Super selective grammar change to catchment selective - why?

[rg1]

Our local grammar Kendrick is planning to change its current open policy to one based on catchment. Similar super-selectives such as Henrietta Barnett or the Tiffins or Queen Elizabeth Barnet have no such plans, despite the fact that many local students surely do not gain entry. Reading Boys grammar has a catchment area, but accepts boarders out of catchment. Kendrick has no boarders so its entry outcomes will be affected significantly.

Reading is educationally more like Barnet than Bucks, Essex or Kent. So the proposed change will lower standards across the board within Reading, with Kendrick most affected.

Interestingly the change is only for 11+ and not 16+. This presumably because a fair few of the current girls would have to look elsewhere at 16+. In fact, academically selective options at 16+ are thicker on the ground than at 11+, so it would be less of an issue to introduce the catchment area at 16+ rather than at 11+. Better for local students too. So why a catchment selective at 11+ and super selective at 16+?

Apart from the obvious political pressure put on it by our MP who has his eye on local voters, I'm struggling to see why the change at 11+ rather than at 16+. Our venerable MP had initially pointed out that there is actually no shortage of places, but has since demonstrated that facts don't matter for him either. Putting aside the jungle mentality that passes over most of us when it comes to our DCs, is the Reading seat more shaky, is Reading more small-minded than Kingston or Barnet, is the Kendrick Governing Body weaker intellectually, or something else? There's been a change of Head at Kendrick, is this a sign of things to come, and of more erosion of the sort of school it will be?

This isn't about selection, more why copy Reading Boys when there's no boarding option at Kendrick, and why start with 11+ when 16+ would be far more sensible, possibly with a two year delay to allow year 9/10s to plan ahead. Most odd.

Are there similar changes planned elsewhere? Or already occurred?

The new catchment is massive. We live over mins drive away and are still in it and it goes a long way in every direction. Think they've done it as shortage of places for local kids, and also wonder if it's got a bit to do with Wokingham council changing their catchments. Oh and just coz kids are poor doesn't mean they are not bright or motivated so not sure how that would affect the standards !

Whoops, meant 30 mins away. Sorry

I honestly can't see where the OP mentioned poverty, mumsneedwine. Am I being very dim?

Maybe because the carbon footprint of getting the kids to and from superselectives is going to be taken into account by funders in future?

Our LEA is looking long and hard at transport costs for schools and I can see some anachronistic catchment boundaries being shaken up over the next couple of years

parental choice is great but the fuel costs !!!

So they are going to discriminate against rural families ...?

I don't agree with circular, nearest-the-school-gate catchments. That's how you get over-priced housing keeping ordinary folk out of good schools. It's much better to have weird-shaped catchments that include rich and poor areas.

round here we are (from September) going to have the school bus for one school 4 miles away picking up from outside the gate of another school
that has to be mad
also my kids school catchment is in two blobs and the other school has a long thin catchment between the blobs - it would make more sense to give each of them half the circle
and TBH with more academies and thus less LEA schools, county boundaries should no longer impact on distance from school calculations

The decision for boroughs to support state grammars or not is made by the borough. If I lived in a borough that funded state grammars, and that grammar was part of the provision for education in that borough, I would be pissed off to see the majority of places going to children from far and wide.

The 'no catchment' grammars skew the level of ability needed to get in, leaving out many perfectly able children who are at general grammar level but who live in the borough.

I wonder why state grammars have not always had a catchement or proximity criteria.

(this is an objective view - I do not live in a grammar area, nor am I trying to get DS into one of the long-journey-away super selective grammars closest to us)

Our superselectives are non catchment. It's a pain I reckon. It skews the applications and makes the competition huge for the local kids.

I can only surmise the stress kids are put under when they live not only a commuter distance (i decided that 1hr mas the max travel I felt was appropriate) away but all over the country and the plan is "we'll move if PFB gets a place" . Not only does PFB spend all primary career preparing for and doing exams, maybe all over the country but the family then uproots and moves and the pressure to "prove" it's the right school continues all the way through "see what we did for you to get a good education" etc etc

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). Has anything changed since then?

When DS went to Reading School over 10 years ago, they didn't have any designated area, but the then head did urge parents not to send day boys who lived a long way away though he didn't specify how far; when they brought in a designated area it was pretty wide - looks like Kendrick are now doing the same.

The lack of a boarding option is less relevant now that Reading School only take up to 12 boarders a year- when DS was there it was up to 20, but I don't think they ever actually had the maximum afair there were about 7-8 in DS's year.

I have known students drop out of Kendrick in year 7 because the commute is too much.

I live in West Kent. Our local grammars are super selective and attract many from outside the borough. It annoys me greatly to see places go to non kentish pupils and local children having to travel as far afield as Sittingbourne and Faversham to attend a grammar school. I don't have much sympathy for those out of catchment for Kendrick.

Carbon footprint is interesting - though I still can't see why they've changed the hour's travel policy for 11+. Surely 30 mins by bus/train has a much lower carbon footprint than by private car? So the 15 miles limit seems ropey. An hour by public transport is a better option carbon wise than 15 miles.

Blu - on funding - there are others who are experts, but I'd always been led to believe funding followed the child and the borough gets it back from where the child lives. Which is quite honestly why it's never bothered me where the other girls hail from.

mummytime - how many drop outs from commuting have you come across? Mine have been there a few years and that's not something we've come across. Leavers are very rare and we only know of a couple whose families moved. It's quite a cosy school in that sense, some say a very gentle start to secondary for a certain type of bright girl. There are a few who collect their DDs, which is maybe to do with parental comfort than need. Mine walk, so no carbon or funding issues on my conscience!

As for standards, the change will take the brightest girls from local comps, and these girls are replacing even higher placed ones out of catchment - so yes, intake levels will invariably fall. Given the Bell shape of such populations, the fall will be noticed considerably by Kendrick, but also other schools will become less comprehensive. That must increase objections to the grammar principle, possibly rightly so, if taking the brightest from the comps reduces their academic drive. Our SEN DD did not try for Kendrick despite her Wechsler scores because her comp offers better support, and we still have real comps at the moment. So in that way, similar children would be affected by this change.

sue52 - Kent, I believe from what others have said, does not have real comps because there is widespread grammar provision. Which is why I took pains to say that Reading is more like Barnet or possibly Kingston, where there are comp schools for bright children who do not go to Kendrick or Reading Boys. We don't really have the issue of academic wastelands from the 11+ here.

I still can't make sense either of why 11+ rather than 16+. Any offers?

Talkinpeace- are you near Winchester? I only ask because I saw the catchment maps for the 3 comps in Winch which were certainly 'blobs'! My DS is at Th. in Ch. Fd. which has a more or less oblong catchment- withe the school sitting hard by the further eastern most point of the rectangle! Admittedly, the M3 forms that 'barrier' and teh catchment is pretty much continuous, unlike teh Winch schools!

As for 'super selectives'- I have never understood how local tax payers allow them to exist. Whilst it might be said that if a school takes the top 2-5% from a massive area, it shouldn't affect the remaining schools in the town, I think it does, to be honest. I recall reading the OFSTED of a Salisbury school a couple of years ago where the inspector said, in as many words 'Though this school calls itself a comprehensive, by definition it cannot be in a city that contains academic selection. It is therefore a Secondary Modern' (-then went on to praise it highly as such.) I know of DDs who travel 40 miles each way to go the the girls GS in Salisbury as it's catchment is 'a reasonable travelling distance'- but of course, 'reasonable' is a variable commodity if the alternative is £12,000 pa for private fees.

I, being a cynic, believe super-selectives continue to be allowed to flourish, blind eyes naturally being turned to the intensive Prep schooling and tutoring industries around them- for political reasons. They look great on paper.

Incidentally, I don't know the definition of 'super selective' but I image it'd be having no or very generous catchment and taking the top 2-5% of possible 11+ takers. Anyone know? Or is it just a term bandied around? To me, 'super-selectives' don't for instance, take the top 20-25% of DCs. They're 'ordinary GSs'.

It is probably because the school is envisaging a change to being an academy in a few years where they will be free of LEA control but will have to counter that by organising their own school transport and admissions. I suspect this will become quite common.

Do you mean why a catchment for 11+ but not one for 16+? Well sixth forms don't have catchments, lots of kids join my DCs comp for sixth form.
The one girl I knew who dropped out was commuting 26 or so miles.
I just think a long commute plus homework might be too much, if the catchment is reduced to 15 miles, it shouldn't make much difference (you could ask the school for the statistics on how many girls come from outside that area).

I do know of one girl who was commuting 30+ miles for all of her secondary career, to a comp. I think she would have done better if she'd gone to a more local school, as she would have been less tired, had more chance to be fully involved in school life and even had time to be tutored if she'd needed it.

Sorry, I misunderstood the comment about reading being like barnet and so standards would drop (ex barnet resident). The catchment is still huge and would mean some girls having an hour commute each way. The old head used to advise against it as they are expected to do several extra curricular activities. There will still be as many girls as bright getting in - there are hundreds usually on the same cut off score and places are allocated by distance then. To be frank, I'd say 90% of the current girls are in the new catchment anyway. I think it's a much fairer system as local kids more likely to get into a local school, but it will probably affect v few kids.

Littentree - this local tax payer realizes that schools are funded from central government and not my Council tax, so does not feel it's justified to behave as if I own the school. Having a DD at a local comp, I can say that we do have real comps here. Of course I cannot assume they also exist in Salisbury, having no knowledge of that town.

Kendrick has its share of parents who subject their DDs to tutoring. Personally although I think my DDs have enough on without that added stress, I'd find it hard to judge what others' situations are. Nobody would say that Kendrick takes the top 20% of local girls, but it would get a lot closer to that if they changed their travel policy, and tutoring will matter more the more you move into more heavily populated sections of the Bell curve. Which would affect poorer families.

The debate on selection is another one, probably still live. I'm simply perplexed about why the school is introducing a change that does not make sense carbon wise, will not improve either its own outcomes or those of the local comps, and is not sensible even in terms of the choice of entry point. Also interesting that no other grammar has done the same as they're proposing.

Thanks for musing it with me!

Kendrick is already an academy. They've always had a travel policy, based on travel time, not postcodes though. They're keeping that for 16+ but strangely are moving over to postcodes for 11+.

mummytime - it could affect 15% or more of the intake. My DDs know at least four girls who take less than an hour to cover over 40 miles, and more who are out of the proposed catchment. That is a lot of academic drive to take out of our comps. I'm just glad I don't have younger children if this goes ahead.

mumsneedwine - Barnet comps like Reading ones are not affected by selection because they still have most of the brightest local children.

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....

cavermum - yes, the ballot was what came to mind at first. But thinking about it, and having girls at both, this is making me think about supporting the ballot and vote to abolish, because a Kendrick comp would be better for locals than a local grammar.

Like you, I'm not worried about Kendrick's performance, which if the girls we know are typical, will definitely go down, along with the comps losing girls to them. OK, we all know not all bright girls will fit in, but Reading's always been good for ones who need support Kendrick is not used to giving. As soon as Kendrick becomes a local grammar, the comps will be diminished. Everyone loses out. Luckily we're not personally affected anymore, but the ballot isn't only for now, is it?

And there's the point about poorer families. Shifting 15% down the ability scale will make tutoring critical to getting in. It makes the change even more cynical and political. As usual, poorer families lose out.

The girls who come from afar sit on the train for half an hour, and I couldn't have spotted them if I wasn't told. Of course, walking to school is best, but I can see why their families have no problem with them doing homework and revision on a train. They seem to get to school faster than most other girls anyway.

I never thought I'd support abolishing the grammars, there's room for all in my book, but the postcode catchment is swaying me. Especially the cynicism about keeping their options open for 16+ because of league tables. Those values would definitely put me off. Did they wait for Mrs Elms to go before bringing in the new regime?

The strength of Kendrick from what we know is in nurturing the lower school girls. Sixth form results come from that. If they're now happy to import in ability, after someone else has done the nurturing they can't do, they don't deserve any support on the ballot.

Does anyone know if this sort of thing was ever considered by the Tiffins or Barnet grammars? They're the obvious ones able to attract a wide constituency because of good public transport, while co-existing with good comps.

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.

IUTMKR - you're right, of course, it's not exactly problem of the week. Just unsettling that Kendrick would suggest a change for something that was never a problem; they always had a travel time limit that worked very well. Since copying Reading Boys' postcode limits won't stop them being targetted in the ballot, there must be some strange political pressure at work here. One that the Tiffins and Barnets don't have.

One thing that was said was that there are some influential locals whose girls are coming up to 11. I shall dig about more into this one! If that's so, big shame on them. If taking out 15% is meant to help theirs, I think we may as well go comprehensive. Knowing some of the girls who travel the miles by train, I think they find it easier than the ones that come by car or spend the same time on the bus. The more I ask about the longer distances, the more obvious it's just a red herring.

I'm surprising myself how my thinking has changed. I started off being tolerant of the two grammars, but if Kendrick tinkers about the principle (when the tinkering is pointless), why not go comprehensive? From what I see and others say, Reading Boys is quite different pastorally from Kendrick, leaving aside the question whether boys respond to tutors as well as girls at 11+. I suppose going comprehensive will be best for more local families. Wonder how well the school will cope?

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!

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!

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.