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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

aliportico - I can only go by the girls we know, and although plummet is a strong word (for you) to use, their cohorts would be affected. If girls get the same score, then distance is the deciding criteria, so the girls replacing those no longer in the postcode areas will have scored less in their ability tests. Not ones who "got exactly the same score" as you say.

I don't think anyone has said Kendrick "works" for its academic results. Mostly parents like it because it is a place where academic girls are less likely to suffer from pressures we fear in large comps where the academics may be seen as less cool. Having another DD at a comp, I see there is something to this, but for us this is compensated for by her SEN. It's not an insurmountable factor, and frankly if the point is to make Kendrick work at adding academic value, conversion to comp would be better. However that is not what most of the parents we know value Kendrick for.

There is a travel time limit of 75 minutes being proposed for the Sixth Form in the consultation, and as you point out, reasonble travel is referred to at Open Day and parents' evenings. Similar to skiingandboarding, DH travelled far more than 15 rural miles to the Colchester RGS in the 1960s and that was never an issue. Most parents can judge perfectly well whether their DC can cope.

I don't wish to argue over this really. I can't see where you say why this is a positive move. If a girl travels less than 75 or 60 minutes, that's a reasonable criterion. The ballot issue affects Reading Boys, so why follow a "failed" pattern? This just smacks of political tinkering. Which may be why it bothers me more than you because I am very local, and while I'm prepared to tolerate most school models, I don't like it if a few people are tinkering about with admissions just to suit their own DDs. That would be enough to swing my vote to going comp.

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?

aliportico, I noticed in a recent post about travel times, you said your DD took the bus, is this from RG1? Or do you have another DD at Reading Girls?

I don't have anyone at Reading Boys, all mine are girls. Friends say the two schools are pretty dissimilar pastorally. That makes sense, since teenage boys probably need slightly different handling from girls, if nephews are anything to go by. So whether Reading Boys would struggle more as a comprehensive is a different question from Kendrick changing.

Yes I would vote for comp for Kendrick if the change is pressure from Rob Wilson, or anyone who believes they can change a perfectly good school to suit their DDs. I think there is some history of boys' grammars finding the change to conp more challenging than girls' grammars, but hey, perhaps Reading Boys will find it just as easy to work for their results as Kendrick.

The school is unable to respond until the consultation closes, I think you already know that.

Oh, and none of the girls who we know outside the 15 mile limit need to leave their homes before 7.10 to get in for the early Kendrick start, so they actually travel less than your DD. So much for the difficult travel affecting their work and social lives.

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.

hattiehoo - does this not depend on whether it is an area ballot or a feeder school ballot?

The issue for me is not how much the ability range will decrease, or whether that matters to the school. We do not have a grammar system, only a couple of super selectives. Either it is super-selective or comprehensive, not some mixed up version to suit non-locals who can't take real competition.

I also think the postode catchment is pointless because it takes Miss aliportico in RG1 longer to get to a Reading School than some of my DDs' friends, and if Kendrick is a super selective it should be fair to everyone. This super selective has never had a previous problem with travel but is introducing a false impediment which it cannot line up between 11 and 16 year olds. If we are talking fairness, then a comp will be fairer to the most local of girls who live in RG1. Or a super-selective who leaves it to how well a girl does at testing.

Perhaps we should go for an area ballot, which hopefully will keep out all parents outside the local area? That will make things more interesting for the 15 mile postcode supporters who are not actually local. The trouble with political tinkering is that we're dealing with human beings who sometimes don't respond how you want to.

Anyway as I said I don't wish to argue. And will dig around for the real reasons for the proposal.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.