Wqual preference....or not
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
Equal preference....or not
I posted this in another thread but would welcome comments on how people think the system would pan out.
Have a look at this..
http://www.langley-grammar.slough.sch.u ... speech.pdf
especially pages 3,5 & 6
I am concerned that although the LEA runs a 'equal preference' model the Slough consortium are saying that the school should be 'first choice' on the consortium form.This would suggest that someone scoring 112 (with Herschel as first choice) would be admitted to Herschel before someone scoring 115 with Langley as first choice.... which is not working with the 'equal preference' model of the LEA.......
-
Guest001
Chad,
If anything, I think it should have been Langley to leave the Slough Consortium of Grammar Schools because of thier selection process.
I think you are correct and you probably have more chances of going into Herschel with 112 and choosing it first choice than to Langley with 115 and choosing it first choice.
All Grammars will be oversubscribed with eligible children with over 111, however it is only Langley that start by offering the highest scoring children with Langley as first choice - selfshishness? Does Langley consider how close the child is to the vicinity of the school, sibling... etc? I have not seen Herschel or St Bernards do that.
Unless all Grammar schools have the SAME 'selection policy/procedure' the Equal Preference Model will not work - in my opinion
If anything, I think it should have been Langley to leave the Slough Consortium of Grammar Schools because of thier selection process.
I think you are correct and you probably have more chances of going into Herschel with 112 and choosing it first choice than to Langley with 115 and choosing it first choice.
All Grammars will be oversubscribed with eligible children with over 111, however it is only Langley that start by offering the highest scoring children with Langley as first choice - selfshishness? Does Langley consider how close the child is to the vicinity of the school, sibling... etc? I have not seen Herschel or St Bernards do that.
Unless all Grammar schools have the SAME 'selection policy/procedure' the Equal Preference Model will not work - in my opinion
In the Admissions booklet from SBC...Langley grammar says...
Where the number of applications exceeds the number of places available, places will be allocated according to rank order of
performance in the admission tests, subject to paragraph 4.
4. In the event of one or more eligible pupils being tied for the final place or places, priority will be decided according to the following
criteria:
(i) proximity to the school by a suitable walking route as measured from the main double entrance gate of Langley Grammar School to the front door of the candidate’s house.
This makes no mention of the order of preference on the consortium registration form.
on the langley site.. it says.
Langley Grammar school September admission 2007
Taking the present year 7 cohort as an example (with an intake of 145 places), due to over-subscription in this school initial offers were made to candidates scoring 120 and above with all other first choice candidates scoring 111 - 119 being placed on a waiting list that operates until the end of September.
Over the passage of time, offers were made to all candidates scoring 116 and above and to some scoring 115 applying our admission criteria.
Does this mean that any 'second choice' candidates scoring 111- 119 were not on the waiting list? Therefore a child that put Langley Grammar as 2nd choice scoring 119 could, theoretically speaking, could be refused a place for a child who put Langley as first choice but only scored 116.
This then would be the same for the other consortium grammars!!!!
Where the number of applications exceeds the number of places available, places will be allocated according to rank order of
performance in the admission tests, subject to paragraph 4.
4. In the event of one or more eligible pupils being tied for the final place or places, priority will be decided according to the following
criteria:
(i) proximity to the school by a suitable walking route as measured from the main double entrance gate of Langley Grammar School to the front door of the candidate’s house.
This makes no mention of the order of preference on the consortium registration form.
on the langley site.. it says.
Langley Grammar school September admission 2007
Taking the present year 7 cohort as an example (with an intake of 145 places), due to over-subscription in this school initial offers were made to candidates scoring 120 and above with all other first choice candidates scoring 111 - 119 being placed on a waiting list that operates until the end of September.
Over the passage of time, offers were made to all candidates scoring 116 and above and to some scoring 115 applying our admission criteria.
Does this mean that any 'second choice' candidates scoring 111- 119 were not on the waiting list? Therefore a child that put Langley Grammar as 2nd choice scoring 119 could, theoretically speaking, could be refused a place for a child who put Langley as first choice but only scored 116.
This then would be the same for the other consortium grammars!!!!
-
Bewildered
- Posts: 1806
- Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 2:29 pm
- Location: Berkshire
I think the confusion arises from the fact that the Consortium grammars, are a combination of Foundation and Voluntary Aided, and as such are able to set their own admissions criteria. The consortium have judged that within their remit of setting admissions criteria, that it also includes sending out all consortium grammar place offers; 1st, 2nd and subsequent rounds...
St. Bernards specify, that after passing the 11+, to qualify for a place, if over subscription comes into effect, the child has then also got to be of the Roman Catholic faith, next- other Christian denominations, then- other faiths will be considered.
Langley Grammar specify, that after passing the 11+, to qualify for a place, if over subscription comes into effect, the child has then also got to be in the top 145; 'rank order of performance' (attain above 120 in last yrs test) places, next for tied situations shortest distance to school.
So with each, the child not only has to pass, but then also has to have said Grammars extra requirement to gain a place;
St Bernards - be of the required faith
Langley - be within top 145 ... rank order of performance, (last year...this was attaining a score within the 120+ category).
It appears Langley are setting their admissions in line with St. Bernards, albeit with differing requirements.
It then follows that if you want that particular grammar, you would place it as 1st choice. In the case of SB you would know prior to the test whether you meet one of their admissions requirements; with Langley you wouldn't know until after the results come out.
The Local Authorities are bound by the Equal Preference CAF ruling, laid down in February of this year, as they use the CAF model in their admissions process.
If looked at in the context of St. Bernards and Langley, I think it becomes somewhat clearer.After March 3rd 2008 we (or your chosen Slough grammar school) will write to you to confirm that we are able to offer a place OR to tell you that we are placing your child on a waiting list which will enable you to hold (accept) any other place offered by the authority until such time as we can confirm a place at the school.
St. Bernards specify, that after passing the 11+, to qualify for a place, if over subscription comes into effect, the child has then also got to be of the Roman Catholic faith, next- other Christian denominations, then- other faiths will be considered.
Langley Grammar specify, that after passing the 11+, to qualify for a place, if over subscription comes into effect, the child has then also got to be in the top 145; 'rank order of performance' (attain above 120 in last yrs test) places, next for tied situations shortest distance to school.
So with each, the child not only has to pass, but then also has to have said Grammars extra requirement to gain a place;
St Bernards - be of the required faith
Langley - be within top 145 ... rank order of performance, (last year...this was attaining a score within the 120+ category).
It appears Langley are setting their admissions in line with St. Bernards, albeit with differing requirements.
It then follows that if you want that particular grammar, you would place it as 1st choice. In the case of SB you would know prior to the test whether you meet one of their admissions requirements; with Langley you wouldn't know until after the results come out.
The Local Authorities are bound by the Equal Preference CAF ruling, laid down in February of this year, as they use the CAF model in their admissions process.
Nicely explained BW - 
Now what about the 'first pref'
If on both the CAF form and the Slough consortium form you had put
Langley as 1st pref
Herschel as second pref
and scored 113.........
with Burnham as 3rd on the CAF (scored 121)
Langley would not offer in the first round as below first round cut-off therefore under the LEA's 'equal preference would offer Herschel.... but what if (just surmising).
Herschels first round cut-off was 114... then according to Langley (Langley & herschel have the same admissions policy apparently).... Herschel would not offer in the first round and you would not go on the waiting list as wasn't 1st choice.
Burnham would be offered and although 113 could be offered in the second round by Herschel it would not be offered to any other than those who had Herschel as 1st Choice. So you would not get your 'equal pref' as stipulated by the Lea.
Confusing isn't it
Comments......
Now what about the 'first pref'
If on both the CAF form and the Slough consortium form you had put
Langley as 1st pref
Herschel as second pref
and scored 113.........
with Burnham as 3rd on the CAF (scored 121)
Langley would not offer in the first round as below first round cut-off therefore under the LEA's 'equal preference would offer Herschel.... but what if (just surmising).
Herschels first round cut-off was 114... then according to Langley (Langley & herschel have the same admissions policy apparently).... Herschel would not offer in the first round and you would not go on the waiting list as wasn't 1st choice.
initial offers were made to candidates scoring 120 and above with all other first choice candidates scoring 111 - 119 being placed on a waiting list that operates until the end of September
Burnham would be offered and although 113 could be offered in the second round by Herschel it would not be offered to any other than those who had Herschel as 1st Choice. So you would not get your 'equal pref' as stipulated by the Lea.
Confusing isn't it
Comments......-
Bewildered
- Posts: 1806
- Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 2:29 pm
- Location: Berkshire
Yep!! It's confusing.chad wrote: So you would not get your 'equal pref' as stipulated by the Lea.
Confusing isn't it
If you know who deals with appeals for the consortium grammars, and who deals with 2nd and 3rd rounds of offers, you may have your answer?
I think the LEA is bound by the February Equal Preference Ruling.
The Consortium is bound by its own admissions policy.
In your scenario, the LEA would offer the applicant Burnham grammar. I'm guessing that that would be the end of their involvement other than receiving the acceptance/refusal form from the applicants.
Would not subsequent rounds then be dealt with by the consortium? Thereby still applying their own admissions policies?
Just thinking out loud... May be completely wrong
-
Bewildered
- Posts: 1806
- Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 2:29 pm
- Location: Berkshire
Melx has also just pointed out that applicants apply on two application forms; CAF and Consortium.
This also suggests that applicants are then dealing with two separate administrations; LEA and Consortium, each with it's own admissions policies.
However you can't say that they are totally independent, as in the 1st round the consortium have to advise the LEA of offers. Then the consortium also send out these offers directly to the applicants... and thus confusion reigns rampant!!!
Again, thinking out loud...may be totally off on one!! So take under advisement
This also suggests that applicants are then dealing with two separate administrations; LEA and Consortium, each with it's own admissions policies.
However you can't say that they are totally independent, as in the 1st round the consortium have to advise the LEA of offers. Then the consortium also send out these offers directly to the applicants... and thus confusion reigns rampant!!!
Again, thinking out loud...may be totally off on one!! So take under advisement
-
Kendrick mum
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 5:41 pm
- Location: Berkshire
Hi,chad wrote:Nicely explained BW -
Now what about the 'first pref'
If on both the CAF form and the Slough consortium form you had put
Langley as 1st pref
Herschel as second pref
and scored 113.........
with Burnham as 3rd on the CAF (scored 121)
Langley would not offer in the first round as below first round cut-off therefore under the LEA's 'equal preference would offer Herschel.... but what if (just surmising).
Herschels first round cut-off was 114... then according to Langley (Langley & herschel have the same admissions policy apparently).... Herschel would not offer in the first round and you would not go on the waiting list as wasn't 1st choice.
initial offers were made to candidates scoring 120 and above with all other first choice candidates scoring 111 - 119 being placed on a waiting list that operates until the end of September
Burnham would be offered and although 113 could be offered in the second round by Herschel it would not be offered to any other than those who had Herschel as 1st Choice. So you would not get your 'equal pref' as stipulated by the Lea.
Confusing isn't it
Sorry to revive an old discussion but it is interesting.
About the bold: According to the equal preference rule, shouldn't Herschel offer a place to a 114 [that doesn't get their first preference] regardless of whether it a first preference or not?