Pupil Premium 2016 and beyond
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
Pupil Premium 2016 and beyond
Pupil premium - can't make sense of it.
KEVIHS - 209 No rise - but +4 on non PP threshold - did 100% of PP places get taken???
KEA - 209 +2 on PP but non PP drops 3???
CHB - 224 +5 PP even though non PP dropped 5...mmmmmh!
CHG - 216 +6 rise but +4 rise in non PP too
KEFW - 210 + 4 rise n non PP too. but +1 non PP
Rhyme, Reason, I can't make out any, No idea what is going on!!
KEVIHS - 209 No rise - but +4 on non PP threshold - did 100% of PP places get taken???
KEA - 209 +2 on PP but non PP drops 3???
CHB - 224 +5 PP even though non PP dropped 5...mmmmmh!
CHG - 216 +6 rise but +4 rise in non PP too
KEFW - 210 + 4 rise n non PP too. but +1 non PP
Rhyme, Reason, I can't make out any, No idea what is going on!!
Re: Pupil Premium 2016 and beyond
Are all these PP cut-off's beyond the minimum applicable cut-off for each school for entry? If yes, then I will assume all places have been taken.
Re: Pupil Premium 2016 and beyond
MSD the way it works is that you must first get the qualifying score. 209 in most cases, but 200 I think for KEFW (not totally sure).
As an Example last year KEVIHS allocated 32 places on PP with the minimum 209 score to be considered. Only 24 applicants came forward with pupil premium.
Consequently the 8 unused places reverted back to the non PP applicants.
I had expected that the PP 20% places would be oversubscribed, thus pushing up the minimum score. I think the 209 tells that 100% or LESS or the available PP places were allocated. In other words, they were not oversubscribed.
I am struggling to get my head round how CHB can have an increase in its PP cut off but a drop in its Non PP. I am wondering whether places like Tudor Grange have taken some of the traditional demand for boys places.
Flummoxed really!!
As an Example last year KEVIHS allocated 32 places on PP with the minimum 209 score to be considered. Only 24 applicants came forward with pupil premium.
Consequently the 8 unused places reverted back to the non PP applicants.
I had expected that the PP 20% places would be oversubscribed, thus pushing up the minimum score. I think the 209 tells that 100% or LESS or the available PP places were allocated. In other words, they were not oversubscribed.
I am struggling to get my head round how CHB can have an increase in its PP cut off but a drop in its Non PP. I am wondering whether places like Tudor Grange have taken some of the traditional demand for boys places.
Flummoxed really!!
Re: Pupil Premium 2016 and beyond
Yes, that's what I meant.
So in all cases, except one, the last PP cut off is more than the qualifying minimum PP score. Therefore, I would assume that all PP places have been taken apart from KEVIHS.
So in all cases, except one, the last PP cut off is more than the qualifying minimum PP score. Therefore, I would assume that all PP places have been taken apart from KEVIHS.
Re: Pupil Premium 2016 and beyond
That really tells me that the ability gap between the overall PP and non PP cohort, applying to CHB, has reduced as compared to last year. And that's not at all surprising based on all the discussion we had on this subject in the past few monthsPetitpois wrote:I am struggling to get my head round how CHB can have an increase in its PP cut off but a drop in its Non PP. I am wondering whether places like Tudor Grange have taken some of the traditional demand for boys places.
Flummoxed really!!
Re: Pupil Premium 2016 and beyond
Yes sorry I am being unclear. Thanks MSD.
+1 on both your comments, that makes sense.
PP
+1 on both your comments, that makes sense.
PP
Re: Pupil Premium 2016 and beyond
Playground arguments breaking out over pp allocations and higher borderline scores which have not gained places. It does seem a little unfair?
Edit: ive just found a thread on pupil premium discussing some of the concerns I have so going to have a read of that...
Edit: ive just found a thread on pupil premium discussing some of the concerns I have so going to have a read of that...
Re: Pupil Premium 2016 and beyond
That is ridiculous. I spoke with a 10yr old lad yesterday who got KEA and is over the moon at his place at KEA.
They are conscious of PP, because he told me both his score and PP status.
Last thing kids need is grown's up having a ding dong. Yeezus
Next three years are going to be very very tight for 11+ and catchments as well
PP
They are conscious of PP, because he told me both his score and PP status.
Last thing kids need is grown's up having a ding dong. Yeezus
Next three years are going to be very very tight for 11+ and catchments as well
PP
Re: Pupil Premium 2016 and beyond
I've overheard many a conversation at the school gates on how to abuse the PP equation.
Unfortunately the genuine PP candidates are disadvantaged as a result if they lose out by a couple of points.
Unfortunately the genuine PP candidates are disadvantaged as a result if they lose out by a couple of points.
-
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 12:59 pm
- Location: West Midlands
Re: Pupil Premium 2016 and beyond
Now I'm wondering: what did user PP mean by "catchments?"