'new' grammar schools in kent...

[oliverreed]

well, not technically. The local authority have been given the go-ahead for two (I think) annexe grammar schools in Sevenoaks. Gove is surely rubbing his hands with glee. I agree with the decision as pressure on places in this area is causing a lot of heartache for many families whose children are travelling a long way, but is it paving the way for the creation of new grammar schools.
Would be interested to hear your thoughts?

Breadandbutter

Google:

'do less able children benefit from smaller class sizes'

I think you might find the answer is 'yes', not 'the less able are a piece of piss to teach'.

I'm getting a bit nerdy about all this myself Seeker! So how does it work, if you pass you put which grammars you'd prefer or is it allocated by the LA with priority to where you live? So kids at Dover would be from Dover (and Sevenoaks, obv ) Might have to have a read of the admissions criteria as quite curious.

@litten All children benefit from smaller class sizes.

Yes, dover set their own entry test as an alternative to the Kent test as otherwise they don't fill up. If you think about it half their catchment is water! Also deal and Canterbury are close and also have grammars ( also sandwich and ramsgate). It is in west Kent that there is pressure in places and some superselecives. Also, the grammars are quite nice to the children, and you are allowed to take, for example, art or music even if you are only likely to get a c! And my highly mathematical ds may well not get an a or a* in English or history- but He will still take them!

Jalapeño, in this bit of Kent, if you pass the test, you put the grammar school/s you want in order. They are then allocated by proximity and preference. Generally speaking, kids go their nearest. The single sex thing complicates things a bit, but that's roughly how it works.

Not completely convinced about small classes. What I am convinced about is a good adult child ratio. So a class of 30 with a teacher and two TAs could well be better than a class of 10 and one teacher.

Sorry, x post. Jalapeño, in kent you take the test, get the result and then apply to the schools you want in your caf ( max 4). The schools then apply their entry criteria- distance, score, siblings- whatever they use ( which is published in the y6 handbook you get and online).

In our bit of Kent it is a bit distorted by the superselecives.

Ah ok talking nonsense, same here in that you know you've passed then can choose 1, 2 or 3 grammars (2 for girl, 3 for boy) in your caf. If you have passed in Kent do you know you def have a place? Here you can pass all 3 but still not get a place!!

True about Dover being half water borders. I really think the extra places are going to worsen things in Kent, just a gut feeling. I'm getting slightly unnerved that the grammars here might try the same thing, we have an empty school site nearby and everything...

mteabilis but let's go mad and assume the education budget is limited therefore resources have to be directed where they'll achieve most...

@litten.

Pray tell us what your job is so i can tell you how to do it... Or not.

How wonderful it must be to be an expert in something yu've never done.

And please point out the post where I suggested that lower level classes ought to be larger...?

The reality is, as Metabilis3 has posted, is that small class sizes benefit all kids. But for some reasn, you feel that bright children do not have the same rights to a good education as their less academic peers. Are they supposed to teach themselves, perhaps?

@litten let's do that. Super selective grammars all the way then. When I look at what my DD1's school achieves with materially less funding than almost every other school in the country, I'd love to see what it could achieve with just average funding. Happy to see elite sport funding cut, though, if you want. Cos the kids who are very very good at sport never seem to attract the same desire to punish, from some people, as the kids who have the temerity to be very very academic.

But for some reasn, you feel that bright children do not have the same rights to a good education as their less academic peers. Are they supposed to teach themselves, perhaps?"

Of course the do. But they don't have a right to a better education!

@seeker you are so sloppy with your terms. Define 'better'. I think children should have an appropriate education for their abilities, which will enable them to fulfill their academic potential. As I have pointed out at least twice on this thread - but you have chosen to ignore - my DD1's school has materially less funding than all the other schools in the LEA and the vast majority of schools in the country (our LEA gets almost the lowest funding in the country). How is this in any way fair? Yet because it's the high achieving kids who are being shafted, nobody seems to mind.

Sorry, haven't chased to ignore- just didn't take in. Why does your school get less funding? And why does your LEA get less funding?

Until somebody convinces me otherwise, though, do think the lion's share of the money should go to the schools with the most disadvantaged children. isn't that just common sense?

@seeker of course it doesn't make sense. The money should go where it can be used to best advantage. That might be to the most financially disadvantaged children, it might be to different areas of SEN, it might be to the brightest kids, it depends on the circumstances and the options available to the relevant LEA at the time the allocation is made and there shouldn't be one blanket rule for everyone regardless of circumstances or nuance.

DD1's school gets less funding than the other schools in the LEA because of a rule about how much funding a grammar can get. I don't know if it's an LEA specific rule or a national rule. But the funding is capped at a level lower than all the other schools (there is only the one grammar school in the LEA). Why does our LEA get so much less than practically everywhere else? The Tory dominated county council would be my guess. The rural Tory vote keeps them in power in perpetuity and state education isn't a vote winner for them since their constituency mainly use the posh schools. But officially, nobody quite knows why and there is a lot of hoohah (petitions, questions in parliament etc) about why we get so much less than practically everywhere else.

Jalapeño, yes it's the same here- you can pass but not get any of the grammars on your form if other children are higher on your list. Usually it shakes down a bit through the waiting list, and sometimes one of the lea grammars will put on an extra class.
The problem in 7oaks may be that even with a grammar annexe, parents may want the supers electives- so chdn may end up travelling from 7 oaks to tun wells and vice versa, for the sake of one or two point on the day!
Tough, yes I guess we aren't far away from your comments on mascalls! I do think it is a v good school though, even if not truly a comp.

I suppose I'm taking a simplistic approach. But is seems to me that a school which has a significantly lower level of SEN, EAL and FSM children than most is actually going to need less funding to deliver a good education? Or is that not true?

The simplistic approach is often the correct one. If you cherry pick your DCs in the first place then educating them should be easier.

@seeker I'm not sure that our school does have a significantly lower number of kids with SEN than every single other school in the LEA. Your attitude is clearly another example of tall poppy punishment syndrome.

Eh? Where on earth did that come from?????

You could just have a look at the league tables- then you'd know for sure what your school's % of SEN, EAL and FSM is compared to to other schools in the area! If they are the same, then obviously the funding should be the same. If they are significantly lower, then I don't think it's tall poppy syndrome to say that possibly other schools have a greater need for funding.

@seeker the league tables won't help in this respect. Perhaps you don't know how they now record SEN. It doesn't matter how dyslexic or dyspraxic or AS or whatever you are, if you are achieving the target for your age group, then you do not 'have' SEN for the purposes of the DfES stats. Being very bright is also an SEN, which is not recognised in the tables.

There is currently a scandal brewing in our county relating to apparent/alleged serious (criminal) misapplication of school funding by one particular secondary school (which gets very poor results). School funding within the LEA is far from transparent, far from fair and far from effective or efficient. I'd be amazed if our area was the only one where that was the case (although I expect it is properly controlled in big metropolitan areas where there is more oversight and crucially more competitiveness at election time). I'd like to see all my kids in schools that were funded according to the same formula as everywhere else in the country.

Well, if you've got a statement it's recorded.....

Of course schools with higher-achievers should not be better funded! I remember thinking, as we were being shown by a 6th former around metabilis' DCs' school, when he motioned to a perfectly adequate block and saying "that will be next to go" that actually that block was in significantly better shape than any of the buildings in our nearest secondary school, which is repeatedly told it is not to be rebuilt even though it is now very tired and crumbling in places.