FOI answer: Kent children being displaced from local GS's
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
I agree with you, if there is no non-selective school on the CAF I think that KCC are obliged to offer you a Grammar school place even if it is miles away.Twinkle wrote:Mystery - I broadly agree with your analysis - but am not sure whether this part is entirely correct. I think that if a child ( who had passed) had put down three GS plus a non selective then they would have been offered the non selective if the first three had been full. However if the child had only put down 3 GS and no fourth choice then surely that child would have been offered a place at the next nearest GS with spaces. Only if there were no GS places available would that child be offered a place at the nearest non selective school with spaces. Equally if child ( who has passed) had put 3 GS preferences followed by a non selective and all four schools were full KCC would first try to place the child in the nearest GS with spaces before allocating a non selective school. It is in these scenarios however that I think KCC has deemed the top streams of certain comprehensives as "Grammar equivalent". I may be wrong, but I think that's how it would work.mystery wrote:
These children were not offered them because it was the closest grammar school with space at that date, but because they were the closest school with space at that date
and it was possible to offer them to those children as they had a G assessment. If a closer non-selective had space, they would have received an offer of a place at that school.
If Twinkle and Just 1 to go are right and that is what KCC does, then it is not in line with the wording of their admissions booklet. Do take a good read of it, and you will see exactly what I mean. There are no secret messages in the admissions process - just because someone only puts grammars down it is not the same as having a tick box on the form which says "offer me the closest grammar places only, no matter how far away they are", and a line in the procedure which says that this is a possible option.
So either KCC don't follow their admissions procedure as described in the booklet, or they do and we therefore need to ask another question under FOI to see the full extent of the problem.
I would like to ask another question under FOI Village Dad, what do you think ......... I'm starting to plan ahead for moving house if necessary!! But probably to a county without grammar schools as if there is a long term problem with grammar school places in Kent, and if the demographics suggest that it could get worse, I really don't think it's going to change.
So either KCC don't follow their admissions procedure as described in the booklet, or they do and we therefore need to ask another question under FOI to see the full extent of the problem.
I would like to ask another question under FOI Village Dad, what do you think ......... I'm starting to plan ahead for moving house if necessary!! But probably to a county without grammar schools as if there is a long term problem with grammar school places in Kent, and if the demographics suggest that it could get worse, I really don't think it's going to change.
-
Villagedad
- Posts: 526
- Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:22 pm
- Location: Tonbridge & Tunbridge Wells
You are right!mystery wrote:If Twinkle and Just 1 to go are right and that is what KCC does, then it is not in line with the wording of their admissions booklet. Do take a good read of it, and you will see exactly what I mean. There are no secret messages in the admissions process - just because someone only puts grammars down it is not the same as having a tick box on the form which says "offer me the closest grammar places only, no matter how far away they are", and a line in the procedure which says that this is a possible option.
So either KCC don't follow their admissions procedure as described in the booklet, or they do and we therefore need to ask another question under FOI to see the full extent of the problem.
I would like to ask another question under FOI Village Dad, what do you think ......... I'm starting to plan ahead for moving house if necessary!! But probably to a county without grammar schools as if there is a long term problem with grammar school places in Kent, and if the demographics suggest that it could get worse, I really don't think it's going to change.
they say "...even if he or she has been assessed suitable for grammar school, and if the grammar school(s) you want cannot offer a place, we may need to offer you a place at a different sort of school."
but they also say
"If we can’t offer your child any of the schools you named on your form, we will write to you on 1 March offering a place at the nearest suitable school with a vacancy."
So they obviously aren't obliged to give you a grammar school place but do however try, even if the distances are unreasonable.
Yes perhaps they do sometimes apply the word "suitable" rather than offering a G assessed boy from the north of Sevenoaks a place at Wildernesse. But I'm not sure that this is the case, or if it is, that they should be doing so as it contradicts their other wording about offering places at another type of school.
If they do this, perhaps it is in an attempt to fill up those empty grammar places in East Kent rather than do anyone a service!
The word "suitable" is just such a silly one to have chosen to put into an admissions booklet; it has no clear meaning, and everyone's idea of what is suitable for their child would differ so much, particularly when G assessed and there is no place at a grammar within a sensible commuting distance.
I think I am going to ask admission for a clearer interpretation of the booklet and what they do in practice. Once we've got an answer to that we can write another FOI question maybe VillageDad?
If they do this, perhaps it is in an attempt to fill up those empty grammar places in East Kent rather than do anyone a service!
The word "suitable" is just such a silly one to have chosen to put into an admissions booklet; it has no clear meaning, and everyone's idea of what is suitable for their child would differ so much, particularly when G assessed and there is no place at a grammar within a sensible commuting distance.
I think I am going to ask admission for a clearer interpretation of the booklet and what they do in practice. Once we've got an answer to that we can write another FOI question maybe VillageDad?
-
Villagedad
- Posts: 526
- Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:22 pm
- Location: Tonbridge & Tunbridge Wells
OKmystery wrote:I think I am going to ask admission for a clearer interpretation of the booklet and what they do in practice. Once we've got an answer to that we can write another FOI question maybe VillageDad?
I spoke to KCC yesterday to clarify things.
What they can't give us is the final position, i.e. what happened to the 85 children following the initial allocation on 2nd March. This was to do with the fact that parents then deal direct with the schools themselves (appeals etc) so they have no way of knowing the final schools that the 85 children started at in Sept this year.
I am finding out though which schools the 85 were initially allocated on 2nd March. This will at least give us a breakdown of how many from West Kent were offered the furthest away schools (ie Folkestone & Sittingbourne).
Kind regards
Villagedad
Perhaps they also need to be asked "How many West Kent children who were assessed as suitable for a Grammar school were allocated a non selective school in March 2009?" The subsequent question should then be " How many of those children accepted the place at the non- selective school and started at that school in September 2009".
I'm sure the data on the 85 will be available as they should be know where those children have gone, even if to an OCC or indie school. For both ours I had to complete a form for Bromley to say where they were going to sent for their secondary education (and I think there may be a legal requirementfor the parents to provide this info). Without wishing to offend anyone, the Ramsden Estate was not appropriate for my DD.
I have received this clarification about 2009 admissions from KCC:
" ........The Authority must adhere to the Admissions Code (Appendix 2, para 7(f) says that "parents who cannot be offered one of their preferred schools must, if there are are places available, be offered a place at another school".
When we are considering the allocation of places to those who were not offered a place at one of the schools named on SCAF, we have to bear in mind how many places we need to allocate, where the children live, where the vacancies are, have the pupils been assessed G. It is not possible at this stage to say exactly what will happen on 1 March in future years. For 2009 transfer, all G assessed children who were not allocated a place at a school named on SCAF, were allocated a place at a grammar school, but because the grammar school vacancies were spread across the county some pupils lived quite a distance from these schools. For some of these G children, there would have been non selective schools that were closer than the grammar schools they were allocated, and parents could have applied to these schools after 31 March if they wished.
Non selective children (who were not offered a school named on their SCAF) were allocated a place at non selective schools with vacancies; account was taken of how many places were available at these schools as well as ease of travel. "Suitability" means that we would not offer a grammar school place to a child who had not been assessed G.
Every year we allocate places to those who were not offered a school named on SCAF; there is no evidence to show that this was an unusual year. However, I cannot confirm what will happen in future years or which schools children will be allocated............"
Just thinking about what we need to ask next.
" ........The Authority must adhere to the Admissions Code (Appendix 2, para 7(f) says that "parents who cannot be offered one of their preferred schools must, if there are are places available, be offered a place at another school".
When we are considering the allocation of places to those who were not offered a place at one of the schools named on SCAF, we have to bear in mind how many places we need to allocate, where the children live, where the vacancies are, have the pupils been assessed G. It is not possible at this stage to say exactly what will happen on 1 March in future years. For 2009 transfer, all G assessed children who were not allocated a place at a school named on SCAF, were allocated a place at a grammar school, but because the grammar school vacancies were spread across the county some pupils lived quite a distance from these schools. For some of these G children, there would have been non selective schools that were closer than the grammar schools they were allocated, and parents could have applied to these schools after 31 March if they wished.
Non selective children (who were not offered a school named on their SCAF) were allocated a place at non selective schools with vacancies; account was taken of how many places were available at these schools as well as ease of travel. "Suitability" means that we would not offer a grammar school place to a child who had not been assessed G.
Every year we allocate places to those who were not offered a school named on SCAF; there is no evidence to show that this was an unusual year. However, I cannot confirm what will happen in future years or which schools children will be allocated............"
Just thinking about what we need to ask next.
