

Certainly there are children at Grammar Schools whose parents can afford private education (probably ex-grammar educated or financially secure otherwise). In that respect these children deny a place to other children and, I think, it is fair that a portion/quota of grammar school places should be linked to pupil premium plus exceeding a threshold mark in the 11+, to aid in social mobility or 'social engineering'.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 7:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:05 am
Posts: 349
For those on free school meals, LSS will fund school trips - Dr Kent seems to be passionate about ensuring that those on low income do not miss out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 8:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 7:15 pm
Posts: 81
Or maybe he's fed up with getting boys who are not actually that bright but got in due to 2 years intensive tutoring.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 8:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:05 am
Posts: 349
what makes you say that?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 7:15 pm
Posts: 81
Having been a 'mummy helper' at my childrens primary school since reception with friends who work at GS, I think I have become perhaps a bit saddened and rather synical about the whole 11plus thing and maybe I hold a torch for the ordinary child out there. There are those children who are naturally clever who go down the route of educated parents, bit of home tutoring for a few months and pass with flying colours (or shockingly don't pass as no preperation). There are those who are of average ability or just above, who, left with no help will be unlikely to pass as they are unlikely to have covered the year 6 work needed in maths etc at primary, with parents who can afford a tutor...many of these pass. Then there is the group who are of average or just under with VERY determined parents who start tutoring very early, many do not pass anyway but occasionally some do. But what about those who are extremely bright with uneducated parents or no chance of tutoring?. Most don't pass, and if they do, they find themselves in a social minority at grammer schools amongst more affluent children (cue bullying). As a top performing school, would you prefer to have the naturally brightest kids, who given the right teaching and environment will obtain excellent results, or take those less bright who in the long run will struggle and get Bs rather than A stars. I am just putting this down as my observations and whilst everyone is probably unanimous in wanting a gs for the excellent education, there is no getting round that in order to be a fair system it should really be a random test sometime in year 5 or 6 in order to be fair and not about a competition to get to an affluent school.
Personally, I don't think the change in admission will change this, it will probably advantage lone parent and larger families and goodness knows how a child who has a lower score than a friend but gets a place is going to deal with the fact that they got a place because they were 'poorer.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:20 pm
Posts: 1706
Location: Warwickshire
For it to make any difference at all they'll have to drop the AQS from what it was last year, or they'll not get enough qualified candidates from within the area - pupil premium or not. You'd hope that perhaps as this gets known then more people who might qualify would be prepared to let their children try for it. What would be really interesting would be initiatives aimed at supporting that group pre-exam. I know it has been done elsewhere - Sutton Trust/Pates in Gloucestershire and the Vale of Aylesbury Housing Trust in Buckinghamshire have both run schemes aimed at helping poorer children access GS places.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 7:15 pm
Posts: 81
Exactly, which is why I would question why they have done it, unless it just makes them look morally good on paper and ticks a box to any criticism regarding social unfairness.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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