Pate pupil premium and looked after children query

[dr.watson]

Personally, I think that this is a good thing as it allows disadvantaged children an opportunity to go to an amazing school.

Sued on what basis? That the governors of a school empowered to set admission criteria that comply with the Schools Admission Code have set an admission criterion that complies with the Schools Admission Code? Good luck with that.

Top 120 is not guaranteed a place as the letter says even if you put Pates/Marling as 1st Choice in CAF.

[daveg]

Top 120 is not guaranteed a place as the letter says even if you put Pates/Marling as 1st Choice in CAF.

It won't arise. In the incredibly unlikely situation that there are more Pupil Premium candidates amongst places 121 to 180 than there are people who, for whatever reason, decline a place from amongst the top 120, then the school will simply go over PAN, as if it had lost an appeal for some other reason. It's conceivable, just about, that it might even have to be taken to appeal for this. But sued? Why? And as I said, for what?

[capers123]

If this is a good practice, is this followed by all other state funded grammar schools?

It's a new addition to Pate's Admissions Policy this year. The governors of other schools may well pick it up as good practice in future years.

Personally I feel that Pates/Marling is likely to be sued by the Parents with Children within Top 120 who will not get a place.

Firstly, they'd have to go to appeal. The first part of any appeal is that panel consider if the published admissions policy of that school has been correctly applied. They also have a duty to report any policies that are against the admissions code.

An Admissions Authority, which in the case of an academy is the school itself, has the legal right to decide how to allocate places. A selective school can allocate places only to those deemed selective, but after that it's down to them how to rank the children.

Some selective schools AA's / LEA's rank firstly on if the child is within a catchment area, so if they pass and live within the area they are ranked higher than a child with a higher score from outside the area. Others could give the highest ranking to those who pass the test who have a sibling already in the school.

These are all legal, valid admissions policies, and an appeal panel could not allow the appeal on grounds that it was unfair to a child outside the catchment or without a sibling.

I suspect that the same would be the case for Pate's policy. It seems legal to me. Therefore a panel wouldn't be likely to allow the appeal on those grounds. A parent could take that to the SFA, but they can't overturn a legal decision by a panel. The parent could then take it to High Court (at great cost). Would a judge really overturn what is a valid admissions policy? I'd love to be in the public gallery in such a case!

Anyway, as others have said, it would be unlikely to be someone in the top 120 who this affected, as there are plenty of children within that top 120 who actually prefer other grammars in the county (or are going private). It could affect - say - rank 150 or 160.

I should add that I'm not hearing appeals for Pate's to the best of my knowledge, and am writing as always in my own private capacity...

[daveg]

Others could give the highest ranking to those who pass the test who have a sibling already in the school.

These are all legal, valid admissions policies

That last is in breach of the admissions code, 1.9(j):

1.9 It is for admission authorities to formulate their admission arrangements, but they must not:

(j) in designated grammar schools that rank all children according to a pre-determined pass mark and then allocate places to those who score highest, give priority to siblings of current or former pupils;

[EmeraldE]

Perhaps Capers means in the event of a tie for places. I am sure I read in several admissions criteria that other factors then come into play. Some prioritise by distance from school others it is done through random selection (names out of a hat! )

[dr.watson]

Perhaps Capers means in the event of a tie for places. I am sure I read in several admissions criteria that other factors then come into play. Some prioritise by distance from school others it is done through random selection (names out of a hat! )

Not aware of any distance criteria for Gloucestershire Grammar Schools!

[capers123]

Not aware of any distance criteria for Gloucestershire Grammar Schools!

Correct. I was just giving examples that could be used, rather than are used in Gloucestershire - they are all 'unfair' to a particular selection of children. The Admissions Code applies to all schools in England.

Distance is used as one of the tie-breakers in some grammars in Glos, but not in the higher-tier of ranking.

[EmeraldE]

6. Tie Breaker
Where there is a number of boys with an equal qualifying score, but insufficient remaining places, the place will be offered to the boy who lives closest to the School, measured as a straight line from their place of residence to School, using the Local Authority’s computerised measuring system.

From Tommies admissions policy...NB, this is in the event of a tie

[cairo]

Just in case anyone is fretting about whether their Pates top 120 child will be leap-frogged in the queue by children on pupil premium:-

Pupil premium is an extra sum of money given to schools with certain categories of children on roll. Currently it's £600 for each child who has received free school meals at any time in the past 6 years and any children in care ("looked after children"). A smaller sum of £250 is given for children whose parents are in the armed services.

According to Pates website, they expect to receive £6,052 pupil premium this year i.e there are probably 10 children in the school who at some point in the past 6 years have been getting free school meals. Out of a number on roll of 1000, this is a very small figure indeed. So the chance of there being many, or indeed any, children in the 121 - 180 ranking for Pates who fall into this category seems to me pretty slim.

In addition, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the rankings have been done with this information already embedded in them. If I remember it correctly, the Council sends you a unique reference number with which to register your child. As the Council already knows which children get pupil premium, it would surely have been more sensible to have produced the rankings taking account of this information, rather than trying to adjust things afterwards?

Anyhow, all I'm trying to say is that I wouldn't worry unduly about the possibility of a top 120 place not being offered if you want it. (I still think it's a good idea to use all your options on your form though!)

[hermanmunster]

agreed Cairo - from a previous thread :

According to the info I can find there are 5 or 6 children at Pate's claiming FSM - presumably about that number would be eligible for Pupil premium

looks like this could 1 child per year (though can vary year on year and some years there may be none). Out of 180, allowing 1 child to nip to the top of the list is not going to make great difference - bit like looked after children