Go to navigation
It is currently Fri Dec 09, 2016 11:13 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 5:12 pm
Posts: 1301
Location: Birmingham
A number of interesting articles in yesterday's Independent regarding the PP lower pass initiative introduced in Birmingham KE Grammars for the first time this year. (circa 20% of places available for PP candidates with a lower min pass score)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/grammar-schools-set-lower-pass-mark-for-poorer-kids-10131366.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/full-marks-an-enlightened-approach-to-grammar-school-admissions-in-birmingham-has-the-potential-to-be-of-national-benefit-10131499.html

Quote:
The new two-tier pass mark – the first results of which are revealed by The Independent today – appears to represent one of the most radical and effective ever attempts to reduce the middle-class strangehold on good grammars


(The PP entry proportions for KE Aston, KE Five Ways and KE Camp Hill boys are 25%, 20% and 20% respectively)

The Sutton Trust seems to strongly support this initiative:-

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/birminghams-twotier-grammar-schools-entrance-plan-wins-support-10134147.html

I suspect that other regions will come under intensive pressure to introduce similar initiatives.

Interestingly a fact the press hasn't picked up (which we have noticed from empirical feedback on the Birmingham Forum) is that many of the PP scores reported were actually very high and the candidates would have achieved a place anyway under the old entry regime. So it looks as though the dual PP/normal entry approach has achieved one major objective of encouraging PP candidates to apply (perhaps because they didn't think that working class, non tutored kids didn't stand a chance!!)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 10:00 pm
Posts: 5423
Location: RBK
Nonsuch, Wallington High and Tiffin Girls have also introduced reserved places for pp children. However, TGS has also put such a high bar for PP children that, as mentioned by KenR, those who are successful in getting the place would have got in anyway.


Last edited by tiffinboys on Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 26, 2015 9:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2014 7:20 pm
Posts: 124
A commendable effort to level the playing field. I hope this approach will spread and, over time, banish the “not for us” mindset that appears to be prevent some families from aiming sufficiently high for their talented DC.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 26, 2015 7:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 2:51 pm
Posts: 1037
The Latymer school also has introduced this from next year, setting aside 20 pp places for those ranked in the top 350. I think this is an excellent move as it enables the non tutored local children a chance to get in. Agree with the comments that hopefully other schools will follow suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2015 10:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:33 pm
Posts: 312
Location: Bucks
The actual scores are given at: http://www.birminghamgrammarschools.org/content/results-and-offers
Where the PP applies these are as follows:
Code:
King Edward VI Aston School 224 (207 pupil premium) -7.5%
King Edward VI Camp Hill School for Boys 243 (219 pupil premium) -9.8%
King Edward VI Five Ways School 232 (206 pupil premium) -11.2%
King Edward VI Camp Hill School for Girls 231 (210 pupil premium) -9.1%
King Edward VI Handsworth School for Girls 219 (209 pupil premium) -4.6%
So I make the average difference -8.4% not the -7.0% quoted, not that that matters much. So basically they're saying that the test itself is no more than some sort of vague guide as to who might be "grammar school material". What's the point of that?!

I think in Bucks the grammar schools probably know something that we don't: how much they would have to drop the magical 121 before they'd admit a representative number of PP pupils. Here we've got no "encouraging PP candidates to apply" excuse/issue because we have an opt out system. Maybe someone knows and could share, but probably about 110 as the PP pass-mark? And you seriously think this differential would be acceptable in a fully selective system?
KenR wrote:
Interestingly a fact the press hasn't picked up (which we have noticed from empirical feedback on the Birmingham Forum) is that many of the PP scores reported were actually very high and the candidates would have achieved a place anyway under the old entry regime. So it looks as though the dual PP/normal entry approach has achieved one major objective of encouraging PP candidates to apply (perhaps because they didn't think that working class, non tutored kids didn't stand a chance!!)
I think you may mean that your "fact" is anectodotal, not empirical. 10% of the qualified pupils were PP before this change, so obviously these children would have qualified under the old entry regime anyway, with high scores? So I don't think you've provided any evidence at all to suggest that the approach has achieved the objective of getting more PP candidates to apply. I assume the admission authorities will have the actual numbers - may be they've published them somewhere.

And then of course you come to the "non-tutored" kids! I'd be interested to know if you consider children prepared via the information provided on this web site as "non-tutored"? And are they "working class"? Carry on levelling the playing field KenR!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 18, 2015 8:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2014 5:03 pm
Posts: 1188
Location: Cheshire
pippi wrote:
And then of course you come to the "non-tutored" kids! I'd be interested to know if you consider children prepared via the information provided on this web site as "non-tutored"? And are they "working class"? Carry on levelling the playing field KenR!


An interesting and articulate riposte.

This forum is mostly frequented by Middle Class -selection mad parents( this much is true) but here is the crucial difference it allows the "working class" to access information on the 11+ process FREE as it advises on how to negotiate the 11+ quagmire to find free material(DIY)so that the disadvantaged can complete with the those in the know with financial muscle. What I like is it works against it's own commercial interests(which would be to put the fear of God in everyone and suggest unless we bought into their "shop" or commercial backers we are all doomed to failure)

One reason I am against CEM is that for a small price any family can afford the GL familiarization papers, all 8 of them , and can adequately prepare their child( along side the free advise , material found on this site.

if this was not the case . I would have no truck with this forum


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:33 pm
Posts: 312
Location: Bucks
I doubt that any single entity has done more than this website to undermine the integrity and credibility of the GL, and now CEM, 11+ tests. That's why the PP initiative is needed. If only the "working class" (parents) would avail themselves of all the wonderful free information and DIY material provided here... I'm amazed it isn't registered as a charity. Actually I'd have thought that fanning the 11+ arms race was quite good for business - registered company Technical One Ltd 05157615 if you're interested. http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//compdetails


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2015 9:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 10:00 pm
Posts: 5423
Location: RBK
pippi wrote:
Actually I'd have thought that fanning the 11+ arms race was quite good for business - registered company Technical One Ltd 05157615 if you're interested. http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//compdetails

?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2015 11:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 4605
Location: Essex
tiffinboys wrote:
pippi wrote:
Actually I'd have thought that fanning the 11+ arms race was quite good for business - registered company Technical One Ltd 05157615 if you're interested. http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//compdetails

?


EPE being a division of Technical One, its closet purpose being to get more DC into hedge fund management, via a grammar school education, perhaps?

("Technical One Limited has been established since June 2004 to pioneer research for a start-up hedge fund into optimal multi-asset portfolio construction based on technical indicators and high frequency linear & non-linear index trading algorithms.

More information will appear on this website once the fund is launched.").

Actually '?' here too :?

_________________
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.Groucho Marx


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

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