Just got in from adjudicator's meeting.

[twellsmum]

I live in central TW and chose to live there when I had children for the grammar schools. Any decision made probably won't affect me either - my second daughter has just sat the 11+ but we are a mile from TWGGS and my older daughter is there. My sons are younger, not sure if they are grammar school material yet anyway but we can see Tec from our rooftop (if we chose to stand on it).

I cannot see how TWGGS policy is thought to be unfair, I think it is probably one of the fairest of the lot. 10% of places go to out of catchmetn bright girls. Other places go to out of catchment girls who have sisters at the school. Considering TWGGS takes every girl who passes within a certain distance of teh school as opposed to cherry picking, their results are on a par with ToGS. I dno't think most people object to children from eg, Groombridge or Chiddingstone coming to the grammars but what annoys many people is that children come from the coast, or London, or the other side of Kent to the super selectives. What impact can that have on a child's education and social life? Being at secondary school is not just about academic qualifications, it's about growing up and developing independence and making friends. How can that be done if you live in Orpington and your best friend lives in Mayfield? Those of who you commute any distance know how tiring it is - how can that be fair on an 11 year old who then has a mountain of homework to contend with?

[committed]

There was actually a Mum there from just outside TW whose child had only just moved to Togs this week as a result of last minute wrangling.... Her argument was that TW parents had already 'sacrificed lots' in buying an expensive house in the area and were therefore entitled to a place. She thought that parents from Hastings where the average house price is half as much shouldn't be so entitled....

She, ironically, did the best job of the night in supporting the super-selective policies to not disadvantage kids whose parents simply couldn't afford to live close enough to a school if it went to a pure distance criteria alone.
I appreciate that poorer kids are indeed already disadvantaged by the tutoring system, but at least they can currently get in... They won't have the ability to move to secure a place.

By the way, twellsmum, I am absolutely not having a go at you at all. You obviously did your homework when deciding where to live and went for a location which offered you the maximum options. I think that issue may indeed be at the heart of the matter for many parents, in particular Sevenoaks parents. Undoubtedly some (though obviously not all) moved in to the locality assuming they'd qualify for the multiple grammar schools available - only to find that it's not that straightforward...

[mystery]

Going back to the difficulty finding out exactly what KCC was objecting to (on our behalf, the taxpayers of Kent), it is very difficult. I requested it in a telephone conversation with Scott Bagshaw. He said he could not send it to me, try the School Adjudicators' Office, they said they could not, try KCC! So I made a request under Foi, received an e-mail response yesterday saying that if they had the info I was requesting, it would be made available to me by 11 October! Fat lot of use that is!!

Mmm, I couldn't make out what Scott Bagshaw's arguments really were when I spoke to him on the phone either, and I had just called to find out what it was all about, I hadn't made my mind up firmly either way. I just personally don't think that county boundaries are a fair thing to use for education.

To the LEA's credit, they do have a very hard job managing school places now, as they have a duty to do so, but so many schools (foundation, VA, academies etc) are their own admissions authorities it must be very difficult for the LEA to plan adequately.

I do think the current Adjudicator system is silly - anyone can object to a policy between 1 May and 31 July each year, it then gets decided in September or October for the following school year - so only a matter of days / weeks until when the CAFs are filled in. Silly waste of time and money; issues can yo-yo back and forth for years, with timeconsuming last minute changes based on what each individual indicator considers to be fair. Yes there needs to be some recourse for unfair policies, but this is a little farcical. And if people do want to move house to get into one of the ever decreasing catchment areas based on distance, it doesn't give them much time!!

[WP]

I do think the current Adjudicator system is silly - anyone can object to a policy between 1 May and 31 July each year, it then gets decided in September or October for the following school year - so only a matter of days / weeks until when the CAFs are filled in. Silly waste of time and money; issues can yo-yo back and forth for years, with timeconsuming last minute changes based on what each individual indicator considers to be fair. Yes there needs to be some recourse for unfair policies, but this is a little farcical. And if people do want to move house to get into one of the ever decreasing catchment areas based on distance, it doesn't give them much time!!

The adjudicators' timetable was always tight, because of the annual cycle of publishing arrangements, objections and adjudication. But it was made much worse by the decision of Ed Balls in March 2008 (DCSF press release) to extend the period for objections from 6 weeks to 16 weeks. Before 2008, adjudication decisions on secondary admissions usually appeared in July and August. Now they are more likely to appear as late as September or October, close to the deadline for lodging preferences. The unintended effect is to make it more difficult for adjudicators to impose changes, unless the case is particularly strong.

The Chief Adjudicator raised this issue in his annual report for 2008/9:

42. A major cause for concern is the date up to which objections can be made to admission arrangements. Specifying a date by which objections must be made is a definite improvement on the previous requirement to lodge an objection within six weeks of the arrangements being determined by the LA or the school. However, the deadline of 31 July is problematic. Most objections that arrive in July cannot be investigated properly as schools approach the end of the school year, and then close for the summer holiday. This leads to considerable uncertainty for all concerned. Although it is understood why this deadline was set, to allow parents as much time as possible to object, an earlier date of would at least allow investigations to begin, and hopefully in many cases be concluded, before August when many schools are closed.

and made an urgent recommendation of an earlier deadline for objections, which got this defensive response:

As you are aware, this regulation was laid last year as a result of an extensive public consultation, in order to ensure that parents and families are at the heart of the admissions system and have a chance to object where arrangements are unfair. I will ask my officials to consider further how your concerns might be addressed.

but sadly no action.

[mad?]

The adjudicators' timetable was always tight, because of the annual cycle of publishing arrangements, objections and adjudication. But it was made much worse by the decision of Ed Balls in March 2008 (DCSF press release) to extend the period for objections from 6 weeks to 16 weeks.

why am i not surprised by this?

[hamster]

I agree with Twellsmum. Everyone has to make choices in life and ours was between the schools in TW and the easy commute from Sevenoaks.

The catchment area of TWGGS actually takes in all of the council estates and less affluent parts of Tunbridge Wells to the north and excludes many of the more affluent areas such as the south side and the desirable villages around the town. In that respect it is very fair.

[kentsussexborder]

Going back to the difficulty finding out exactly what KCC was objecting to ...

So really we are none the wiser - it is quite difficult to respond to an objection when you don't know what the objection is!

If changes are forced upon the 3 schools, is it likely to force their hand regarding becoming academies? If an academy acts as its own admissions authority then I am assuming they can set their policies regarding intake. Does anyone know if this the case?

[WP]

If changes are forced upon the 3 schools, is it likely to force their hand regarding becoming academies? If an academy acts as its own admissions authority then I am assuming they can set their policies regarding intake. Does anyone know if this the case?

Academies manage their own admissions, just as voluntary aided and foundation schools do now, but still must conform to the Admissions Code. The difference is that objections to an academy's arrangements are handled by the Secretary of State instead of the Adjudicator, but still supposedly with reference to the same Admissions Code.

[committed]

I've just spoken with KCC and they are in the process of putting up their objection on the website. She said it might be this evening and she couldn't confirm where we might find it - but hopefully by tomorrow we'll actually be in a position to know exactly where they stand.

[mystery]

Do you reckon they are busy re-writing it as it is taking so long to post it onto the website?