Proposed admission Criteria B'ham Grammars 2020

[JaneEyre]

Thank you for the link Quasi.

The first line of the article is 'The Selective Schools Expansion Fund will allow grammars schools to expand their premises, offering places to disadvantaged pupils.'
So why create catchment areas if only the score could be worked on for disadvantaged pupils? There is so much unfairness in these catchment areas!

[Ricky74]

Here's a link to the story in Schools Week, listing the 16 schools:

https://schoolsweek.co.uk/dfe-names-16- ... sion-cash/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JaneEyre]

Here's a link to the story in Schools Week, listing the 16 schools:

https://schoolsweek.co.uk/dfe-names-16- ... sion-cash/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thank you for this article, Ricky 74. It points out that the GS belonging to the Schools of King Edward VI in Birmingham will not get a share of this £50m expansion cash.

[mitasol]

This is just the first round, other money may forthcoming at a later stage.

[LilacTree]

I have been following this issue with interest. Personally, whilst I am not against some form of catchment area being introduced, I do feel very strongly that distance from the school is not the best solution. It is literally a postcode lottery, and will allow the more affluent, or more creative in acquiring a local address, to benefit at the expense of other potentially brighter pupils who happen to live further afield.

This brings me on to the second issue, namely that anyone living outside of 'Birmingham' will have little or no chance of getting a place. It seems that the currently quoted 'mission statement' from the Foundation has been changed in the past few years. Their archived website from 2014 states their mission as follows:

"The role of the Foundation of King Edward the Sixth is to promote the education of children and young persons living in or around the City of Birmingham by providing and/or assisting its schools to the benefit of the community.

The Foundation aims:
To serve the community of Birmingham and its surrounding area, irrespective of race or creed, by providing schools which aim at the highest standards of academic achievement, in a broad and balanced curriculum together with relevant extra curricular activities"

Maybe it's just me, but it seems as though this has been changed to suit their own purposes, whatever these may be, which makes these proposals seem somewhat less genuine in intent.

[crazycrofter]

The thing is, the schools never used to be available to those outside Birmingham. I grew up on the north side of Bromsgrove, I guess about 2 or 3 miles from the border and my oldest brother went to KES as he wasn’t being challenged at the local school and the grammars weren’t an option. This was in 1989.

I’m not sure when it changed but 5 years later my younger brother took the 11 plus so I guess early 90s. Catchments and availability of schools are bound to change over the years. Birmingham’s population has grown since 1990.

It’s a fact of life that access to good schools isn’t fair or equal. At least equalising the grammar entry scores across all the schools helps a little bit. But I guess that can only really be achieved with some sort of catchment.

[PettswoodFiona]

I've seen referenced on this forum 'The Greenwich decision' that refers to a case where the LA tried to restrict places to only those in the borough, this apparently breached the Admissions Code and it had after the decision to go to distance regardless of whether they are in the same borough or not, some people living closer in neighbouring boroughs. This applies in our region for Bexley, Bexley grammars go on distance (after a minimum pass score) but some in Bromley are closer than those in Bexley and so the closer one will get priority rather than the Bexley resident.

However Kent seem to have managed to side-step this issue and have 'defined parishes' which sometimes exclude residents in other parishes or those on the edge of other countries or boroughs. This Kent scenario seems to me to contradict what I've read about the Greenwich decision. I will add though that my knowledge does not extend to an indepth understanding of either the decision or the code, just commentary around it.

[Sally-Anne]

The Greenwich Judgement was superseded, although not wholly overturned, by the Rotherham Judgement - see here: https://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/schoo ... ions-terms" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Greenwich Judgement (1989)
This judgement established that maintained schools may not give priority to children for the sole reason that they live within the LA’s administrative boundaries. (But, see the Rotheram judgement, below.)

Rotherham Judgement (1997)
This established that admission authorities may operate specified catchment areas as part of their oversubscription criteria provided that, in doing so, they are not in breach of the Greenwich judgement.

[mike1880]

In practice all Greenwich means is that you can't be refused a place on the basis of administrative boundaries (i.e. can't be prevented from applying) - or alternatively, as well put on Wikipedia: "applicants from outside of a school's catchment area, who express a preference for that school, should be prioritised over applicants within the catchment area who express no preference". That doesn't mean you have to have a snowball in ****'s chance of being offered a place.

[PettswoodFiona]

Interesting! Thanks Sally-Ann and Mike1880. This forum is a fount of knowledge (as always!).