RHS changes its admissions policy

Eleven Plus (11+) in Warwickshire

Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators

11 Plus Platform - Online Practice Makes Perfect - Try Now
loopylou
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:08 am

Re: RHS changes its admissions policy

Post by loopylou »

I hope the two tier scoring system that works against hard working parents is deemed unlawful and this is not allowed. They should simply encourage applications from poorer families. What is next? Lower grades for Universities from poorer children. Priority in jobs if poorer. Where does it stop?
It will not be deemed unlawful because it is written into law already.
The Admission Code specifically allows an admissions authority to give priority to children who meet certain disadvantaged criteria. This covers the FSM definition but also other children with difficult starts or vulnerable lives. At grammar schools using this priority, children will still need to pass but won't need to achieve one of the top scores to get a place as another child might.

I totally support this (and no, we won't benefit from it) but in reality, very few children are likely to be admitted under this criteria. Passing the 11+ in most regions requires coaching of some kind no matter how able a child is. Any new priority order will not resolve that. However, this will reinforce the view that grammar schools should not be the preserve of clever children with parents willing and able to resource their exam preparation but should also admit clever children with less advantages. A grammar school place has increasingly come to be seen as the reward for months or years of hard work and their intakes do not reflect the fact that very clever children exist outside a world where parents dedicate themselves to securing a place.
gideon
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 2:54 pm

RHS changes its admissions policy

Post by gideon »

1. I support lower marks for Asian and Eastern European children et al, as the VR component is unfair to them.
English is not their first language. Let's also have a proportion of places for all ethnic minorities to ensure social inclusion. Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese, Polish, Lithianians, Romanians etc as these are under represented.

Do not assume I am "white middle class". I am not.

2. Pupil premium children who FAIL to gain the AQM get places will be offered places. I repeat FAIL to score the AQM. LSS is AQM minus 10 marks and up to 10 places. They are already at the bottom of the pile and could struggle as they didn't need preparation for this test (isn't this what we are told). On this ground alone they should score the same.

3. Priority for Pupil Premium is based upon order of admission, as a tie breaker as there must be some tie breaker. What is not allowed is a lower score as the admissions code states admission must be fair. It is not fair to discriminate against a child who is not eligible for the pupil premium. This is a matter for Schools Adjudicator to rule. LSS had to gain special permission from the Secretary for State last year as it is not an academy and cannot ask for data on parental income.

4. The Birmingham grammar schools intend to do this next year, but as far as I know only as a tie breaker and not a lower score.
loopylou
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:08 am

Re: RHS changes its admissions policy

Post by loopylou »

I support lower marks for Asian and Eastern European children et al, as the VR component is unfair to them.English is not their first language. Let's also have a proportion of places for all ethnic minorities to ensure social inclusion. Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese, Polish, Lithianians, Romanians etc as these are under represented.
That is a point of view you are entitled to hold but race or ethnicity is not a factor covered in admissions laws whereas FSM is. Illness is sometimes considered in the sense an authority can opt to have a priority category for medical needs in addition to the one that is compulsory for statemented children. There are lots of children who suffer various disadvantages and one could make a case for many groups to have priority. However, if you are talking about the law as it stands, children on FSM are explicitly written in to law as a potential priority group.
What is not allowed is a lower score as the admissions code states admission must be fair. It is not fair to discriminate against a child who is not eligible for the pupil premium.
You are incorrect.
The admissions code allows grammar schools to offer places to disadvantaged pupils who have reached the very bare minimum score required to be considered of selective ability. This score will often be below the qualifying mark required for other pupils. This in fact is how statemented children are already admitted. If they have a statement naming a grammar school they need only meet the minimum score to be deemed of selective ability. They do not need to equal or exceed the eventual qualifying mark that is used to differentiate between all other candidates.
Priority for Pupil Premium is based upon order of admission, as a tie breaker as there must be some tie breaker.
Again this is incorrect. Under current legislation an admissions authority can choose to give actual priority to these children above all other children. So it isn't just a tie breaker as would be the case in awarding the last few places. It is an actual priority that places them for consideration before others can be allocated. Of course, they can also go the tie-breaker route if they wish and use a watered down version of the priority options too. It is up to them. This is going to affect very small numbers of children. Some grammars are limiting the FSM priority - for example Tiffins intend to award the first 30 places to people in this category but any extras (there aren't expected to be) will be shifted into the main category with everyone else.
It is not fair to discriminate against a child who is not eligible for the pupil premium.
By the same token you could say it is not fair to discriminate against a child who is not eligible for a sibling place or not eligible for priority due to adoption or not eligible for any priority linked to a medical condition or not eligible for a statement..... The admissions code allows many people to be put above others on a higher score even in selective schools. The concept of this being unfair may be something you feel morally is the case but is not legally the case. Personally I don't think it is even morally unfair. The rationale for priority groups where these can be defined is to even things up.
gideon
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 2:54 pm

RHS changes its admissions policy

Post by gideon »

The rules are different for academies. LSS for example is not an academy yet and cannot give fsm priority without permission as the Admissions code does not allow questions in parents income.

This is the first year of a dual scoring system in admission codes and the Adjudicator will rule.

The fsm was about non selective schools and catchement areas. It was never intended to create a dual score selective system.

The advice is, engineer so, ensure your child is a fsm child when they begin primary school for at least 1 day.
Then resume your career as fsm priority is valid for 6 years. Spend all your money, have holidays, live off the state and then work hard.

If you are genuinely poor, don't better yourself unless you have fsm status. Then try and work hard.
magwich2
Posts: 866
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:33 pm

Re: RHS changes its admissions policy

Post by magwich2 »

I do agree that children from poor families should have a good start in life and the same opportunities as all other children BUT THEY HAVE ALREADY HAD SIX YEARS OF SCHOOL by the time they take the 11+.

That is when they should be sorted out and their families left in no doubt as to what is expected, rather than being favoured by secondary school admission criteria.
rabbie burns
Posts: 251
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 12:48 pm

Re: RHS changes its admissions policy

Post by rabbie burns »

gideon
I make no assumptions about peoples class or ethnicity. But I do know when a particular class is trying to protect their advantage over others.

Birmingham are having a qualifying score. Everyone above that is considered for a place. Priority is then given to FSM children etc. who qualified. This means your nightmare of child a getting in with 210 and child b not getting in with 215 could happen. It is not a tie breaker. That is something used to decide between two children on the same score. Like distance from the school gate. Get you facts right. I dont even understand what you are saying in terms of your bizarre list of ethnicities and nationalities. Please stick to someones nationality or ethnicity because they are not the same thing. Or is it your attempt at irony. Who knows or cares. Getting in even if you do not score highly enough is more dubious.
serendippyty
Posts: 352
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 8:23 pm

Re: RHS changes its admissions policy

Post by serendippyty »

gideon wrote:The rules are different for academies. LSS for example is not an academy yet and cannot give fsm priority without permission as the Admissions code does not allow questions in parents income.

This is the first year of a dual scoring system in admission codes and the Adjudicator will rule.

The fsm was about non selective schools and catchement areas. It was never intended to create a dual score selective system.

The advice is, engineer so, ensure your child is a fsm child when they begin primary school for at least 1 day.
Then resume your career as fsm priority is valid for 6 years. Spend all your money, have holidays, live off the state and then work hard.

If you are genuinely poor, don't better yourself unless you have fsm status. Then try and work hard.
I don't really see how. In order to claim benefits (which, by the way, is not the cushy lifestyle the Daily Mail et al would have you believe) you cannot, for example, quit your job and walk straight into them. You must attend appointments, and seek work if your children are above a certain age. The majority of parents will favour working over benefits as it is more financially viable and opens up more opportunities ie better housing.

A small minority will abuse it. I doubt very much that those who have no work ethic will have any interest in putting their children in for grammar school. This merely offers disadvantaged children, who are stuck in difficult circumstances, a small helping hand.
rabbie burns
Posts: 251
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 12:48 pm

Re: RHS changes its admissions policy

Post by rabbie burns »

What if its six years at a terrible school. They dont tend to take the exam because the odds are stacked against them. This is an attempt to encourage them to sit the exam and slightly level the playing field. Nothing more.
loopylou
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:08 am

Re: RHS changes its admissions policy

Post by loopylou »

The rules are different for academies.
The fsm was about non selective schools and catchement areas. It was never intended to create a dual score selective system
This is simply not true.
Firstly the Admission Code is law. It is binding on all state schools and this includes Academies, Free Schools and LA controlled schools. It also includes grammar schools except for a few extra provisions that are made for selective schools (for example that they cannot have a sibling link if they rely entirely on score). I assure you that the FSM criteria absolutely can be applied to these schools and is not listed in the code as one the grammar school exceptions.

Secondly, no school can ask prospective parents for details of their income. A child's ability to qualify for the FSM criteria is determined by lists of those who are already in receipt of the pupil premium and also other factors such as if they are a forces family. The LA holds such records and it is the LA who deals with ALL applications from ALL children to ALL schools.
The academies may be their own admission authority but they do not process applications or send out offers or deal with statements etc. The LA is involved in processing every application no matter which state schools it names and it is the LA who will check the qualifying criteria that has income as an element.

Lastly, one would hope that rather than view this as a new loophole to be exploited, it may actually be that parents will accept a very small number of children genuinely need extra provision and introducing a small element of help and balance is a good thing.
kittymum
Posts: 925
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 10:42 pm

Re: RHS changes its admissions policy

Post by kittymum »

This seems such a simple thing I can't see why anybody could object to it except with a Daily Mail "they're trying to steal our school places type of attitude".

Do you agree that some children are disadvantaged? Do you feel that these children should be afforded every chance to move themselves out of the terrible situations they are in (not just financial)? Do you agree that the rate of attainment of pupil premium pupils slows thus widening the gap between them and their more fortunate contemporaries? Should we as a caring, developed society care for these most vulnerable members of our society? Would the grammar schools really admit anyone who could damage their results / lower their place in the league tables? Therefore should the grammar schools seek to admit those qualified students who are most disadvantaged ahead of those more privileged?

It's not rocket science is it? Yes it may mean that a tutored, prepared, middle class kid is not admitted but it is a fair and just system.
Post Reply
11 Plus Mocks - Practise the real exam experience - Book Now