Super selective grammar change to catchment selective - why?

RustyBear: The Wokingham catchments won't now be changing in the way that pissed off the Reading parents, though - the Adjudicator ruled against it, and the Maiden Erlegh governors accepted that (even though they are now an academy).

The Adjudicator ruled against the removal of the Reading area being taken out of the Maiden Erlegh catchment altogether, as Wokingham was proposing... but they are now included in a larger catchment that encompasses parts of Lower Earley, which the original catchment didn't. In effect, a bigger catchment area with more kids applying for same number of places. The Reading area is at the edge of the new, larger, catchment which is the significant change, lessening their chances based on radial distance etc. There was a map somewhere...

Lots of interesting points raised by many on this thread, but unless we have the statistics on the number of current pupils at Kendrick who live outside of the proposed 15 mile catchment, then we can't compare and predict how the intake will change in the future. Does anyone know this figure? I haven't got round to contacting the school yet (my kids are a couple of years off from attempting).

As for the ballot, I thought that died a death before the summer was out, last year... i don't believe they reached the required numbers to actually call the ballot.

Well, the Kendrick designated area (and I haven't compared every single postcode carefully, I have to admit, lol) is larger, I think. There are maybe a couple of postcodes on Reading not on Kendrick, but then there're a whole load of HP (High Wycombe, south of the M40) postcodes included in Kendrick's. My guess would be that it will exclude maybe 5 girls a year?

I think it's mostly a PR move, to counteract the resentment and hyperbole I mentioned earlier. I guess the ballot has had something to do with it, although if I were one of the petition-signers, I don't think I'd be mollified. And I think applications might well go up, as 'local' people feel their daughters have more chance of getting in.

I agree that the ballot thing last year has provoked the change, and that the Reading (Boys) "catchment" is a joke as it is so vast.

My DS lives locally and he leaves at 7:25 to get to Reading School as the traffic in town is barmy (hence the early school start to avoid the 9am traffic). His friends that come in by train leave later from home! If the Kendrick boundary is the same it will make very little impact on applications.

If it really matters, my dd1 is at Kendrick and cycles the mile to school, my dd2 is elsewhere and is the one who goes out early for the bus.

"We do not have a grammar system, only a couple of super selectives."

But as keeps being repeated, Reading School has a designated area. I don't understand how it can still be a super-selective by your definition if Kendrick's adoption of a des. area means it won't be?

hi Rg1

The recent recently proposed ballot was a feeder school ballot rather than an area ballot. I'm not sure how this is decided.

I believe that a 15 mile catchment area with at least 5 applicants for a place (Reading School with its smaller designated area still has this ratio) would mean that both these schools would still very much be "superselectives". I must admit I struggle to understand your preference for them to be comprehensive than for them to be differently selective.

I have children at both Reading School and Kendrick and the standard of work appears to me to be higher at Reading. Perhaps this is the teaching or perhaps the broader nature of the tests means it is more coach proof. Whatever the reason, it convinces me that the 15 mile catchment is nothing to worry about in terms of standards at least.

Hi RG1

I have to say I agree with Aliportico that the effect on standards will probably be negligible. I would expect the numbers sitting the entrance test will remain very high as they continue to do so at Reading School. With hundreds of girls sitting the test for just 96 places, the standard is already so very high that if someone gets in with 96% rather than 97%, surely this won't translate into an appreciable difference in their performance once attending the school. In any event, I think the benefits of having friendship groups less widespread more than outweighs any impact on standards.

As far as the vote is concerned RG1, it is my understanding that if there was to be a fresh petition and subsequent ballot, only those with children at the feeder schools would be entitled to vote, not those with daughters at Kendrick.

lol, rg1, I'm in RG1 as well, and when I said my daughter was in Y10, I meant at Kendrick. I think it's a positive move because I think the school should serve the (roughly) surrounding area, not girls coming from areas where their alternatives are probably better than most of the Reading comprehensives.

Do you seriously think that Reading School would be better to go comprehensive as it has had a designated area for years? I doubt it, and so I'm not worried about Kendrick changing.

I doubt very much it's anything to do with external people putting on pressure (are we suggesting local MP's daughters are rising 11 and want a better chance of getting in?). Why not just ask at school about the thinking behind it?

I think this is a positive move. As mumsneedwine said, I really don't think it's going to make a lot of difference in practice. I think there's a lot of resentment and hyperbole (both seen here on a previous thread about the ballot) about the handful of girls who come from miles and miles away, and if it excludes them, and lets in 5 more 'local' girls (a 15 mile radius really isn't particularly local!) each year - all of whom are likely to have got exactly the same score on the entrance test - then in my mind that's only a good thing.

No one scoffs at Reading School for being a local grammar, and I don't see why rg1 thinks Kendrick's results will immediately plummet. If you look at the value-added scores for Kendrick, it barely scrapes above neutral. This could be a chance for them to actually show that there is something to the school rather than just the very carefully-picked girls!

Also, what "travel time limit"? My eldest is in Y10, and whilst we were warned at the open evening and the new parents' evening to consider travelling times, homework, extra-curriculars, etc, there was no limit given.

I understand that chelmsford grammar schools plan to change criteria for 2013 to restrict 80% of the 11plus intake to within 12.5miles. The reason given is children are too tired from journey.

Would be interested if this is the real reason.

30 years ago there were many of us travelling more than this distance to CHS. Whilst I agree with reducing carbon footprint and having local friends it will have impact on some siblings in the short term and will presumably lower results in league tables.

Yes, they have those at grammar schools too. But the environment at one comp is very simelar to the environment at another comp. and they are often huge schools with more than 200 children in each year group. For some children, that is just too big, and they would do better in a smaller, more community like school. Those children should be provided for in the state system IMO.

But this isn't a thread about the advantages and disadvantages of grammar schools.

IUseTooMuchKitchenRoll: "and I don't think it is right to try and teach them all in exactly the same way, as is done at comprehensives"

But most comprehensives don't "try and teach them all in exactly the same way": they have streams and settings and flexibility to move between.

I live in Kingston and, though DD is super-bright and should have had a good chance of getting a place at Tiffin, I discounted it because I did not like the atmosphere which has evolved there due to the culture of pressure, heavy tutoring and Dcs travelling in from crazy distances away. She is now in top stream of girls comp with lots of other equally bright local girls.

As i understand it, though funding may follow the pupil, Kingston Council are allowed to count the Tiffin places in the total school places they are theoretically offering to local residents, despite the fact that most of those places go to DCs living far out of borough. so they maintain a fiction of offering an adequate number of secondary places for the borough children, though a large chunk are not accessible to the vast majority. A new mixed secondary has been proposed but, as far as I know, the funding is not yet confirmed, so that will not happen for years.

Our situation upon applying for secondary was that, upon reviewing the catchment areas for the previous year's intake, we found we were right on the edge of the catchment for our preferred school (literelly the last street) and way outside the catchment for ALL the other borough secondaries. So we could very easily have ended up with no offer at all. There must have been many families who were indeed in this situation.

We were lucky and just scraped in. But I feel Kingston council are offering a woefully inadequate number of school places and the situation is ain part being masked by the existence of a super selective within the borough.

If i had my way the Tiffin schools would become comprehensive and the borough would gain sorely-needed good secondary places.

I think that it is the right thing to do. It is all very well saying that QE boys and Henrietta Barnet have no catchment and how great it is but the knock on effect is that bright children in the area do not have a decent secondary school to go to. Henrietta Barnet is a case in point. It is the only state option for girls in the immediate area yet most places are going to children travelling across London. It isn't fair. Selective education is fine, I don't have a problem with it at all but a state grammar should serve the children in the borough.

Ditto about the influential people, I've heard that one too.

My thinking is also changing after reflecting on your points.

Good point about Reading's catchment in comparison. Also agree about the transport being a red herring. (I found the Kendrick ballot response rather weak, and think the school's using similarly illogical reasoning on the distance arguement )

I see that Kendrick's consulting about these proposals:
www.kendrick.reading.sch.uk/about/Lists/School%20News/SchoolNewsItem.aspx?List=e7dceb4d%2D077b%2D4923%2D9184%2D34a5d208953e&ID=63&RootFolder=%2Fabout%2FLists%2FSchool%20News
I'm feeling tempted to contribute: at the very least they should think twice about including those with two bites of the grammar school cherry (ie Bucks, Surrey).

As for girls from more deprived backgrounds, I still can't see more pupils from certain schools (on, oh let's say the same road), getting in just because the catchment gets smaller-they will still probably not have tutoring or parents who know how to home tutor, so the inequalities may still exist if they'll remain at a disadvantage.

But nor do I think that making it a comp is the answer (and its sister school Reading Girls is just up the road).

I still think this is triggered by ballot fears!

Saying that there was never a problem depends on which way you look at it really.

It's not a problem for those whose children are already there, or for those whose children might not get in but they live a long way away and are worried about how the commute would affect their dd if she does get in.

I have a friend who is waiting to find out if her dd has a place at Kendrick at the beginning of March, and I know she feels extra pressure because of the competition being so huge. It does strike me as unfair that a child who has a strong chance of getting a place at a Bucks grammar, for example, could have her daughters place at Kendrick. She lives about a ten minute drive away from central Reading, doesn't have an easy route to one of the Bucks grammars, nor does she have priority allocation there, nor does she routinely get preparation for a test such as the 11+ at school like the other child would.

I don't think Kendrick would be doing its locality any good to become a comp. There are reasons why I disagree with the grammar system, but at the same time, it offers brighter children a chance to be educated in a way that suits them best. Children are not all the same, and I don't think it is right to try and teach them all in exactly the same way, as is done at comprehensives.

Personally, I do feel that a long commute is not in the best interests of a child or teen, but I can see why it would be preferable to some than sending their child to school locally.

It's interesting to hear what you say about some influential locals having girls coming up to 11+ age. If you do find out anything, let us know!

I'm not sure I see the problem tbh. The Reading school catchment is still huge, and has in no way affected the high standards there.

I know more about the system at Reading than i do Kendrick, but I would have thought both schools will always have to turn away students that are worthy of a place just because of the amount they are oversubscribed by.

I don't think that imposing a still large catchment area will lower the standard at all. If anything, it could improve it because girls could have more time for study and extra curricular activities because there wont be any girls that have a very long commute.

Perhaps they are imposing a change at 11+ rather than 16+ because a heavy commute will be harder for an 11 year old to cope with than a 16 year old.

I think that Kendrick is reacting proactively to avert any potential ballot as proposed last year. I also thought that Kendrick's current pupils come mainly from the new proposed catchment anyway. But clearly I was wrong-commuting 40 miles each way to school-wow, that's insane. Surely it's better for girls to live near each other-as it is, the new widest distance between home addresses could still be as much as 30 miles from house to house.

As for your worry that standards will be lowered across the board-"outcomes" will be better for more local but still academic girls who may now have an increased chance of getting in, but I agree with the person who posted that there's little difference between many of those who get in and those who don't (bearing in mind that they always take girls from the waiting list because some decline places). Unless you mean league table type school outcomes rather than personal outcomes. I am less concerned about how a school does that how my DC does in that school.

And I'm not quite sure why those girls' academic aspirations should be quashed in order to bring up their comp (if you believe that anyway). In any event, how would we know?

As for the reasons for not changing in the 6th form:

1. A long commute is more manageable for a 6th former than a Year 7
2. They don't want to be forced to lose girls in the Sixth form who will be out of catchment when they get there.
3. They still want to keep their options wide open to get the best A level results....