Go to navigation
It is currently Sat Apr 10, 2021 8:01 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 288 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2021 10:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2019 8:56 am
Posts: 197
nervousmom wrote:
We all knew this would happen.

I contributed to the consultation and this was one of the points I made.

As I've said before, this was nothing to do with fairness for the kids, it was all about lining the pockets of those making the decisions.

I do agree changes were needed, to stop people from all over the country applying, but there should have been a better system introduced.


I know the system is not perfect (last year my child and several friends’ children were not initially offered places); however I do think that the lack of posts on the Birmingham boards would suggest that the new system has suited the majority of applicants.

I’m curious to know how the current system lines the pockets of the decision makers and also what you would propose as a ‘better system’.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2021 12:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:51 am
Posts: 10019
I think it is interesting how quiet it is - in previous years there was a huge amount of discussion about cutoff scores etc - now (bar CHB) if you have the right score and are in catchment then you will be OK (provided you put the school first on the CAF :roll: ) - many will have known what the allocations would be before march 1st. Not sure what CHB are going to do - the aim was to have the same priority score across all the schools, even with increasing it, there are some in catchment who don't get a place. Maybe the catchment needs to shrink a little ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2021 1:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2019 8:56 am
Posts: 197
I’m very wary of starting the pupil premium debate (for the record I am in favour of it); however last year the Foundation had very useful information on the website which detailed the number of pp and non pp children who had achieved the qualifying/ priority score. This gave a good indication of how many non pp children were competing for places and also how many places would be offered to pp children. I seem to recall that KEFW had fewer than 25% of in catchment pp children who achieved the qualifying score and therefore offered places to high scoring out of catchment pp children in order to reach the quota. I also think that CHB had greater than 25% of in catchment pp children who reached the qualifying score which then meant that fewer places for in catchment children (non pp & priority score).

The link is inactive this year, so it is not possible to gauge how many in catchment non pp children are competing for waiting list places at CHB school.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2021 2:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2015 4:45 pm
Posts: 19
hermanmunster wrote:
I think it is interesting how quiet it is - in previous years there was a huge amount of discussion about cutoff scores etc - now (bar CHB) if you have the right score and are in catchment then you will be OK (provided you put the school first on the CAF :roll: ) - many will have known what the allocations would be before march 1st. Not sure what CHB are going to do - the aim was to have the same priority score across all the schools, even with increasing it, there are some in catchment who don't get a place. Maybe the catchment needs to shrink a little ?


It's an inherently unfair system because it's a post code lottery.

My brother lives in Sutton Coldfield, and his children are eligible for BVGS/SCGS, and fall within Handsworth & Aston catchment areas.
My friend lives in Tyseley, and his kids are only eligible for CHB, though outside the distance that would qualify his children.

I dont know why people are surprised that people will manipulate the post code for 11+... its happened for decades with primary schools.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2021 2:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 9:38 am
Posts: 1664
Location: Warwickshire
Nella wrote:
nervousmom wrote:
We all knew this would happen.

I contributed to the consultation and this was one of the points I made.

As I've said before, this was nothing to do with fairness for the kids, it was all about lining the pockets of those making the decisions.

I do agree changes were needed, to stop people from all over the country applying, but there should have been a better system introduced.


I know the system is not perfect (last year my child and several friends’ children were not initially offered places); however I do think that the lack of posts on the Birmingham boards would suggest that the new system has suited the majority of applicants.

I’m curious to know how the current system lines the pockets of the decision makers and also what you would propose as a ‘better system’.




My suggestion on how to make it more fair was proposed on the original consultation and that was to follow a similar system to Warwickshire and have priority areas. Warwickshire take their centre point from the fountain on Rother st, this would work for Bham as it is such a large area. I proposed that each school should have a priority area, measuring a number of miles from the school itself (distance to be agreed based on area to be covered) . This would then mean, in a larger number of cases, some of the priority areas would overall. Hence giving more people a choice of more of the scores, whilst stopping people from all over the country applying for places. I’m not saying this would have been perfect, but it would have allowed more choice and more chance of siblings being together at the same school.


Last edited by nervousmom on Sat Mar 06, 2021 7:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2021 1:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 9:14 am
Posts: 2
blaart wrote:
hermanmunster wrote:
I think it is interesting how quiet it is - in previous years there was a huge amount of discussion about cutoff scores etc - now (bar CHB) if you have the right score and are in catchment then you will be OK (provided you put the school first on the CAF :roll: ) - many will have known what the allocations would be before march 1st. Not sure what CHB are going to do - the aim was to have the same priority score across all the schools, even with increasing it, there are some in catchment who don't get a place. Maybe the catchment needs to shrink a little ?


It's an inherently unfair system because it's a post code lottery.

My brother lives in Sutton Coldfield, and his children are eligible for BVGS/SCGS, and fall within Handsworth & Aston catchment areas.
My friend lives in Tyseley, and his kids are only eligible for CHB, though outside the distance that would qualify his children.

I dont know why people are surprised that people will manipulate the post code for 11+... its happened for decades with primary schools.


Your friend in Tyseley would also be eligible for BVGS.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2021 1:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:51 pm
Posts: 2551
nervousmom wrote:
Nella wrote:
nervousmom wrote:
As I've said before, this was nothing to do with fairness for the kids, it was all about lining the pockets of those making the decisions...


I’m curious to know how the current system lines the pockets of the decision makers...


Firstly, from information posted on this site (which may have been prior to when you joined) it was indicated that one of the people in charge of these changes, is actually something to do with one of the private schools, hence my suggestion it’s all about money.


There's a substantial difference between the statement "it's all about money" and the statement "it was all about lining the pockets of those making the decisions".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2021 2:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2015 4:45 pm
Posts: 19
Boots182 wrote:
blaart wrote:
hermanmunster wrote:
I think it is interesting how quiet it is - in previous years there was a huge amount of discussion about cutoff scores etc - now (bar CHB) if you have the right score and are in catchment then you will be OK (provided you put the school first on the CAF :roll: ) - many will have known what the allocations would be before march 1st. Not sure what CHB are going to do - the aim was to have the same priority score across all the schools, even with increasing it, there are some in catchment who don't get a place. Maybe the catchment needs to shrink a little ?


It's an inherently unfair system because it's a post code lottery.

My brother lives in Sutton Coldfield, and his children are eligible for BVGS/SCGS, and fall within Handsworth & Aston catchment areas.
My friend lives in Tyseley, and his kids are only eligible for CHB, though outside the distance that would qualify his children.

I dont know why people are surprised that people will manipulate the post code for 11+... its happened for decades with primary schools.


Your friend in Tyseley would also be eligible for BVGS.


One of the main reasons for these changes was to stop children travelling long distances, hence the new catchment areas.

We have seen prices in South Birmingham increase significantly in the last two years (not a coincidence IMO), and we will only see that accelerate as parents realise that proximity is now a bigger factor than score. We have seen the likes of Acocks Green & Tyseley - traditionally less well-off areas - now effectively cut off from a GS education.

As more families see the benefits of postcode, we shall see an increasing number of more affluent families move to Moseley, Kings Heath & Hall Green, thereby eventually cutting off kids in Sparkhill, Sparkbrook, etc. Completely the opposite of what the social engineers were trying to achieve.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 288 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 25, 26, 27, 28, 29

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Privacy Policy | Refund Policy | Disclaimer | Copyright © 2004 – 2021