Tiffin Schools - Admission Arrangements 2014

[Etienne]

Bucks have first preference to children from the county.

No, this is not correct and never has been!
In Bucks, in-catchment children (not in-county children) have for some time been given a high priority within the admission rules.
Before that (many years ago), children with the highest scores were prioritised.

Some of the catchment areas extend beyond the county boundary, so out-county children (in Northamptonshire, for example, or in Berkshire) might be in-catchment for a Bucks grammar school! This is in accordance with the Greenwich and Rotherham judgements.

It would be best to keep the term "first preference" for CAF forms.
Where admission rules are concerned, the Admissions Code uses terms such as "highest priority", "the order" [of priority], and "tie-breaker".

Mad? is right in saying that "Bucks only have a qualifying score so proximity is important once a certain standard is met" [as a tie-breaker].

In the new Code the highest priority must in future be given, unless otherwise provided in the Code, to looked after children and previously looked after children.

Here's an example of the order of priority in one Bucks grammar school's admission rules/oversubscription criteria.
(Note that rule 1 will need updating to comply with the new Code!)

• 1. Children in care.
  2. Children living in the catchment area of the school.
  3. For the main point of admission: siblings of children in Years 7 to 12 who are on the roll and
  will be on the roll of the school at the time of the proposed admission. For casual admission after
  the normal point of entry: siblings of children who are in Years 7-13 at the time of admission.
  4. Children who have exceptional medical or social needs, which can only be met at this school,
  supported by written evidence from a doctor, social worker, educational welfare officer or other
  appropriate person.
  5. Once the above rules have been applied, then any further places will be offered in distance
  order, using the distance between the family’s normal home address, from their front door, and the
  school’s nearest entrance gate, offering the closest first. For “distance”, we use the definition
  adopted in the County Scheme.
  6. Where a school can take some, but not all, of the children who qualify under one of these rules,
  we will give priority to children by taking account of the next rule (or rules) in the numbered list
  to decide who has priority for places.

[tiffinboys]

Thanks Etienne. I am trying to locate some documents that clearly mentioned priority for in-county children for Bucks grammars. I will come back on this later. Need to do bit of googling.

[Etienne]

Thanks, tiffinboys - will be very interested to see what you were referring to.

[tiffinboys]

Sorry, haven't yet got to the correct doucment. Still working on it. Having read the other post, I recall reading this and mentioning in Feb 2012, so it might be in consultation documents at the time.

[mad?]

Thank you Etienne...thought I was going mad?

[Etienne]

...thought I was going mad?

Surely not, mad?

[tiffinboys]

Still on it. May be I got it wrong. As Etienne puts it, priority is for children in Bucks grammars catchment area. Hopefully, nobody is going mad?

[WP]

Catchments can be the over-subscription criteria. The second criteria above is not catchment based - some schools already have such catchments e.g. Wallington Girls 2nd catchment area is based on a radius from junction - not from the school. The third criteria above is also permissible since Rotherham judgement, e.g. Bucks have first preference to children from the county. Kingston children can have the same preference for even 100% of the places.

Indeed the Rotherham Judgement said that catchments were allowed, provided they do not contravene the Greenwich Judgement. The two catchments you propose certainly do contravene it, the last one particularly clearly.

As I recall, Wallington Girls used to have coordinated arrangements with Nonsuch, based on distance from a point halfway between the schools. They could argue that the current arrangements represent a compromise between their traditional area and distance from the school. Etienne has confirmed that you're mistaken about Bucks schools.

[tiffinboys]

WP, thanks for your input. When Wallington and Nonsuch changed to their separate arrangements, Waliington adopted a catchment which had 6.7 km radius from the school. A year later, they added another catchment - 6 km radius from a junction (Carshalton Road/Pond Street) some way away from the school.

About Bucks, I may be slightly wrong, but they do have catchment area and 'higher priority' is for children in catchment.

I see your point about the Kingston catchment (3) and there is an argument in fovour of it as over-subcription criteria, but how 10 km radius from borough's centre, which covers a large part of all the surrounding boroughs would be a problem? In fact, this radius covers so much of other boroughs that it was opposed by some on this ground alone.

[WP]

I see your point about the Kingston catchment (3), but how 10 km radius from borough's centre, which covers a large part of all the surrounding boroughs would be a problem? In fact, this radius covers so much of other boroughs that it was opposed by some on this ground alone.

It's less obvious than using the borough as a catchment, but what rationale could the school present to a schools adjudicator for using the centre of the borough (3-4 km away) if a parent objected that it was a device to give priority to Kingston residents (which is illegal) and unfair to children living closer to the school but in the other direction? Remember "Kingston schools for Kingston children" is not an admissible argument in such a context. You can argue for locality and other connections to the school, just not local government.