Warwicks: New admissions policy??
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
at Magwich2. Hopefully your bright daughters will attend a school that values decency and humanity aswell as intellectual ability. One can be bright yet still very very ignorant.warwicks: new admissions policy
Sorry - I did not mean to be rude about anyone on this forum and I would far far rather have a nice unacademic child than a clever nasty one.
BUT if it was not for the bad parents who cannot bring up their children properly we would not need this forum because all schools would be lovely and none would have any behavioural problems. I think there comes a time when you have to accept that not everyone is pleasant and that some children are vile and that those children spoil the others education. It is those children and their culpable parents I do not want surrounding my children and I would be surprised if I was alone in this view
BUT if it was not for the bad parents who cannot bring up their children properly we would not need this forum because all schools would be lovely and none would have any behavioural problems. I think there comes a time when you have to accept that not everyone is pleasant and that some children are vile and that those children spoil the others education. It is those children and their culpable parents I do not want surrounding my children and I would be surprised if I was alone in this view
-
sunnymummy
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:59 pm
warwicks: new admission policy?
Hello there. I was looking in on this thread because I have a niece living on the Warwickshire side of the Warks.- Coventry border - so I'm always interested.
Just to back up a bit - I've just read the judgment (the judge sounds quite an irascible chap, doesn't he?) and I am worried, completely self-interestedly, about the implications of a Bucks. system for dn. Niece dwells in the outer reaches; surely a threshold mark means that she + family will maximise their chances by moving as close to the school of choice as possible? That's the system that prevails, for girls, in our neck of the woods (along with a handful of non-distance spaces allocated in rank order,) and it makes it far more difficult for the far-flung.
Reading the judgment, it strikes me that the judge was very swayed by the technical fact that Warks had not presented an argument against changing the system. That's a shame because surely if this particular style is implemented, it will discriminate in favour of those who are able to (temporarily?) relocate closer to school of choice during the application period. That tends to be an attribute of economic advantage. It also increases the value of property in the proximity of the schools in question. That can have unpleasant local consequences. It's unfortunate they didn't present this argument. I wonder if they can appeal.
Lastly, I know there are stats. that say comprehensives do badly when there are grammars around but i wonder sometimes .... . Our local comprehensive operates alongside 4 grammars and the boys grammars are non-distance. It's completely amazing, so much so that it steals from the grammars. So co-existence is not impossible. It is big though ... .
I wonder what the schools will come up with and what it'll mean for niece ... .
Just to back up a bit - I've just read the judgment (the judge sounds quite an irascible chap, doesn't he?) and I am worried, completely self-interestedly, about the implications of a Bucks. system for dn. Niece dwells in the outer reaches; surely a threshold mark means that she + family will maximise their chances by moving as close to the school of choice as possible? That's the system that prevails, for girls, in our neck of the woods (along with a handful of non-distance spaces allocated in rank order,) and it makes it far more difficult for the far-flung.
Reading the judgment, it strikes me that the judge was very swayed by the technical fact that Warks had not presented an argument against changing the system. That's a shame because surely if this particular style is implemented, it will discriminate in favour of those who are able to (temporarily?) relocate closer to school of choice during the application period. That tends to be an attribute of economic advantage. It also increases the value of property in the proximity of the schools in question. That can have unpleasant local consequences. It's unfortunate they didn't present this argument. I wonder if they can appeal.
Lastly, I know there are stats. that say comprehensives do badly when there are grammars around but i wonder sometimes .... . Our local comprehensive operates alongside 4 grammars and the boys grammars are non-distance. It's completely amazing, so much so that it steals from the grammars. So co-existence is not impossible. It is big though ... .
I wonder what the schools will come up with and what it'll mean for niece ... .
If schools were a manageable size, as they used to be, teachers would be able to run classes well, as they used to. My parents did not want me to go to Rugby High, and left it off the form- I went to Dunsmore School for Girls, in the 1960's , attending the grammar school.There was also a non grammar stream ( Ashlawn still does work klike this , but Ashlawn is a combination of the former boys' and girls' schools, so is huge, though I have heard good reports; Some of my pupils choose to go there, rather than RHS or LSS) Children could therefore move up into the grammar stream if they improved to the appropriate level.. I think that is a perfect system. But in my opinion, small is beautiful. It's easy to hide or get lost in large institutions, similarly in cities...that anonymity adds to lack of responsibility- simply because children/ people get away with things they wouldn't in a smaller unit. Anyway...blah blah...I have read the article in the Rugby Observer and it seems that implimentation of the new agreement- ie NO CHILDREN ENTERING RUGBY GRAMMAR SCHOOLS FROM OUTSIDE RUGBY...must be implemented by 2010. Unless an appeal is made and is successful, children, therefore, from Daventry and outlying areas, will not be eligible to take the 11 plus next year to enter Rugby Grammar schools in 2010.
-
sunnymummy
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:59 pm
warkwicks - new admission policy??
Yes Jacqui - From what i can work out I think our local comprehensive is quite similar. Some places are allocated on the basis of distance, a few on test performance. It strikes me that this is fairer than access to a "good" school belonging to a local fiefdom. Maybe it would be even fairer if the test took from several bands ... . It is huge though (the haunting refrain). I suppose because huge = cheaper.
Does anyone know the answer to this ?? ---children, therefore, from Daventry and outlying areas, will not be eligible to take the 11 plus next year to enter Rugby Grammar schools in 2010.
We are out of catchment currently for Rugby High School. We send our son to a school in Rugby and, due to lots of commuting, want to move into catchment. Our daughter would take the 11+ presumably in October 2009 (unless they change the test date).
Currently, we would have until some date in February 2010 to have moved and, regardless of where we live, she can take the test on that basis.
Will she still be allowed to take the test? Will we have to have moved BEFORE she takes it? Thus giving us four less months to have relocated.
-
sunnymummy
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:59 pm
warwicks: new admission policy?
Hello. Me again. Having read that judgment again, I think the best course might be to lobby hard for an admission policy based on rank order, within a defined zone (10 miles) but with some places allocated regardless of distance.
Mr Judge decided that two main precedents for allocation of grammar school places existed; a.) a threshold passmark, within which places are allocated on distance and b.) rank order. He ruled against Warks. on several grounds, the most significant being that their allocation was anomalous. His clear preference was for a threshold - because this would essentially prevent successful application from Daventry etc. and also, by implication, children in the outer Warks. region. This would allay Northants. fears of mass migration. He felt their objections had grounds.
However, he clearly leaves the way open for Warks. to take up either of the two admissions procedures. A threshold passmark seems a little unfair.
It also seems odd that Daventry couldn't "guesstimate" the number of pupils they're likely to lose annually by some sort of exponential reckoning of existing figures. (One of their objections was that they couldn't predict how many schools they should build/close in those areas, owing to Rugby's grammars.)
Mr Judge decided that two main precedents for allocation of grammar school places existed; a.) a threshold passmark, within which places are allocated on distance and b.) rank order. He ruled against Warks. on several grounds, the most significant being that their allocation was anomalous. His clear preference was for a threshold - because this would essentially prevent successful application from Daventry etc. and also, by implication, children in the outer Warks. region. This would allay Northants. fears of mass migration. He felt their objections had grounds.
However, he clearly leaves the way open for Warks. to take up either of the two admissions procedures. A threshold passmark seems a little unfair.
It also seems odd that Daventry couldn't "guesstimate" the number of pupils they're likely to lose annually by some sort of exponential reckoning of existing figures. (One of their objections was that they couldn't predict how many schools they should build/close in those areas, owing to Rugby's grammars.)
Re: warwicks: new admission policy?
Hi, sunnmy mummy. I'd really like to read the judge's response. Where can I find it, please? I've looked on Google and can find nothing.sunnymummy wrote:Hello. Me again. Having read that judgment again, I think the best course might be to lobby hard for an admission policy based on rank order, within a defined zone (10 miles) but with some places allocated regardless of distance.
Mr Judge decided that two main precedents for allocation of grammar school places existed; a.) a threshold passmark, within which places are allocated on distance and b.) rank order. He ruled against Warks. on several grounds, the most significant being that their allocation was anomalous. His clear preference was for a threshold - because this would essentially prevent successful application from Daventry etc. and also, by implication, children in the outer Warks. region. This would allay Northants. fears of mass migration. He felt their objections had grounds.
However, he clearly leaves the way open for Warks. to take up either of the two admissions procedures. A threshold passmark seems a little unfair.
It also seems odd that Daventry couldn't "guesstimate" the number of pupils they're likely to lose annually by some sort of exponential reckoning of existing figures. (One of their objections was that they couldn't predict how many schools they should build/close in those areas, owing to Rugby's grammars.)
-
sunnymummy
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:59 pm
warwicks: new admission policy?
Hello Ed's mum.
I posted the message that came after yours before I saw you message. So it was general blathering.
The changes to admissions haven't been announced yet, so you might want to hold your horses. If they do change to a threshold mark you probably want to move close (v. close?) to where they measure the origin of the catchment/priority circle/whatever from. I don't think they've announced that yet, either. Different schools have different ideas. I can't remember what the criteria on house moves are. You usually need to be in place when you make the application but boroughs vary; some will allow you to just have proof that you intend to move (lawyer's letter) but that's rare these days, it's usually council tax and electoral roll.
I'll bet you knew all of that already!!!
Point is, I don't think there is anything definite yet.
Jaqui, I just googled "Rugby High School Admissions 2008". I'm going to go looking for it again but I'm not very technologically literate, so I may be some time ... .
I posted the message that came after yours before I saw you message. So it was general blathering.
The changes to admissions haven't been announced yet, so you might want to hold your horses. If they do change to a threshold mark you probably want to move close (v. close?) to where they measure the origin of the catchment/priority circle/whatever from. I don't think they've announced that yet, either. Different schools have different ideas. I can't remember what the criteria on house moves are. You usually need to be in place when you make the application but boroughs vary; some will allow you to just have proof that you intend to move (lawyer's letter) but that's rare these days, it's usually council tax and electoral roll.
I'll bet you knew all of that already!!!
Point is, I don't think there is anything definite yet.
Jaqui, I just googled "Rugby High School Admissions 2008". I'm going to go looking for it again but I'm not very technologically literate, so I may be some time ... .
-
sunnymummy
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:59 pm
warwicks: new admission policy?
Dear Jacquie - I really hope this is it (I googled "Warwickshire secondary school admissions 2008 Daventry"):
www.schoolsadjudicator.gov.uk/upload/ADA%201419- 21%20Ashlawn%20Sheriff%20Rugby%20schs.doc
How do people make these links come up blue and active?
Sigh.
www.schoolsadjudicator.gov.uk/upload/ADA%201419- 21%20Ashlawn%20Sheriff%20Rugby%20schs.doc
How do people make these links come up blue and active?
Sigh.
