Go to navigation
It is currently Thu Jul 18, 2019 9:14 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 7:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 3:54 pm
Posts: 22
MSD wrote:
Yes, I would agree with that Emmal! At the expense of grammars losing them though.


And then we come back to the same old argument about whether these highly tutored candidates are really any different to those who get a lower score but with far less tutoring (you yourself have admitted that a significant proportion of those with strong views against the proposals have are speaking to known and trusted tutors about whether their kids should still apply for 2020 - a strong relationship built up a year before the test!)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 8:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 9:17 am
Posts: 672
MSD wrote:
helen0209 wrote:

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? :?


Helen, I see where you are coming from but I am not sure if it’s appropriate to paste someone’s personal profile on a public forum without their permission. Might be serious invasion of their privacy


Unsure, but it’s on Linked In which is public so could be accessed by anyone? Maybe I should have posted the link which would have been more appropriate and people could have looked for themselves.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 9:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2018 12:42 pm
Posts: 166
MSD wrote:
crazycrofter wrote:
People have been saying that the independents will benefit from more high scorers from outside Birmingham going their way. I think they’ll also get more lower scorers from Birmingham ie those scoring between 210 and 219 who used to be able to choose HGS or KEA and will no longer have that option. Arguably the independents will lose quite a few in the 220s who will now have the option of FW or the Camp Hill schools. If you look back there’s always a few who choose KES/KEHS for this reason - my daughter was one, as it was a nearer option than Sutton girls for us in south Birmingham.

So overall I can’t see that these proposals will necessarily benefit the independents at all and I’m sure that’s not why they’ve been proposed - contrary to what the petition suggests!


Good points there Crazycrofter and it does sound perfectly feasible. I have another theory though, which you may find equally feasible.

a) reading some of the comments on petition, the changes may have raised enough doubt in parents’ mind on the potential makeup of high performing KE schools, thereby pushing those high scorers within catchment over to the independent sector.

b) the changes as they stand now will reduce grammar access for many high scoring OOC candidates. They will naturally look for alternatives and will find KES/KEHS to be quite attractive

c) intake for these two independent schools isn’t that high. They will easily find many high scoring candidates who wouldn’t either have access to grammars or would no longer be interested as a result of proposals


However my DS scored 242 which is a pretty decent score but we would be OOA. We have applied for an AP for KES but haven't been called for interview so looks like he won't be offered a place.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 9:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 5:08 pm
Posts: 1714
helen0209 wrote:
Unsure, but it’s on Linked In which is public so could be accessed by anyone? Maybe I should have posted the link which would have been more appropriate and people could have looked for themselves.


I wasn't sure either Helen, hence mentioned. But I guess not an issue as moderators seem to be OK with it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 9:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 5:08 pm
Posts: 1714
Emmal wrote:
MSD wrote:
Yes, I would agree with that Emmal! At the expense of grammars losing them though.


And then we come back to the same old argument about whether these highly tutored candidates are really any different to those who get a lower score but with far less tutoring (you yourself have admitted that a significant proportion of those with strong views against the proposals have are speaking to known and trusted tutors about whether their kids should still apply for 2020 - a strong relationship built up a year before the test!)


Fair point again. From my experience of the Birmingham process, and knowing the huge number of tutoring organisations in place, I would think the vast majority of children get professional help; some more so than others and some DIYed at home. And, there are those, in minority, I think, who do exceptionally well without any tutoring and initial prep. But, if we take example of the majority, you will find all scores in this case will be inflated to some extent by rigorous training. So, someone achieving 250 might have only achieved 230, or someone getting 220 might have only got 200. But the process will balance itself out irrespective of the scores, I would imagine.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 10:20 pm 
Offline

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


I am sure members of the consultation panel reading these comments will be wise enough to ignore spelling mistakes and look at the actual argument being put across, rather than judge people on their ability to articulate and spell. You will find many migrants who move to UK, in search of better life and opportunities for their children, may not have similar command on English language as many of us here. I do really commend them for not shying away from putting across their viewpoint, despite this language barrier.

The language barrier isn't the problem, don't try and make this about English being a second language. A lot of people clearly haven't read even the basis of the consultation. That's my point, there are a lot of comments that are just volume and no meaningful content, betraying limited understanding of even the current system, let alone the proposed changes. The mis-spelling of grammar is a symptom of that. If the consultation panel focuses on a lot of the "actual arguments" provided then the result is even less convincing, even ignoring the spelling. And remember, this is on a change.org petition that probably won't even be read by the relevant people. If these comments end up on the actual consultation, what do points like these add to the consultation?:

"I went to grammar school and it was the best decision I ever made!"
"I don't want the school to closed. It will deprive children within catchment area of the school."
"This is all about promoting the interests of the private school."
"This will devalue the grammer schools in Birmingham."
"We are encouraging and breeding mediocrity."
"I'm in a grammar school and would be really upset if mine got...well, you know."
"Every good has been taken away from us as citizens and tax payers of Britain!!!!!!" [yes, six exclamation marks.]

That's just a selection from the first two pages I opened. Now tell me that's a language barrier issue.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 5:08 pm
Posts: 1714
Nervousmom wrote:
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.


Anotherdad wrote:
Good luck with that. A number of them can't even spell grammar.


Reading the original conversation above, I am not sure if I would revise anything in the comment I made earlier. I still think the members of the consultation panel reading these comments will be wise enough to ignore spelling mistakes and look at the actual argument being put across, rather than judge people on their ability to articulate and spell as I quoted earlier.

Quote:
"This will devalue the grammer schools in Birmingham."


Why do we think the above couldn't be written by someone having English as their second language? And that is their opinion and perfectly valid from their point of view - I don't see any issue at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 4:33 pm
Posts: 1763
Quote:
Reading the original conversation above, I am not sure if I would revise anything in the comment I made earlier. I still think the members of the consultation panel reading these comments will be wise enough to ignore spelling mistakes and look at the actual argument being put across, rather than judge people on their ability to articulate and spell as I quoted earlier.

What arguments? If the responses on the petition are duplicated in the consultation, most of the "arguments" are simply inane statements. I could have doubled the silly comments I quoted with just five more minutes' viewing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2018 6:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:42 pm
Posts: 139
My tuppeny’s worth- my son is at HGS and we live between Walsall and Wolverhampton. I sincerely wish that the catchment areas applied to QM, then maybe my son would have a place at a GS nearer.
His score was 328 for QM so he missed out there. His Birmingham score was 224. If the current proposals are passed then he wouldn’t have his GS place, which he loves and is thriving. I can safely, honestly say that him going to his local comp would not be as effective for him. I know this because I work there. I like working there too, but it would not have been as good a fit for him. There are many comps where GS ability children absolutely thrive, I agree, I am not trying to negate the excellent comps out there.
My point- if Birmingham introduce this, then the knock on effect for Walsall GS will be an increase in point score, with places taken by those living a distance away. So the outreach programmes to attract local children from local primaries are wasted. And again the PP children that the schools so want to attract, miss out. I really think that the policy needs to be spread to Walsall. If GS really want to attract the most eligible students they would remove the admissions exams and get into local primaries to hand pick their students. Most primaries are pretty adept at identifying their most able students, why not ask the experts who know then well?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 5:08 pm
Posts: 1714
Lategate wrote:
My tuppeny’s worth- my son is at HGS and we live between Walsall and Wolverhampton. I sincerely wish that the catchment areas applied to QM, then maybe my son would have a place at a GS nearer.
His score was 328 for QM so he missed out there. His Birmingham score was 224. If the current proposals are passed then he wouldn’t have his GS place, which he loves and is thriving. I can safely, honestly say that him going to his local comp would not be as effective for him. I know this because I work there. I like working there too, but it would not have been as good a fit for him. There are many comps where GS ability children absolutely thrive, I agree, I am not trying to negate the excellent comps out there.
My point- if Birmingham introduce this, then the knock on effect for Walsall GS will be an increase in point score, with places taken by those living a distance away. So the outreach programmes to attract local children from local primaries are wasted. And again the PP children that the schools so want to attract, miss out. I really think that the policy needs to be spread to Walsall. If GS really want to attract the most eligible students they would remove the admissions exams and get into local primaries to hand pick their students. Most primaries are pretty adept at identifying their most able students, why not ask the experts who know then well?


+1


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 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