Go to navigation
It is currently Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:51 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 1:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 8:38 am
Posts: 1442
Location: West Midlands / warks border
anotherdad wrote:
kenyancowgirl wrote:
I have only just had the opportunity to read the petition....there have been some awful ones on Change.org in the past - I have at times been minded to sign one or two, but this one is truly awful...! It's not greatly worded (although appears designed to raise a level of hysteria amongst people who do not read it properly) and some of the comments are not well informed. All which adds to the fact that it is unlikely anyone with any clout will pay attention to the petition - I suspect that it will only serve to dissuade people from recording their true opinions on the forum that counts - the actual consultation survey - as they will "believe" they have voiced their opinion - so, actually, the petition is likely to end up helping the consultation process.

Exactly. It will leave the considered, informed views from all sides undiluted by all the emotive and misguided nonsense that is evident on the petition. In that sense, the petition is a very effective decoy.


Thanks for bringing that to our attention, we must put that right and make sure the 900+ people who've signed the petition so far, also add their comments to the consultation process. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 1:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 4:33 pm
Posts: 1763
Good luck with that. A number of them can't even spell grammar.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 1:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 2:25 pm
Posts: 236
anotherdad wrote:
Good luck with that. A number of them can't even spell grammar.


:lol:

This is beyond funny, I wonder how the consultation will turn out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 1:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:46 am
Posts: 38
To me the benefits of this proposal more than outweigh any cons - most of which are the kind of inevitable issues you always get with any change to a system or process that has been in place for many years.

The arguments against the new catchment areas seem to boil down to:

a) A few people from outside Birmingham no longer being able to use Birmingham schools.
- Some from areas with their own very good school(s), where I doubt the local residents would be keen to share it's places with Birmingham parents.
OK, some also from less fortunate areas, and areas with close ties/arbitrary boundaries with Birmingham. But 90% of the country are without grammar schools. If you're in favour of the wholesale return of grammar schools (And that's an interesting debate in itself) the KE foundation can't resolve this national situation by itself.

b) A few people with children already at a Birmingham grammar school (Some of whom also fall in the category above) who live a long distance away from their child's school - and when considering the 7 years of travel logistics for their child, put all their eggs in the one basket of a private travel company. A company who can (And do) change their routes regularly.

c) People with older children at a Birmingham grammar, whose younger siblings now won't be able to go to the same school as they are out of proposed catchment area.
- On the one hand, it's quite presumptive to assume that your younger child was bound to get the required 11+ score to join their sibling. So let's be clear, there were never any guarantees - so those parents would always have had to have alternative arrangements in mind. But I do have some sympathy that the opportunity is not there, so I wouldn't have any problem with the consultation leading to a tweak to the proposed criteria that mitigated this problem.
It would be a small impact (So wouldn't threaten the overall aims of the changes proposed) and would by definition, be redundant within a few years anyway.

d) Current/Prospective parents of Camp Hill, who want to retain some 'elite' status for their child's school - and the social cachet with friends/family that this gives them to say their son/daughter goes there.
- My daughter is likely to go to CHG in Sept, so it would be tempting to take this view myself. But I can see that the changes are a positive move overall.
And let's be clear, even accounting for pupil premium and reduced cut-off for non PP, the 'average' 11+ score in the cohort will still be over 220. These are not average children we are talking about. If you assume that taking the 11+ exam is self-selecting in itself, then I reckon this top 25% of the test cohort corresponds to top 8-10%of the overall year 7 cohort of Birmingham. If the school can't continue to get great results, and if the brightest children can't continue to stretch themselves to their full potential in this environment, then there is something wrong anyway.

e) Possibly some tutors whipping this up, because they can see their business being impacted.
i.e. If the 11+ becomes a slightly less high-stakes game in parts of the city covered by Camp Hill/Fiveways catchment, and a chunk of perspective parent-customers from Shirley/Solihull/Knowle/Dorridge can't be sold the Camp Hill dream/myth.

I've given my feedback, which was generally positive - but with a couple of minor suggestions/concerns that could be mitigated fairly easily.
That seems to me where value can be added in a consultation process like this.
i.e. Not creating petitions with dramatic and possibly even misleading headlines - and which aim to scrap the whole thing in favour of a completely flawed status quo.
A status quo that can never have been the original intention of these schools.


Last edited by kentish_man on Fri Nov 23, 2018 1:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 1:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:46 am
Posts: 38
SVK wrote:
I am sorry to hear that your bus service may be affected, but that is a big IF, whether Greenbus will continue or not, we are yet to know. Your daughter safety is important, but so is the safety of many other children I know from South Birmingham taking two buses or train to get to Handsworth or Sutton Colfield. Is their safety is of lesser importance?


This!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 2:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 9:17 am
Posts: 672
Emmal wrote:
Wildfuture wrote:
So Birmingham Council object to the proposals then? That's what this implies

I thought the petition is addressed to her, rather than started by her....


I have just looked at the petition (out of curiosity). Yes, it is addressed to Jayne Francis, but it was started by Kaja Fawthrop. If you look at Kaja on Linked In (it has the same photo, so pretty sure it's the same person) she describes her job as 'Policy Manager Consultation at Birmingham City Council'

Corporate Consultation and Engagement Manager

Dates Employed
Sep 2011 – Present

Based in the Strategic Research Team, I am responsible for consultation and engagement across the Council. I updated the Be Heard Consultation Website in 2013, procuring a modern solution and establishing a partnership with the third sector, NHS and politicians.
My remit includes Council Policy on legislation such as Duty to Involve and Data Protocols for questionnaires/surveys incorporating the Equality Act 2010.


Surely she should remain neutral? :?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 2:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2018 12:42 pm
Posts: 166
kentish_man wrote:
To me the benefits of this proposal more than outweigh any cons - most of which are the kind of inevitable issues you always get with any change to a system or process that has been in place for many years.

The arguments against the new catchment areas seem to boil down to:

a) A few people from outside Birmingham no longer being able to use Birmingham schools.
- Some from areas with their own very good school(s), where I doubt the local residents would be keen to share it's places with Birmingham parents.
OK, some also from less fortunate areas, and areas with close ties/arbitrary boundaries with Birmingham. But 90% of the country are without grammar schools. If you're in favour of the wholesale return of grammar schools (And that's an interesting debate in itself) the KE foundation can't resolve this national situation by itself.

b) A few people with children already at a Birmingham grammar school (Some of whom also fall in the category above) who live a long distance away from their child's school - and when considering the 7 years of travel logistics for their child, put all their eggs in the one basket of a private travel company. A company who can (And do) change their routes regularly.

c) People with older children at a Birmingham grammar, whose younger siblings now won't be able to go to the same school as they are out of proposed catchment area.
- On the one hand, it's quite presumptive to assume that your younger child was bound to get the required 11+ score to join their sibling. So let's be clear, there were never any guarantees - so those parents would always have had to have alternative arrangements in mind. But I do have some sympathy that the opportunity is not there, so I wouldn't have any problem with the consultation leading to a tweak to the proposed criteria that mitigated this problem.
It would be a small impact (So wouldn't threaten the overall aims of the changes proposed) and would by definition, be redundant within a few years anyway.

d) Current/Prospective parents of Camp Hill, who want to retain some 'elite' status for their child's school - and the social cachet with friends/family that this gives them to say their son/daughter goes there.
- My daughter is likely to go to CHG in Sept, so it would be tempting to take this view myself. But I can see that the changes are a positive move overall.
And let's be clear, even accounting for pupil premium and reduced cut-off for non PP, the 'average' 11+ score in the cohort will still be over 220. These are not average children we are talking about. If you assume that taking the 11+ exam is self-selecting in itself, then I reckon this top 25% of the test cohort corresponds to top 8-10%of the overall year 7 cohort of Birmingham. If the school can't continue to get great results, and if the brightest children can't continue to stretch themselves to their full potential in this environment, then there is something wrong anyway.

e) Possibly some tutors whipping this up, because they can see their business being impacted.
i.e. If the 11+ becomes a slightly less high-stakes game in parts of the city covered by Camp Hill/Fiveways catchment, and a chunk of perspective parent-customers from Shirley/Solihull/Knowle/Dorridge can't be sold the Camp Hill dream/myth.

I've given my feedback, which was generally positive - but with a couple of minor suggestions/concerns that could be mitigated fairly easily.
That seems to me where value can be added in a consultation process like this.
i.e. Not creating petitions with dramatic and possibly even misleading headlines - and which aim to scrap the whole thing in favour of a completely flawed status quo.
A status quo that can never have been the original intention of these schools.



This all makes a lot of sense. When it directly affects you, it's hard to remain objective. Obviously myself and those outside of catchment will be upset and those whom are in catchment now require a lower score and are a priority so will feel it's great.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 3:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 5:27 pm
Posts: 4572
Location: london
helen0209 wrote:
Surely she should remain neutral? :?

I agree, I would have thought that was a considerable conflict of interest for a public servant.

_________________
mad?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 3:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 4:33 pm
Posts: 1763
That is a little odd. As a citizen she has every right to start a petition if she wishes (and she has launched others before according to google) but I would have thought her employer might consider it as a conflict of interest.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 3:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 3:54 pm
Posts: 22
Very weird. But anyway, Birmingham City Council is not the admissions authority for academies. It's just a facilitator for the consultation and a fellow consultee along with parents, pupils etc. So not sure why the petition has been aimed at BCC anyway!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Privacy Policy | Refund Policy | Disclaimer | Copyright © 2004 – 2019