Pressure claim over grammar school places (From Bucks Free Press)
Send your news, photos and videos by texting bucksfreepress to 80360 or email
Pressure claim over grammar school places
7:30am Friday 16th January 2009 in News By Andy Carswell
PLANS to change catchment areas for south Bucks grammar schools would lead to greater pressure on places in schools in High Wycombe, it was claimed this week.
The county council-led proposals would lead to more pupils from Prestwood, Denham and Gerrards Cross being eligible for places at Royal Grammar School and John Hampden Grammar School.
But Cllr Glyn Galbraith, a Labour councillor who is also a governor at a Wycombe school, said it would lead to students in the town being “displaced”.
He said: “We should have a return to catchment areas being local to the schools and seeking to have children in close proximity to the schools.
“Anything that makes it more difficult for local kids to use local facilities should be looked at and resisted. The county needs a good look at it.”
Cllr Galbraith added travelling long distances to school put “a burden” on children, and buses needed to transport them to school was an environmental concern.
The plans would put pupils in the Prestwood area into the catchment for Royal Grammar School, alongside Dr Challoner's Grammar School in Amersham and Chesham High School.
Students in Gerrards Cross and Denham would have the choice of going to John Hampden Grammar School, in addition to Royal Grammar School and Dr Challoner's.
Councillors hope the plans would make it more likely that pupils will be accepted at their first-choice school – and grammar school headteachers said they welcomed the proposals.
Dr Challoner's headteacher Dr Mark Fenton said the proposed new catchment area would lead to less disappointment among prospective pupils.
He said: “It's a pragmatic solution to a problem which has been causing some concern.
“I could say it's a nice problem for us to be as popular as we are and people want to come to us, but on the other hand we get a lot of pressure from appeals which is not a good situation to be in.
“If we can get more people to their choice of school, everyone will be happier.”
Stephen Noakes, headteacher at John Hampden Grammar School, said: “It's very exciting and very pleasing for us.
“It improves the current situation and means there is more choice for people. It catches up with the reality of what is going on.”
A consultation on the plans is being carried out by the county council – and responses from parents are being sought.
Debbie Munday, the council's schools admissions manager, said: “There have been historic concerns about some boys not getting into the catchment schools and this is what the consultation is trying to redress.
“Since we changed the admissions code in 2005 our overarching aim was to make sure people could access their catchment schools and there were areas where we weren't achieving that.”
The consultation closes on March 1. For more information call 01296 383250.
Comments(47)
SDJones
says...
8:22am Fri 16 Jan 09
The Judge
says...
11:29am Fri 16 Jan 09
SDJones wrote:WE NEED TO OVER-HAUL THE EDUCATION SYSTEM
children from Denham/Gerrards X should not be allowed to access schools in Wycombe thats just ridiculous, i thought we were meant to be cutting down on our carbon footprint this hardly sets a good example, Wycombe grammar schools should be for children in the Wycombe District only
BUCKS HAS A BIASED EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM OPERATING VIA THE USE OF THESE ELITIST SCHOOLS.
THE 11+ SHOULD BE SCRAPPED AND MONEY SPENT ON IMPROVING SCHOOLS PER SE.
JUDGE.
Blueberry
says...
12:18pm Fri 16 Jan 09
Blueberry
says...
12:19pm Fri 16 Jan 09
1) Switch you caps lock off
2) What's wrong with academic elitism?!!!!!
Welwyn Dowd
says...
12:35pm Fri 16 Jan 09
DaveG
says...
12:50pm Fri 16 Jan 09
Yes, they are elitist. That is the whole point: to take the elite out of normal education so they can be properly catered for. Just like in sport, business and just about every walk of life.
The Judge
says...
1:06pm Fri 16 Jan 09
DaveG wrote:THIS IS FLAWED.
Here we go again. Cue another round of comments from people who are jealous that either them or their children didn't go to a grammar.
Yes, they are elitist. That is the whole point: to take the elite out of normal education so they can be properly catered for. Just like in sport, business and just about every walk of life.
I AM AWARE OF SOME CHILDREN WHO HAVE DELIBERATELY NOT SAT THE TEST BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS ELITIST SOCIAL EXPERIMENT THAT HAS NOT PROVED BENEFICIAL.
I PROPOSE THE FOLLOWING:
1. SCRAP GRAMMAR SCHOOLS.
2. ESTABLISH 'CLASSES OF EXCELLENCE' THIS WOULD MEAN A DEFINED TEIR SYSTEM WHERE THOSE IN THE LOWER 'TIERS' CAN WORK TO ACHIEVE ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE BY THEIR OWN EFFORTS AND 'MOVE UP THE TIERS'
3. THE SAVING BY SHUTTING THE GRAMMARS COULD BE USED TO RE-BUILD ARE DECLINING EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM WHERE ITS RECENTLY REPORTED ON THE SHOCKING DECLINE OF EDUCATIONAL STANDARDS.
4. THIS WOULD BE 'PUPIL FOCUSED AND NOT ON A STUPID 11+ WHERE IF THE CHILD HAD AN 'OFF DAY' IS ADMONISHED BY HIS/HER PEERS.
JUDGE
DaveG
says...
1:36pm Fri 16 Jan 09
The 11+ is not an "experiment" and gets proven results - just look at the high-achievers they churn out.
How would you get savings by closing down the grammars? It has been shown that the grammars cost no more to run than any other school (in fact, RGS takes some paying boarders and that offsets some costs). Non-grammars already get a load of money (just look at the investment made at Highcrest in the past 5 years).
Yes, the Education system is failing in some aspects but that is no reason to get rid of the one area where it isn't! Would you really trust the people who currently run the under-performing schools/education system to look after the academic elite???
You obviously are not aware that the 11+ test is taken twice, a few weeks apart so that there is no chance of an "off day". There is also a perfectly good appeal system for those who think they need it.
smiley cat
says...
1:46pm Fri 16 Jan 09
Left to themselves, the kids would possibly take it all in their stride and accept what school they are allocated with a shrug.
Certainly when both my daughters took the exam , the children were a lot more laid back than the parents..
smiley cat
says...
1:47pm Fri 16 Jan 09
Just ignore him, like you would all annoyng small boys.:)
Townman
says...
3:18pm Fri 16 Jan 09
Blueberry
says...
3:27pm Fri 16 Jan 09
DaveG
says...
3:38pm Fri 16 Jan 09
If the demand for grammars is so high, why not build a new grammar in Beaconsfield/GX to cater for the south eastern part of the county? They could levy a "special" council tax on the ultra-wealthy residents of Beaconsfield, GX, Farnham and Denham to pay for it.
towncryer
says...
3:39pm Fri 16 Jan 09
for once i agree with you ( apart from cap locks)
Attend schools in local area and kids closest to school of choice have priority
kill grammar schools
Invest in all to same standard
Think how much money could be saved on cross county school buses
--and finally get rid of Cllr David Shakespeare and tory councillors who are diehard grammar supporter
Blueberry
says...
3:47pm Fri 16 Jan 09
But then it's the distance issue that caused the problem, because whichever school those in Denham, GX and Prestwood apply to, there are many others who live far nearer.
Blueberry
says...
4:10pm Fri 16 Jan 09
Even if you invest the same amount of money per child or school, you won't get the same academic standard out, so I don't understand your point.
If anything we should spend MORE on those who struggle.
However, that isn't an argument against grammar schools, which I support, even if the system isn't perfect (what system is?)
sladegreen
says...
7:25pm Fri 16 Jan 09
towncryer
says...
7:26pm Fri 16 Jan 09
Blueberry wrote:Hi to clarify -
Towncryer said "Invest in all to same standard " Even if you invest the same amount of money per child or school, you won't get the same academic standard out, so I don't understand your point. If anything we should spend MORE on those who struggle. However, that isn't an argument against grammar schools, which I support, even if the system isn't perfect (what system is?)
get rid of grammar and bring all schools up to standard of grammar
If you have seen the "extras" grammars now get its unbelievable
ask anyone with kids in each school type !!!
Blueberry
says...
10:16pm Fri 16 Jan 09
I think you'll find all authorities adjust catchment areas on a regular basis, both primary and secondary and whether they have grammars or not. Yes, they can try to predict future demand, but it's not an exact science.
To Towncryer:
How on earth could you "bring all schools up to standard of grammar" - even if money was no object?
By definition, grammars are for those of above average academic potential and achievement: you can't make everyone above average or it's no longer average.
The Judge
says...
11:37pm Fri 16 Jan 09
DaveG wrote:DAVEG YOU ARE COMPLETELY INCORRECT ALTHOUGH YOU ADMIT THAT THE EDUCATION SYSTEM AS A WHOLE IS FAILING OUR CHILDREN
Judge, please turn off your caps - it is not doing you any favours looking like you don't know how to use a computer properly.
The 11+ is not an "experiment" and gets proven results - just look at the high-achievers they churn out.
How would you get savings by closing down the grammars? It has been shown that the grammars cost no more to run than any other school (in fact, RGS takes some paying boarders and that offsets some costs). Non-grammars already get a load of money (just look at the investment made at Highcrest in the past 5 years).
Yes, the Education system is failing in some aspects but that is no reason to get rid of the one area where it isn't! Would you really trust the people who currently run the under-performing schools/education system to look after the academic elite???
You obviously are not aware that the 11+ test is taken twice, a few weeks apart so that there is no chance of an "off day". There is also a perfectly good appeal system for those who think they need it.
IT IS AN UNDENIABLE AXIOMATIC FACT THAT EDUCATION IS FUNDAMENTAL NOT JUST TO THE FEW BUT TO ALL.
IF YOU ACCEPT THIS AS THE STARTING POINT YOU THEN HAVE TO LOOK AT THE FUNCTION OF EDUCATION.
THE FUNCTION OF EDUCATION MUST BE TOO ENABLE ONE TO ENTER SOCIETY AND TO FUNCTION AND CONTRIBUTE.
BY STATING THAT GRAMMAR SCHOOLS BY THEIR NATURE ARE ELITIST IS HIGHLIGHTING A FUNDAMENTAL FLAW.
FROM AN EARLY AGE CHILDREN ARE TAUGHT THAT THEY ARE 'ABOVE AVERAGE' 'BETTER THAN SOMEONE WHO HAS NOT BE AVAILED LIFE CHANCES TO COMPETE ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD DUE TO SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS.
THIS SOUNDS TECHNICAL BUT IT COMES DOWN TO A SIMPLE EXPLANATION THAT BY CATEGORIZATION OF CHILDREN WE ARE INSTILLING THEM OR IMBUING THEM WITH 'DELUSIONS OF EXCELLENCE'
WHAT IF THEY CANNOT LIVE UP TO THESE EXPECTATIONS?
SOCIETY IS THEN FACED WITH INCREASED SUICIDES, PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS.
MY SOLUTION IS 'STREAMING OR SETTING A TIER SYSTEM IN MAINSTREAM EDUCATION. THOSE PERFORMING WELL AND ONLY THOSE CAN ENTER UNIVERSITY. UNIVERSITY WOULD THEN BE STATE FUNDED AND OPEN TO EVERYONE AROUND THE WORLD WITH NO REGARD TO WEALTH.
ONE OF THE MAIN PROBLEMS AND ITS ONE THAT SOCIETY WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH IS THAT JUST BECAUSE YOUR PARENTS ARE RICH YOU CAN OBTAIN EFFECTIVELY DICTATE YOUR CHILDS FUTURE - THIS HAS TO BE WRONG.
IF YOU ARE BRIGHT YOU WILL SHINE AND WILL INBUE THOSE LOWER DOWN THE SCALE TO IMPROVE. SEGREGATION IS WRONG IN EDUCATION.
IF I WAS A MINISTER I WOULD LOOK VERY CAREFULLY AT HOW THESE SCHOOLS FUNCTION AND LOOK FOR REFORMING EDUCATION.
JUDGE.
Blueberry
says...
11:45pm Fri 16 Jan 09
I agree though that being above average at something doesn't make you "better" in general, a better person. Beckham's a better footballer than me, but that needn't damage my overall self-esteem as a person.
However, it's a painful myth that the bright always "shine through". Being in an explicitly academic environment can nurture shy talent, to the benefit of society as a whole.
Yes, there are issues about ensuring the bright but disadvantaged are picked up, but abolishing grammars wholesale isn't the answer in my opinion.
time to go shakespeare
says...
11:21am Sat 17 Jan 09
your messages are sound ( your choice of cap locks isnt)
We need to be ensuring education for all kids is the best and everyone reaches max capability
Grammar schools are doing this with added resources and funding
Why do secondarys not get same
Ask Cllr Shakespeare leader of BCC and an ineffectual district councillor for WDC -- hes the one funding Grammars ahead of Secondaries
The Judge
says...
11:34am Sat 17 Jan 09
time to go shakespeare wrote:THANKS S.
Good for you Judge
your messages are sound ( your choice of cap locks isnt)
We need to be ensuring education for all kids is the best and everyone reaches max capability
Grammar schools are doing this with added resources and funding
Why do secondarys not get same
Ask Cllr Shakespeare leader of BCC and an ineffectual district councillor for WDC -- hes the one funding Grammars ahead of Secondaries
GRAMMARS BY THEIR NATURE (NOT UNLIKE HEALTHCARE - BUPA) HAVE BECOME A SOURCE OF DIVISION AND UNEQUAL DIVISION OF LIMITED COUNCIL TAX RESOURCES.
IT IS A SCANDAL THAT THOSE IN THE UPPER ECHELONS OF SCHOOLING HAVE BETTER RESOURCES THAT THOSE IN MODERN SECONDARY SCHOOLS - FOR DAVEG TO SUGGEST THEY PRODUCE 'BETTER PEOPLE OR TO QUOTE:
The 11+ is not an "experiment" and gets proven results - just look at the high-achievers they churn out.
I ONLY NEED TO SAY 'CHRIS GRAYLING' AND REST MY CASE.
JUDGE
Blueberry
says...
11:47am Sat 17 Jan 09
Thanks
Blueberry
says...
12:15pm Sat 17 Jan 09
With BUPA, anyone wealthy enough (or with an employer who pays) can get private healthcare, regardless of any characteristics other than their wealth.
With grammars, whilst coming from a more affluent home may help borderline children, a very non-academic child could not get in however wealthy their parents and equally, even the poorest child is in catchment for a grammar and can potentially get a place.
With BUPA there is no benefit to society for some people getting preferential treatment.
However, society does need to stretch and develop the brightest, and grammars are arguably, a good way to do so.
tom.marlow
says...
1:18pm Sat 17 Jan 09
The problem as I see it is that regardless of whether or not selective schools are actually better then non-selective, the 11+ test, as currently used in Bucks, is ineffective as a selection method. It is based on the premise that you can select the "right type of school" on the basis of a verbal reasoning test carried out at a single point (well 2 points a week apart) in a childs education.
Setting aside the fact that all the grammar schools are different (we have specialist schools in technology, performing arts etc, etc, so what is meant by the "right type of school"?) there is not a lot of evidence that the selection process itself gets it right; enough children perform really well in secondary schools (and for that matter perform badly in grammar schools) to really question the acccuracy of the test.
And of course there is plenty of evidence to support the undoubtledly cynical view that the test is simply a measure of the parents ability to pay for coaching.
I'm all in favour of providing the encouragement and support that the most able children need to maximise their potential. After all, they are going to be paying for my pension.
But similarly I'm all in favour of providing the encouragement and support that less able children need to maximise their potential too. They too are going to be paying for my pension.
Likewise there are a whole range in between that deserve and will benefit from the attention and resources that the other get. I suspect they will be contributing to my pension too :-)
What we have at the moment is far too random and tied up in political dogma for my liking.
Blueberry
says...
1:33pm Sat 17 Jan 09
Beyond grammer/upper, the specialist schools angle is a red herring: there are uppers in Bucks and schools across the nation which have specialisms, not just grammars. (Personally, I think it's a silly idea.)
I don't see why that fact the 11+ test is not perfect is a reason to abolish it.
And personally I don't believe that large amounts of coaching can make a huge difference (a small difference for borderline children, certainly). The nearest my daughter had to coaching was doing some practice papers with me over 2 or 2 months. After initial improvement, further gains rapidly tailed off. I'm not suggesting a sample size of 1 is representative, but having looked at the materials in detail, and worked through them, I genuinely believe it is not as unfair as painted - with the exception for those who have only recently learned the English language.
time to go clarke
says...
5:03pm Sat 17 Jan 09
I know parents who sent kids to coaching for up to 2 years, others send them to private school so they are coached for 11 plus
A few well off parents have said --the investment in early years coaching pays off as our childen get get best education in bucks for free when they get to grammar
I believe this show inequality of system and also that money has its advantages !!!
Blueberry
says...
5:21pm Sat 17 Jan 09
Blueberry
says...
5:24pm Sat 17 Jan 09
But if you got rid of the grammars it would be worse as only the rich would be able to live in the catchment of the best schools. At present, EVERY child in Bucks is in catchment for at least one grammar.
Steve Totteridge Hill
says...
9:02pm Sat 17 Jan 09
There's room for us all out there - and as soon as we stop stigmatising those who can't achieve academically the better - but at least my Mum (left school at 12 to work in her Dad's village grocers) had good handwriting and spelling, could speak up well, do sums, and had some degree of elegance about her which seems to be lacking even at some superior establishments these days.
If schools only got round to teaching what needs to be taught to survive in the world, rather than following some over-refined and artificial Marxist-Feminist Post-Colonial mumbo-jumbo of SATs."Value Added", "Key Skills" and other plastic constructs devised only to make their schools look better in government tables, we'd all be in with a chance..
Trouble is, they're cowards. They go with the flow that everyone's a winner - until they hit the real world head on. Result - p1ssed off and confused kids who were patted on the head when what they really needed was a kick up the arsenal.
tom.marlow
says...
9:07pm Sat 17 Jan 09
"And personally I don't believe that large amounts of coaching can make a huge difference (a small difference for borderline children, certainly). "
Schools that coach and encourage parents to pay for it get a much better pass rate - there's a lot of evidence that this is the case. Its in the public domain for private schools - its how they get business. Its a bit more hearsay for state schools, they wont admit to it because they are not supposed to do it.
Blueberry
says...
11:13pm Sat 17 Jan 09
A correlation, is not the same as cause and effect.
Blueberry
says...
11:15pm Sat 17 Jan 09
Blueberry
says...
11:17pm Sat 17 Jan 09
time to go clarke
says...
12:09am Sun 18 Jan 09
Blueberry wrote:YOU WANT THE ANSWER ITS SIMPLE
By the way, I'm still waiting for someone to point me to the evidence for the oft-quoted claim that Bucks gives more money to grammars than uppers. If it's true, it should be easy to prove.
look at the resources available in grammars -- far in excess of secondaries
Look at the after school activities - far in excess of secondaries
Look at the moneys flowing into grammars from parent contributions --far in excess of secondaries
Look at the focus from BCC on grammars --far in excess of secondaries
Look at the extra subjects in grammars-- far in excess of secondaries
theres more but this shows a society of persisent inequalities
Blueberry
says...
8:47am Sun 18 Jan 09
If the difference in funding is mainly down to the parents as you suggest, and I think you're right, then it's a harder nut to crack.
If Bucks went comprehensive, the schools in Beaconsfield, Chalfonts and Amersham would still, generally, be better funded by parents than many of those in Wycombe and Aylesbury because their catchments are broadly more affluent. How would you solve that?
tom.marlow
says...
11:48am Sun 18 Jan 09
Blueberry wrote:So you are saying if you send your child to a prep school they are more likely to pass?
Of course the prep schools get good 11+ results, but that's not necessarily because of the amount of 11+ coaching they provide (some don't do barely any). Most of their pupils would be likely to perform better than average even without any coaching, for all the obvoius reasons. A correlation, is not the same as cause and effect.
"A correlation, is not the same as cause and effect."
The former is always the result of the latter although you shouldnt infer the latter from the former :-)
I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with that statement - you seem to be contraticting yourself
Blueberry
says...
12:05pm Sun 18 Jan 09
They only enter those who are likely to pass. In Bucks primaries, everyone sits it unless they opt out.
They have small classes, so even with no 11+ prep, the pupils have an advantage and, generally, better attainment, eg in SATs.
Parents forking out fees on education are likely to promote/push it to their children in all ways throughout their life, which will, generally, give them an edge in exams.
And the big reason people don't like to say, but which is nevertheless true...
Children from well off homes will GENERALLY be more likely to have parents in well-paid jobs, which in many cases will mean they themselves have above average academic achievement. So they have a good chance of inheriting an advantage, and even if they don't they have the advantage of being raised in a more educational environment than average.
Yes, of course there are intelligent parents who are not wealthy and wealthy parents who are not clever etc etc, but as a broad if distateful generalisation, the above is true.
Whatever educational system you have, children from affluent homes will TEND to have an advantage. At least in Bucks, every single child is in the catchment for a grammer, regardless of parental income.
time to go clarke
says...
12:48pm Sun 18 Jan 09
Im told some grammar schools are setting acceptance mark higher and selecting on that basis and selecting kids from known high income parent catchment areas ( brings in more money from parents and also potential for higher academic results in league tables) --this can mean that "just pass" kids from poorer areas are being refused access to local schools -- this needs policing by BCC -- they wont because they want it that way
Blueberry
says...
12:56pm Sun 18 Jan 09
Bucks handles the admissions and for the last 5 years, if a child qualifies for grammar by getting more than 121 in the 11+, their score is irrelevant.
If a grammar is oversubscribed with passes who put it first choice, siblings get first pick, then places are allocated by distance (nearest have priority) to those in catchment and if there are any spare places, they're offered to those out of catchment, by distance.
Blueberry
says...
12:58pm Sun 18 Jan 09
Blueberry
says...
1:10pm Sun 18 Jan 09
Blueberry
says...
1:19pm Sun 18 Jan 09
Last year, RGS offered places to all who qualified and lived in catchment, all out of catchment siblings and some out of county boys; John Hampden offered places to all who qualified and applied (not squeezing out any "jsut pass kids from poorer areas") etc etc.
All the info is available to the public, no need for paranoia and gossip. For example, look at http://www.buckscc.g
ov.uk/bcc/get/assets
/docs/Secguide2.pdf
The Judge
says...
6:31pm Sun 18 Jan 09
Steve Totteridge Hill wrote:BRILLIANT 10/10
Oh what a tragic indictment of "Siety wot is to blame". Teaching polluted by Educrats and Politicos who can't get it into their skulls that some are born bright, others achieve brightness, and some have brightness thrust upon them. Some win, some lose. Kids are competitive. So should the system. And we know fine well that some who are not academic need other openings for vital crafts and skills which are sometimes a **** sight more vital than 50% of underused plastic graduates swamping the system.
There's room for us all out there - and as soon as we stop stigmatising those who can't achieve academically the better - but at least my Mum (left school at 12 to work in her Dad's village grocers) had good handwriting and spelling, could speak up well, do sums, and had some degree of elegance about her which seems to be lacking even at some superior establishments these days.
If schools only got round to teaching what needs to be taught to survive in the world, rather than following some over-refined and artificial Marxist-Feminist Post-Colonial mumbo-jumbo of SATs."Value Added", "Key Skills" and other plastic constructs devised only to make their schools look better in government tables, we'd all be in with a chance..
Trouble is, they're cowards. They go with the flow that everyone's a winner - until they hit the real world head on. Result - p1ssed off and confused kids who were patted on the head when what they really needed was a kick up the arsenal.
WELL DONE STEVE!!
Craig....
says...
12:59pm Mon 19 Jan 09
DaveG wrote:Why is this still being discussed?
Here we go again. Cue another round of comments from people who are jealous that either them or their children didn't go to a grammar. Yes, they are elitist. That is the whole point: to take the elite out of normal education so they can be properly catered for. Just like in sport, business and just about every walk of life.
DaveG got it spot on, ages ago!
The whole point of the system is to allow pupils to be allocated a school to which they are suited.
The problem with the system is the parents/people who label the outcome of the 11+ as a 'pass' or 'fail'.
This country needs grammar schools. Fact.
Steve Totteridge Hill
says...
4:49pm Mon 19 Jan 09
The Bucks systems works!
Comment now! Register or sign in below.
Log in with us
Fields marked with * are mandatory.
Or
Log in with