Birmingham Allocations 2020 - out of catchment

[HammerHHH]

Just out of interest, how many poor (PP) children would you allow to be permitted to the Grammar schools? Is it because too many may spoil the view/lower standards or just generally get in the way of the gilded offspring of the sharp-elbowed classes who have (very expensively and over several years) tutored their sons and daughters to pass the mythical test for the education that is their birthright?

I write as the parent of a Y7 Grammar school student from another region, who is not only PP but also severely disabled (so her cards are totally marked). Our system is without catchment, so super-selective, but I am always aghast at the total lack of humanity when I venture onto the Birmingham region postings at the railings and rantings against the PP children, as if battling adversities in life has conferred on them an extreme advantage.

SenecaPliny, you need some sauce for that chip on your shoulder. I personally posted that I support efforts to help PP kids. The outreach programme and having some priority places are all positive. However, there are plenty of kids who are not PP who also face hardship, received little tutoring and who achieve high scores against the odds. Likewise there are PP kids who achieve very high scores and those who were on PP several years ago but who subsequently received lots of tutoring. It’s not all black and white and PP is not some trophy that automatically makes someone more deserving of a place.

[SenecaPliny]

I have no chip on my shoulder (especially as my PP child is excelling at a super-selective Grammar, not in your area). But, as a regular to this forum, I found it abhorrent that - several days ago - a poster had posited that there should be a cap on PP places and no one had thought/could be bothered to challenge this. Let’s face it, I read all the petitions about the changes to admissions for the Birmingham Grammars recently, plus the letters to the editors in the national press, and so on. I think it’s clear - even from the responses in The Timed, for example - that the parents who actioned and responded to these petitions and letters and campaigns etc do not emerge with much credit,

[kenyancowgirl]

Just out of interest, how many poor (PP) children would you allow to be permitted to the Grammar schools? Is it because too many may spoil the view/lower standards or just generally get in the way of the gilded offspring of the sharp-elbowed classes who have (very expensively and over several years) tutored their sons and daughters to pass the mythical test for the education that is their birthright?

I write as the parent of a Y7 Grammar school student from another region, who is not only PP but also severely disabled (so her cards are totally marked). Our system is without catchment, so super-selective, but I am always aghast at the total lack of humanity when I venture onto the Birmingham region postings at the railings and rantings against the PP children, as if battling adversities in life has conferred on them an extreme advantage.

SenecaPliny, you need some sauce for that chip on your shoulder. I personally posted that I support efforts to help PP kids. The outreach programme and having some priority places are all positive. However, there are plenty of kids who are not PP who also face hardship, received little tutoring and who achieve high scores against the odds. Likewise there are PP kids who achieve very high scores and those who were on PP several years ago but who subsequently received lots of tutoring. It’s not all black and white and PP is not some trophy that automatically makes someone more deserving of a place.

I hadn't realised that Yorskshire was another area with no catchment, to be honest, or that the GS there were classed as superselectives - hermanmunster is our local Yorkshire resident and the forums there are relatively quiet, compared with the Midlands. My main area is Warwickshire, and that keeps me busy enough!

With regards to nobody challenging the post you saw a couple of days ago - with all due respect, the forum has been especially busy the last few weeks - the volunteers who monitor the site have been popping up wherever they can, but cannot possibly see and respond to every comment - did you reply to it? We all have a responsibility to challenge things we are not happy with. And, yes, the forum is populated with parents who advocate for their children to get into a GS - some at any cost - but some others are in a situation where schools exist in their area, at the detriment to others, and, as long as the system exists, they will use it - they can still acknowledge the flaws in the system. The overt antigonism in Birmingham, especally recently, has been in part because the system as it was, very much played to the pointy elbowed, well tutored - but now it doesn't - for many families, that means that where they thought their child would go - where their siblings go - they are no longer allowed to - they haven't moved, the school policies have changed - and in a transition year, this causes a lot of upset - and even I, as someone who sees that actually all GS are unfair, can see and recognise that.

Whilst the press may have reported predominantly on those parents who wrote against changing the scheme, there were very many who wrote to the KES Foundation applauding their efforts. All GS have a responsibility to widen participation - PP is the measure they use but it is in itself flawed and the difference between a child who had free school meals 4 years ago but is now in a better situation and one who never met the cusp for FSM, by possibly a penny, but is just as bright, but for the lack of the PP "badge" doesn't get a place, is difficult - I am supportive of the measure, though, because it is a step in the right direction.

[HammerHHH]

I have no chip on my shoulder (especially as my PP child is excelling at a super-selective Grammar, not in your area). But, as a regular to this forum, I found it abhorrent that - several days ago - a poster had posited that there should be a cap on PP places and no one had thought/could be bothered to challenge this. Let’s face it, I read all the petitions about the changes to admissions for the Birmingham Grammars recently, plus the letters to the editors in the national press, and so on. I think it’s clear - even from the responses in The Timed, for example - that the parents who actioned and responded to these petitions and letters and campaigns etc do not emerge with much credit,

You suggest all non PP kids come from wealthy over privileged backgrounds and that such kids are all heavily tutored by wealthy parents with sharp elbows etc. Of course this is true for some kids. However, non PP applicants include the children of taxi drivers, nurses, shop workers, factory workers who maintain employment. They are not all super wealthy elites and to suggest that their children should always come second to PP for every place is to their parents just as “unfair” as a cap on the number of lower score PP placements. So yes you do have a chip, as you see humble low paid working folk as a wealthy elite with over privileged kids. Anyhow you’re not even from this catchment (as previously stated) so clearly you’re only here to stir and derail the thread.

[Nella]

You suggest all non PP kids come from wealthy over privileged backgrounds and that such kids are all heavily tutored by wealthy parents with sharp elbows etc. Of course this is true for some kids. However, non PP applicants include the children of taxi drivers, nurses, shop workers, factory workers who maintain employment. They are not all super wealthy elites and to suggest that their children should always come second to PP for every place is to their parents just as “unfair” as a cap on the number of lower score PP placements. So yes you do have a chip, as you see humble low paid working folk as a wealthy elite with over privileged kids. Anyhow you’re not even from this catchment (as previously stated) so clearly you’re only here to stir and derail the thread.

I agree. Please can we keep this on topic. If SenacaPliny and Kenyancowgirl would like to continue debating pupil premium, perhaps they could start their own thread!

[hermanmunster]

The subject of PP has been endlessly debated on here and elsewhere and it always gets heated, as KCG said the moderators are volunteers and can't be keeping an eye on things all the time. Please be polite to each other and use this thread to post about allocations under the admissions policy as it has been implemented by the LEA

[imranb]

What is more audacious?
The advantaged treating the disadvantaged with disdain.
OR
The disadvantaged assuming another disadvantaged as advantaged, and treating them with disdain.

[mike1880]

Divide and rule.

[Veggie]

226 offered for BV today - was our first choice. We are Leicestershire so may have results a little earlier than Birmingham. Really good luck to all of the children awaiting results - its been a tough couple of years for them all (and the parents). Whatever the outcome the hard work has instilled an incredible work ethic, they will have fantastic futures ahead of them !

Wow that is some journey to school !

[Veggie]

The situation at KEFW is different. As they had insufficient PP candidates in catchment they've had to offer upto their cap in Cat 3 OOC PP. The remaining 135 places can then be distributed to Cat 4. They have insufficient places for those in catchment children achieving 222.
I'd agree with a max 25% based on distance but that would put cat 2 in the same place as cat 4 is for KEFW and CHB.
We also have to bear in mind people who move house between taking their exam and applying. I know several who have rented closed to their favoured school when they had over 222. So that will skew application compared with the data from the 11+ exam.

Do the schools ask for evidence of how long people have lived at an address and when they moved there, surely such underhand tactics should be stopped, I'm amazed at the lengths some parents will go to get there kids in KECH and KEFW.