Gobsmacking article on sevenoaks grammar campaign

Eleven Plus (11+) in Kent

Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators

mystery
Posts: 8927
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:56 pm

Re: Gobsmacking article on sevenoaks grammar campaign

Post by mystery »

I don't think it is logical to assume that because some primary schools have expanded their intake at the moment that there is sufficient long term demand to justify a whole new grammar school forever. Demographic planning for school places is a little more complex than that.

We can't judge it so easily from the outside. It would be Kevin shovelton's section at kcc who has any available data and does the computer modelling. Those responses from Kevin shovel ton quoted in the long post higher up the thread are surprising - was anyone else on here at those meetings? How did the audience and the bidding schools react? Or do people switch off where data is concerned?
doodles
Posts: 8300
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:19 pm

Re: Gobsmacking article on sevenoaks grammar campaign

Post by doodles »

Mystery, being a relatively intelligent person I am quite aware that demographic planning with regard to school places is a little more complex than perhaps I have put forward. However, having lived here since "Adam was a boy" I can tell you that this discussion has been rumbling on for an awfully long time and is nothing new. Perhaps it is just time that it was dealt with once and for all.
mystery
Posts: 8927
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:56 pm

Re: Gobsmacking article on sevenoaks grammar campaign

Post by mystery »

Yes, I hate the uncertainty about whether there are enough grammar and non selective places for 2015 or not, and about where the Christian school will be in 2015. Wish kcc would be a bit clearer. Anyhow they sorted out 2013 entry pretty well compared with some years, so maybe just have to trust 2015 will be good too!
pheasantchick
Posts: 2439
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 10:28 pm

Re: Gobsmacking article on sevenoaks grammar campaign

Post by pheasantchick »

Even though I'm a 'Kent test 2012 taker' and this is my last child ( thank goodness), I may have to stay on this forum to see how this all develops, and who will 'win' the battle of the grammar annex. Plus it's a big ploy from the mods to keep us all aboard. :lol:
doodles
Posts: 8300
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:19 pm

Re: Gobsmacking article on sevenoaks grammar campaign

Post by doodles »

You have to stay pc we have far too much to chat about and then there's gcse's!!
mystery
Posts: 8927
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:56 pm

Re: Gobsmacking article on sevenoaks grammar campaign

Post by mystery »

aequum wrote:As someone who has “bothered” to read the small print and attend one of the meetings, I hope I have done enough “homework” to be entitled to comment. Had it not been for Weald’s entry into the arena which flagged up the discrepancies in the figures and the subsequent (imho) unjustified mudslinging at Weald, I, like many others, would probably not have looked in detail at the proposals.

Having now done so, it seems pretty clear that if there was any “cobbling together on the back of an envelope” this was in relation to the figures put together by KCC in support of a 6FE grammar annexe to open in 2015. Maybe this is why the campaigners are so hot under the collar?

As a taxpayer and resident in Sevenoaks South Ward I would want to see a much more convincing set of figures to justify spending upwards of £30-40m (plus ongoing operational costs) of taxpayer’s money on a new grammar annexe to open in 2015.

Here are just a few observations:

1) The statistics provided by KCC seem to be based on some new geographical areas (not defined) called “Sevenoaks North” and “Sevenoaks South.” As these areas have not been referenced, nor are any comparative statistics available as per the 2012 commissioning plan, it is impossible to verify the change in statistics which justify a total increase of 10FE secondary needed by 2015 (if we include Trinity, which we must as it’s a fact) from the total 6FE shown in the 2012 commissioning plan.

2) Also, pupil numbers in “Sevenoaks South” have been included whereas pupil numbers in “Sevenoaks North” have been discounted as apparently they have adequate grammar provision. It seems a very strange logic to exclude one set of pupils who live around 12 miles from Sevenoaks and have good grammar school provision and transport links, but to include another set of pupils who live around 12 miles from Sevenoaks and have good grammar school provision and transport links (Sevenoaks South Ward).

3) The Invicta proposal also has the incorrect PAN from 2013 onwards, at least for Weald, and no reference is made to the ability of existing grammar schools in Tonbridge/Tunbridge Wells to increase their PAN on a temporary or permanent basis). Of course, to do this would weaken the statistics even further.

4) Invicta’s own proposal states that the requirement for an additional 6FE grammar provision, as identified by KCC, is from 2017, not 2015.

5) The Invicta proposal, associated press coverage and the Sevenoaks Grammar Campaign all go to great lengths to talk about how many students travel outside the district for secondary schooling, reducing travel time for these mysterious “Sevenoaks South” students and creating a “local school for local students.” It’s all sounding rather like “League of Gentlemen" :)

Those students living in Sevenoaks South Ward have an easy journey to Tonbridge (15 minutes or less by train) and the journey by coach to Wildernesse (if that indeed becomes the actual site) is far longer and prone to traffic delays. So for these students there would be no reduction in travel time and whether they travel outside Sevenoaks District for their educational needs is an irrelevance. Those students would still have to travel 12 miles to a grammar school (or indeed any secondary school, as there is no secondary school within Sevenoaks South Ward), whether it were based in Sevenoaks or Tonbridge/Tunbridge Wells. If a new grammar annexe in Sevenoaks could be filled with students who lived within a six mile radius, then it could perhaps genuinely be considered to be a “local school for local students.”

6) The Invicta proposal assumes that the astonishing selective assessment rate of 46% for Sevenoaks District pupils will be maintained after the change to the new “less coachable” 11+ test due to be introduced by KCC from 2014. Or maybe KCC made that assumption for the purposes of the proposal. If so, why bother to change the test at all if it’s to have no impact? To be honest, from what I have read I thought KCC were introducing the new test in direct response to the need to balance out the numbers of pupils gaining selective assessment in well-heeled, heavy coaching-culture areas. Would a 46% assessment rate against the county average of 21% be partially down to coaching or are Sevenoaks pupils all that much brighter than those in the rest of the county?

At the meeting I attended, Mr Shovelton was asked a number of questions about the figures used to support the proposal for a 6FE grammar annexe to open in 2015.

Here is a brief synopsis from the notes I made:

Question: KCC’s own commissioning plan produced in October 2012 showed a requirement for an increase of 2FE non selective and 4FE selective secondary education in Sevenoaks District by 2015. Given that Trinity will now provide 4FE non-selective secondary places from 2013 and KCC now state the requirement for an increase of 6FE selective, surely the additional 4FE (2 selective, 2 non-selective) can only be justified by a dramatic change in the predicted increase in net migration to Sevenoaks District since statistics were last issued in October 2012? (I guess it’s easy to work out that KCC knows the number of places required for the existing Sevenoaks District population until 2023).

Answer: yes that is correct.

This was somewhat surprising as surely basing the additional requirement solely on the sudden prediction of a net increase in migration is a fairly high risk strategy. Also KCC boasts in its 2012 commissioning plan that their predictions over the past few years have been accurate to within 1%. Strange that this should suddenly no longer be the case……

Question: should a 6FE grammar school annexe be implemented in Sevenoaks in 2015, would existing grammar schools have their “per pupil” funding ring-fenced during the first few years when the overprovision of places at the annexe could reduce the pupil roll at other grammars, thus potentially impacting on their curriculum provision through reduced funding?

Answer: No

Question: Why does KCC feel they need to open a 6FE grammar annexe in 2015 when the figures shown in both proposals could not support this date.

Answer: Because KCC wants to secure the Wildernesse site. (note – he did not argue the point about the figures not justifying the opening of a 6FE annexe in 2015)

KCC seem to have admitted that, even with the sudden and rather surprising newly predicted increase in net migration, the figures do not stack up for a 6FE annexe to open in 2015 (whereas they may well do from 2017/18, but for how long, given the predicted downward demographic trend in the mid 20’s?) and that their motivation for proposing an annexe from 2015 is to secure the Wildernesse site.

Don’t get me wrong, I am a firm supporter of grammar schools and would like to see all those with a selective assessment offered a suitable place. However it’s not just where additional grammar provision should be located, it’s when it should be implemented. Also, any detrimental impact on other grammar schools (and indeed non-selective schools) through overprovision of grammar places, even if only in the short term, should be taken into consideration. If there is no justification for an additional 6FE grammar school places until 2017, why not make that the target date for opening, rather than 2015?

The KCC figures seem to present more questions than answers, and as a taxpayer I’d like to be reassured that the huge investment in a new grammar annexe of this size, to open by 2015, is fully supported by robust research and verifiable statistics, though I’m sure Mr Gove will be asking for the same. This exercise should not be a game of ping pong (oops sorry, tennis!) where the winner is either KCC or Michael Gove. The winners should be the students (and that means all Sevenoaks District students, not just those who reside in or near Sevenoaks Town).
See the bit in bold above and the notes that follow. Did anyone else hear the same thing at the meeting? Intriguing.
Homer Gain
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:32 pm

Re: Gobsmacking article on sevenoaks grammar campaign

Post by Homer Gain »

bristols wrote:It's a very badly kept secret that the best kids that Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells have in their grammars are from Sevenoaks. The grammars all know full well that they will manage to fill their schools somehow (it's more likely to be the neighbouring comprehensives that will have empty places) but the calibre of pupils will go down if the Sevenoaks kids stay in Sevenoaks. This will have a knock on effect with the league tables. This is why Weald is so scared.

I have no idea why the kids in Sevenoaks are so much brighter than elsewhere. It could be all the tutoring to try and get the super selective scores or maybe there's something in the water! :lol:

Shame I missed those letters. Maybe the Campaign team were worried by the threat of the legal action by Weald written about in today's Sevenoaks Chronicle.
Its a badly kept secret that those involved in the Sevenoaks Grammar programme appear to be a bunch of arrogant and ill-mannered no-nothings who have done nothing but irritate all but their inner clique. It is hardly suprising therefore that every setback they receive is the source of considerable mirth to neutrals.
mystery
Posts: 8927
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:56 pm

Re: Gobsmacking article on sevenoaks grammar campaign

Post by mystery »

Hey, you got away with that!
Homer Gain
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:32 pm

Re: Gobsmacking article on sevenoaks grammar campaign

Post by Homer Gain »

Yes, disappointed not to get a bite or two. I at least expected the Grammar School hoods to point out that they are "know-nothings" rather than "no-nothings" :lol:
mystery
Posts: 8927
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:56 pm

Re: Gobsmacking article on sevenoaks grammar campaign

Post by mystery »

It was the mods I thought might get you - think those other people have been swept off this website somehow or other.

Do you think KCC are going to build a grammar annexe just for the fun of it, and then keep it empty until some miracle happens and a co-ed school or two single sex schools get permission to expand into it it? One that is happy to ship staff and children around between sites?

It is all very odd and not what was said at the hotel presentation of the plans in September. It was distinctly said then that if Gove said no to the grammar annex they would re-do the plans so the free school plans could change from the current one which is a compromise to enable two schools side by side on the brownfield element of the large green belt land.

Hope the planners just say yes and let the Christian school be built and don't have concerns about the vacant part of the plot being left like that for evermore.

Could houses ultimately be built next to the Christian school?
Post Reply
11 Plus Mocks - Practise the real exam experience - Book Now