DGGS - over-subscription criteria

Tracy · Post by **Tracy** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:32 pm

Rather than hijacking another thread could someone please explain the following criteria.

1. Girls in care

2. Girls with sister in school

3. Girls at partner primary schools

4. Girls who live within 1 mile and do not attend one of above schools

5. Exceptional performance - ie top 10%

6. Girls with brothers at DGS

7. Girls who attend schools which have traditionally sent girls to DGGS (20 schools are listed)

8. Remainder. List in order of aggregate scores

I can understand all the categories except no7. I can't understand why a child attending one of the 20 listed schools is higher up the list than a child living closer to Dartford Grammar but who attends another school (although not in cats 3 or 4). Surely this very policy stops other schools making it onto the list of those primaries who have traditionally sent girls to Dartford. It seems crazy!! Can anyone explain?

perplexed · Post by **perplexed** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:57 pm

Well it sounds stupid to me too, but when they consulted on this policy (when was it slung together?) there must have someone who did not object to it!

Are the schools who "traditionally sent" (as opposed to non-traditionally sent) girls to DGS in Kent, not Bexley?

SSM · Post by **SSM** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:46 am

Some of the schools who "traditionally sent" girls to DGGS are in Bexley and some are in Kent.

DGGS, now comes under Kent LEA. I might be totally wrong here, but I think few years ago DGGS had a different entrance exam and did not come under the Kent 11+, so it might be a throw back to then.

SSM · Post by **SSM** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:51 am

I've just looked at the Kent admissions booklet, and all the schools listed under "traditionally sent" seem to fall into one of the criteria below
1) are in Bexley
2) are independents
3) fall under the Swanley/Longfiel Comprehensive area.

WP · Post by WP » Sat Feb 21, 2009 3:51 pm

Including independent schools among named feeder schools is forbidden by the recently revised Admissions Code. (This has recently made the national news in connection with a couple of grammar schools in Poole, Dorset.)

Tracy · Post by **Tracy** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:58 pm

Dartford did used to be outside the Kent 11+ so this might explain it. So if the criteria are now out of date but are still being used, how do you go about objecting? I just think that cat 7 is a complete nonsense and needs addressing.
It seems crazy to me that a child living one and half miles away, just outside the top 10% of exam passes but is at the wrong primary school can be pushed to the back of the queue yet a child living numerous miles away can get a place simply due to to historical reasons.

WP · Post by WP » Sat Feb 21, 2009 8:12 pm

Tracy wrote:Dartford did used to be outside the Kent 11+ so this might explain it. So if the criteria are now out of date but are still being used, how do you go about objecting? I just think that cat 7 is a complete nonsense and needs addressing.
It seems crazy to me that a child living one and half miles away, just outside the top 10% of exam passes but is at the wrong primary school can be pushed to the back of the queue yet a child living numerous miles away can get a place simply due to to historical reasons.

The schools are consulting now on their draft admissions arrangements for September 2010. You need to write to the chair of governors before 1st March. They will determine their arrangements by mid-April. If you believe that any provision is unlawful or contravenes a mandatory provision of the Admissions Code, you can then object to the Schools Adjudicator. For example, their inclusion of Steephill School, which is independent, as a feeder school contravenes paragraph 2.72 of the Revised Admissions Code. I suspect their use of sibling criteria is incompatible with the use of scores as a tie-breaker.
Oops: I was looking at the 2009 version: these provisions are both gone from the 2010 arrangements.

Tracy · Post by **Tracy** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:45 pm

WP, thanks for that. I will get a letter done asap.

Tracy · Post by **Tracy** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:13 am

Well, how things change. WP, I have followed your links and can see the the proposal is to take out that dodgy cat 7 but it has now got me thinking about the other criteria.

The new proposals are:

1. Girls in local authority care

2. Girls attending local primary partner schools

3. All other applicants regardless of address.

Should insufficient places remain to accommodate all eligible girls in any of the above
categories, those performing best in the Mathematics, NVR and VR entry tests
(aggregate score) will be given higher priority.

In the case of tied scores, preference is given to the applicant living nearest to the
school measured in a straight line using ordnance survey address point data.

Wouldn't it be better just to offer places on distance rather than state that a child needs to attend a 'partner primary school' ? Also if these are all Kent primaries then isn't that being rather unfair to Bexley residents? Will check these out individually in case I'm wrong! In Bexley we are not allowed to promote Bexley kids over those from other boroughs when they apply to Bexley's grammars.
Also what is stopping a child moving house after securing a place at a partner primary school. This child will still have priority over a child living opposite the schools gates.

This is still strange.

Tracy · Post by **Tracy** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:26 am

As far as I can see the schools listed ARE in Kent which means that assuming aggregate scores are the same, applicants DO NOT have an equal chance of a place. What the school proposes is clearly biased to those children attending a partner primary regardless of where they live. I didn't think this was allowed. Can anyone shed any light on this?