Proposed admission Criteria B'ham Grammars 2020

[JaneEyre]

To help increase social mobility GS’s need to be openly discussed in all schools as an option.

In other words, the King Edward VI Foundation should have sent an email to the headmaster/headmistress of each primary school in Birmingham and the surrounding areas (so all the West Midlands) so that these people could inform all the parents/carers of the pupils in their school.

By contrast, we have just witnessed a parody of a consultation.

[JaneEyre]

Any thoughts on what kind of impact this could have on the two KE independent schools? As they are not based on catchment and outperform all of the grammars, are we now going to see a huge increase in applications? Yes there are fees, but I’m sure many will hope for assisted places.

ForwardThinker4, I corrected you on this part of your thoughts:

As they are not based on catchment and outperform all of the grammars,

with this post:

Any thoughts on what kind of impact this could have on the two KE independent schools? As they are not based on catchment and outperform all of the grammars.

(* emboldened by me)

Lets figures speak (and I have to mentioned that the cohort at CHB in 2017-2018 was not a strong one compared to other years).

GCSE RESULTS 2018........................ Comparing % of A*/9/8 at KES and CHB

............................................KES........................CHB
English Language................. 27.7 ....................... 43.6
English literature....................43.5 ....................... 51.1
French ................................ 40.6 .......................59.2
German ................................37.0 ....................... 52.7
Geography............................ 85.7 ........................60.6
History..................................62.1 ........................73.9
Religious studies ....................98.1.........................90.3
Biology ................................75.4 ........................77.4
Chemistry..............................76.2 ........................77.4
Physics ................................. 80.5 .......................81.7
Mathematics ......................... 86.3 ........................87.2
Art and design....................... 36.8.........................50.0
Music ....................................54.2 .......................76.9

I let you do the comparison for the girls schools, KES ad CHG.

Hence why I am strongly in opposition to the idea of catchment areas in Birmingham.

PS: I am in a hurry as I have to drive my DS to the cinema.... No time to straighten the columns...My apologies...

However, I am under the impression that you have hit the nail on its head when you wrote

Any thoughts on what kind of impact this could have on the two KE independent schools?

It is sure that 'destroying' CH as the flagship schools they are today, the Foundation is getting more parents to pay for their fee paying schools... and deprives bright studnets form poor backgrounds to reach very high and be amongst the best students in this country, many of whom benefit for private school education.

A few days ago, I was able to write on this forum this:

the panel - with all due respect to them and I felt that their effort might/may* be sincere - couldn't help contradicting themselves.

Tonight, I am extremely angered by the truth I start at last to grasp. I feel utterly sick!

[Emmal]

It is sure that 'destroying' CH as the flagship schools they are today, the Foundation is getting more parents to pay for their fee paying schools... and deprives bright studnets form poor backgrounds to reach very high and be amongst the best students in this country, many of whom benefit for private school education.

Jane, I'm struggling to understand your logic here. If you truly believe that those with the luxury of choice will likely pay for private education where before they would have chosen GS, doesn't that make more room for children with less privileged backgrounds?

Nobody is denying that less privileged kids already attend the CH schools. I just want more. And no matter what you or I want, government wants more.

Protesters seem to fall into several distinct camps. First, those with children already attending CH schools who wish to maintain some perceived "kudos" (a losing battle anyway since more and more prospective employers are removing all reference to the applicant's school and university attended in order to avoid unconscious bias). Second, tutors who wish to maintain their business. Third, parents worried about travel arrangements for existing pupils, and I understand their concern. Last - and I have most sympathy for this group - those who find themselves just OOC due to LA boundaries. Looking at this from a public law perspective, my view is that only the last group will have a reasonable chance of tweaking the proposals.

[hermanmunster]

It all goes round in circles - in 1975 the Direct Grant Grammars lost the Direct Grant and had to decide whether to be state schools or independent.

The KE schools in B'ham became independent, had to start charging fees (which were inevitably higher than they were ) to nearly everyone as at the same time the LEAs also stopped paying fees for most of the kids.

Up until then a large number of kids had had their fees & travel paid (non means tested) by generous LEAs (not Staffs who didn't go in for that sort of thing).

The 1975 change meant that large numbers of children from poorer backgrounds would lose out on places - the governors did their best (and still do) in raising money for assisted places etc.

What happened elsewhere - well the other GS improved no end and became much more popular with people, the same will happen again only it will be good comprehensives outside the area becoming extremely popular.

[JaneEyre]

Jane, I'm struggling to understand your logic here.
[...]

more and more prospective employers are removing all reference to the applicant's school and university attended in order to avoid unconscious bias

Indeed you do not understand my logic!
Do you think that I care if reference to the applicant's school and university attended is removed?
No, not a iota.
Because what interest me is TRUE knowledge, not appearances or aura gained through institutions.

My logic is implacable.
If the proposal was really based on pure intent then there is no need for wards.
Or the argument that children should travel less should apply to KES ad KHES too.

Emmal, it does seem that you have not yet read properly the whole thread. I have previously written:

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!

I am not opposed to the idea of having more PP children in GS.

I have also written:

But I am rather under the impression that the GS in Birmingham do help with the social mobility of children from an Asian background and also from an African/Caribbean/Arab/Far East background.

Mod-Above final comment removed pending legal advice

[JaneEyre]

Third, parents worried about travel arrangements for existing pupils, and I understand their concern.

Answer already given here:

a few tweaks regarding siblings and ward boundaries.

Yes, these will be some tweaks, like adding a temporary group concerning siblings for a limited period only.

[JaneEyre]

I have no time to act like a parrot as I need to leave for work.
I let other parents who have attended the meeting to repeat the same information numerous times.
Thank you for your help and patience.

[helen0209]

[quote="JaneEyre
In fact, I am irked by reading that children at CHB are from affluent families. There are some, like there are some at FW and all other GS, including Handsworth boys ( because they did not obtain the right score to go to CHB)... but there are also some children who are brought up in dire circumstances. quote]

JaneEyre, I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with the above. Not all students at other GS's are there because they 'didn't obtain the right score to obtain a place at CH' - that is an insult. There are numerous pupils at other GS's (yes, including HGS) who scored 240+ but chose to go to another school - it may be their closest, may be on their parent's route to work so they can drop them off, may be a direct bus route, may do the extra curricular they wanted, who knows? Please don't assume that we all wanted our children to go to CH and had to 'settle' for an alternative.

[Tonythetiger]

Protesters seem to fall into several distinct camps. First, those with children already attending CH schools who wish to maintain some perceived "kudos" (a losing battle anyway since more and more prospective employers are removing all reference to the applicant's school and university attended in order to avoid unconscious bias). Second, tutors who wish to maintain their business. Third, parents worried about travel arrangements for existing pupils, and I understand their concern. Last - and I have most sympathy for this group - those who find themselves just OOC due to LA boundaries. Looking at this from a public law perspective, my view is that only the last group will have a reasonable chance of tweaking the proposals.

I completely agree and think that the first group (CH parents) seem to be protesting the loudest, hence the pressure to hold a meeting there which then had to be labelled as a 'public consultation meeting'. I can only imagine there hasn't been the volume of protests at the other schools. All parents have been informed individually by all the schools by letter so they should all know about the proposals.

It's the worst kept secret that Camp Hill themselves aren't keen on the proposals (the other schools are) so again another reason to 'empower' their parents and hold a meeting there.

This tactic hasn't gone well though. There's a distinct flavour of 'we don't mind having disadvantaged pupils here but we've already got lots so why do we need any more' in the arguments, particularly those that are on social media.

Those who talk about house prices going up clearly don't know Birmingham very well as many of these schools are in or border on some of the most deprived areas of Birmingham. Others have said this already, but I can't see the house prices in Nothfield/Bartley Green/Billesley going through the roof as a result of this!

[helen0209]

To help increase social mobility GS’s need to be openly discussed in all schools as an option.

In other words, the King Edward VI Foundation should have sent an email to the headmaster/headmistress of each primary school in Birmingham and the surrounding areas (so all the West Midlands) so that these people could inform all the parents/carers of the pupils in their school.

By contrast, we have just witnessed a parody of a consultation.

What I was meaning by the above is that GS's in general should be openly discussed in Primary Schools as the local comps are - we shouldn't get the 'sorry, it's against LA policy to talk about GS's' If more parents were aware of them, were aware of what was required to prepare for the entrance test and teachers were able to promote them to their 'more promising' pupils the diversity in the GS's would alter.