The number of pupils withdrawn from OAIS for Home Education hit a record number for schools across Kent for many years, of 44 in 2016-17, Mr Cavadino’s first year in post. This is more than double the 20 of the previous year in his less than illustrious predecessor’s also short term of office.

The school has made maximum use of the Swale Inclusion Centre, designed as a short term respite for pupils at risk of exclusion with 27 placements, second highest of any school in Kent (just below another Tough Love Academy), although some pupils are transferred there permanently, and as a consequence do not appear in the school GCSE statistics. Other Year 11 pupils were sent home early last summer for compulsory ‘study leave’ well before GCSE to enable the school to focus on those who can do well, which is effectively unlawful exclusion.

Reports of unchecked bullying continue to be rife, with the victims (not the bullies) sometimes being transferred between the two sites of the school in an attempt to resolve the issue.

Academically, the previous Principal forecast great things in the summer of 2016, as he was leaving, but which never came to fruition. In a letter to parents about Mr Cavadino’s sudden departure, the Oasis Trust praises the ‘climb’ in GCSE Progress 8 Grades, which is to ‘below average’. Oddly it doesn’t mention the parallel Attainment 8 Grades, also one of the lowest in Kent. Ironically, GCSE performance has been consistently worse than since the most recent pre-Oasis headteacher (David Day), who  achieved the best results ever, was sacked by Oasis in 2013, his reputation being trampled on by his successor.  

A letter to parents from the Oasis Regional Director sent on the first day of term explains how Mr Cavadino had a short illness but on his return to work had several meetings her. Then, and apparently at no notice, in the interests of the Academy and his family he decided to step down and take on a class teaching role in Oasis Academy Croydon, as his passion is to be in the classroom with his students. I am not sure how many families will agree with the Regional Director about his ‘characteristic care and compassion for all of our young people’, given the above, but no doubt this operates best at a classroom level. However, by coincidence this was the only virtue the Academy Trust could find about him in a press release that I had to fight for the following day, presumably prepared as a response to my question.  This rather suggests this was the agreed teerm in the confidentiality agreement that would have been signed on his departure. 

After his predecessor's sudden departure, local M.P. Gordon Henderson was quoted as having been ‘reassured the school would be able to find a good replacement and improve further in the future’.  In the end, the Oasis Trust could  apparently find no suitable external candidate and Mr Cavadino, then Vice-Principal of the already struggling and controversial OAIS, was appointed presumably as a new broom. What a pity. The Academy has now announced that 'We are delighted that Ms Lee (current Associate Principal) has accepted our offer to become Interim Principal of the Academy. Already an integral part of the senior leadership team....'. This may come as a reassurance to parents. However, the leadership of Oasis Academy Isle of Sheppey has clearly become a poisoned chalice, as its seeks a sixth Principal since academisation in ten years. However the school's failures stretch back many years before this (I was headhunted in 1984, but wisely turned it down!).    

This short, brutal removal is characteristic for the departure of many Academy Principals and senior staff who have disappointed their leaders, whether rightly or wrongly, and appears to pay little attention to employment legislation, presumably being covered by pay-offs and confidentiality agreements.

This article looks primarily at the most recent very significant Ofsted Report, as I have commented extensively on aspects of the school before, most recently here.

It is frankly  impossible to reconcile the 2018 Report with the previous one in 2014, or indeed the one for 2011 before the school became an academy which was also ‘Good’.

There is no doubt the most recent Ofsted Report appears to set out to damn the previous leadership of the school, although exceptionally it makes no reference at all to the very positive 2014 Inspection. That described a school very different from the one now painted as existing before the current headteacher was appointed just two years later.

“From his first day of term in September 2016 the headteacher did not shy away from describing the school as it was. To pupils, staff and parents he laid bare its major educational weaknesses. These included well-below-average progress in all years, weak teaching, and GCSE results in the bottom 10% of all schools, along with poor attendance and behaviour. The headteacher has taken effective action to turn the school around. However, some parents and staff have found some of the changes he has made unpalatable and unsettling”. Coincidentally, this is an approach also used in the other two ‘Tough Love’ academies, which have seen a parallel sharp fall in parental choices. At Hartsdown, the number of first choices has almost exactly halved from 99 in 2014 to 51 in 2018.

There is little doubt that Hartsdown is the most socially disadvantaged school in Kent, and the Report does not mince its words about the problems.

‘In 2017, only 15% of all pupils attained a pass (grade 4) in English and mathematics. Pupils’ progress was well below the national average. There are many entwined reasons behind these very low GCSE results. The previous poor teaching, an unsuitable curriculum and other factors such as pupils’ low attendance contributed to this. Pupils’ standards on entry to Hartsdown are well below the national average. When the present Year 7 pupils arrived, the great majority of them had reading ages below those typical for their age, and poor skills in mathematics. A very high proportion of pupils are vulnerable and/or disadvantaged. An above-average number of them leave and enter the school after Year 7. All these factors inhibit progress and, in the past, have had a negative impact on the school’s GCSE results. In recent years the proportion of pupils from minority ethnic backgrounds has increased to at least one-third of Year 11 in 2017. Often, these pupils do not speak English on arrival or have not experienced formal education. With very low starting points and poor attendance, these pupils’ progress is well below that of other pupils’.

Amongst the current strengths relating primarily to academic progress, are that: ‘Pupils’ reading is improving rapidly as they now have regular, intensive practice sessions - Pupils in Years 7 and 8 are making increasingly good progress, having only experienced the school under its new good leadership. Progress overall is improving from a very low base -The headteacher has a demonstrable commitment to ensuring that all pupils, irrespective of their backgrounds, achieve as well as they can. He has the full support of the trust and its executive headteacher - Underpinning the headteacher’s drive to turn around the school is a loyal and hardworking senior leadership team whose members now know exactly what they are responsible for. Some are new to their roles but all enthusiastically promote the school’s values of ‘scholarship, teamwork, resilience, integrity, vision and excellence’; Teaching has improved. The majority of subject leaders and teachers are enthusiastic, and have welcomed training which has developed their teaching skills’. (selection of comments).

Leadership and Management are unsurprisingly found to be good. All the other four main aspects Require Improvement: Quality of Teaching, Learning and Assessment; Personal Development, Behaviour and Welfare; Outcomes for Pupils; and 16-19 Study Programmes.

With regard to the Sixth Form of just 39 pupils, all Year 12 were on a course during the Inspection, and few Year 13 lessons. The Report manages to be very positive, with no criticism at all, but the Sixth Form still Requires Improvement!

The Report reflects the enormous fund of goodwill for the school to improve, especially from the Coastal Academies Trust which sponsors the school. As for Governors: ‘Board members bring considerable wisdom and relevant experience, in finance, education and personnel, to their deliberations. They know very well how much further the school has to go to be valued and appreciated by the entire school community’.

There is still a massive task needed to win back that community with a lukewarm assessment of communications: Senior leaders take some steps to keep in touch with parents. They provide some information in the languages which some families speak at home. Parents are encouraged to attend meetings with the headteacher. Nevertheless, the very small number of responses and comments written by parents are very mixed. While some parents praise the headteacher’s good work, others have less confidence in the leadership of the school. Pupils’ responses were equally mixed.

2018 GCSE results will be an important milestone for the school, especially Progress 8 which shows how far pupils have travelled. These are amongst the most vulnerable children in the county; and if this approach works as Ofsted clearly thinks it will, then that will be wonderful news.

I am clearly not qualified to make my own first hand assessment of the work of the academy, being neither Inspector, current educationalist, nor having any personal experience of such a situation. As such, I rely on the wide variety of data available together with valued opinions offered, to come to my personal conclusions. The people of Margate desperately and rightly need Hartsdown to become a good school by any measure. I sincerely hope this turns out to be the way to do it, even though it appears wrapped up in the personality of Matthew Tate, the Principal, and still sits very uncomfortably with me.

 The previous Principal of the UTC, Dr Karon Buck, previously Vice Principal at Leigh Academies Trust, left suddenly at Christmas to become CEO of an International School in Abu Dhabi. Oddly, her up to date c.v. fails to mention the three years at Medway UTC, offering instead that she was an Ofsted Inspector during this time.  Her departure enabled the appointment of Paul Cottam as Interim Principal from his post as Deputy Head at The Howard School, which has also been engaged as External Consultant. Not surprisingly, the reputation of the UTC is rock bottom,with only 278 of its 600 places filled. On a rare lighter note, the Wikipedia entry contains two startling 'facts' on its description of the school site!

By  

d

The government School Admissions Code, which carries the force of law, allows admission criteria for a school, as an exception, to give priority to ‘children of staff at the school’. However, it gives no leeway to extend this to children of staff at other schools in the Trust.

Rochester Grammar and Sir Joseph Williamson’s, both heavily oversubscribed, are also proposing to give priority to children who attend Trust Primary schools, which would not be an issue except for the high number of similar priorities now being offered by different schools, especially grammars, across Medway. This would result in considerable unfairness to children not in a Trust school, which is against the Code. I have covered this issue in my previous article.

Rochester Grammar has retained yet another priority in its now agreed admission policy that I consider unlawful (although it will be up to the Schools Adjudicator to rule on this) in that the school will accept the following as a priority:

Children who, at the time of the admission, have a sibling who attends the Academy (RGS) or any other TSAT secondary academy in Medway, i.e. The Victory Academy and Holcombe Grammar School.

There appears no logic for this, although the Admissions Code does give some exceptions to the rule, allowing siblings at other schools in specific cases. It lists as examples: ‘schools on the same site, or close links between two single sex schools’. Rochester is in a different town from Chatham, the site of the other two schools in the Trust, and has no close practical links with Holcombe, such as joint lessons or activities which would justify such an exception. Indeed, the ability range of the two schools is different with Rochester Grammar ‘super selective’ by its main admission criterion, recruiting without regard to geography, whilst Holcombe takes all who have passed the Medway Test, living nearest to the school.

RGS is highly selective and, admitting a small number of girls who may only have a bare pass to the highly pressured environment created in the school, puts them at considerable risk in my opinion. To admit such children who only have a peripheral connection with the school, thus depriving brighter girls who will therefore miss out because the pass mark becomes higher, is in any case clearly unfair and surely unlawful.

Holcombe Grammar School, which has been mired in controversy through poor decision making over the past year, lost its headteacher at Christmas, and is now run by an Executive Headteacher from Victory Academy; tried to correct the problem and failed in what is now a published legal document.

The school admission criteria state:

Children of staff employed by the Trust: following the criteria above, priority will be given to the child of a person (1) who has been employed by the Academy for two or more years at the time the application was made and/or (2) where the person was employed by the Trust to fill a vacant post for which there is a demonstrable skills shortage.”.

Someone has clearly been told to cut out the word ‘Trust’ and replace it by ‘Academy’ as happened for Rochester Grammar, but has only made one change instead of the three required. At best it now becomes ambiguous, at worst it appears that (2) applies to anyone employed by the Trust, not just at Holcombe which would have been allowable. This version is now set in regulation, unless overruled by an objection upheld by the Schools Adjudicator.

Further, Holcombe still retains the offending condition as at RGS:

'Children who, at the time of the admission, have a sibling who attends the Academy or any other TSAT secondary academy in Medway, i.e. The Rochester Grammar School and The Victory Academy', carrying the same objections.

What one can only call the slapdash approach by Holcombe Grammar, over and over again, clearly needs responsible leadership to change the school’s ethos. Let us hope that Victory Academy, now apparently with oversight of Holcombe can produce this.

Some may think I am-nit picking, but there are important principles at stake here. There is now limited accountability for academies as shown by too many examples on this website, so the legal rules become ever more important, as a minimum protection for children although surely there should be higher standards. One of many puzzles to me is that the Academy Trusts, with their host of highly paid executives, cannot give priority to ensuring their proposals are lawful, or is it that they are happy to simply test the system to find out what they can get away with, without challenge?

This monopoly in secondary provision across Folkestone is unique in the county and has the effect of eliminating choice for families who dislike the ethos projected by the Trust in its schools. There is considerable deprivation in parts of the town, most notably nearer to Folkestone Academy.

There is no doubt that the three/four Shepway non-selective schools (including Marsh Academy in New Romney) suffer from the two Folkestone grammars offering the Shepway Test which sees around 150 additional children who have not passed the Kent Test taking up places in local grammar schools each year. This will not only skim off many of the most able but will have played a significant part in the closure of Pent Valley in 2016. That school suffered from poor leadership and became unpopular with families so that its intake became unviable, the consequent closure certainly not being the only example of such an extreme response to solving a leadership problem.

At the same time, and partially because of the lack of enthusiasm for both schools, Brockhill Park Performing Arts College has become one of the most oversubscribed schools in Kent turning away 134 first choices this year. Jo Saxton, CEO of Turner Schools has produced a Youtube interview with Academy FM, run by Folkestone Academy in response to a letter to parents triggered by this article, here and featured/reproduced in Medway Vox. Amongst the many comments published below is one I have had to abbreviate because of its length. However it is important and from a recent member of staff, so you can read it in full here. Sadly, the video also continues a theme of promoting manipulated examples, three below.

In Process of Update, exact quotes need confirming.  

The school is opening in September on its wafer thin website, still boasting of the 70 applications it has received. However, apparently the total is twice oversubscribed at 240 applicants (a remarkable figure) with a waiting list (see comment below), although no one has bothered to update the website. One of the many issues is that these applications are outside the Kent Secondary Application scheme and so are open to and will include many pupils already offered places at Folkestone Academy, as the only other local school. So, if they all turn up at TFS, this is going to leave a massive hole in Folkestone Academy's numbers. 

It is claimed that every pupil at Turner Free School will be able to speak fluent French (or Mandarin), an ambition surpassing most grammar schools‘. ‘Only eight children in the whole of Shepway did a French A level, even though on a clear day you can see France’, although Harvey Grammar had more than this alone last year. ‘Kent also has the highest exclusions from school for racist intolerance and abuse’. Not sure of the relevance of this, but Kent actually has no permanent exclusions for racist intolerance and as the largest Local Authority in the country, many others have a larger proportion of fixed period exclusions. ‘The Academy is founded to transform education standards in East Kent through our HEART principles: High expectations; Energy; Academic subject-based curriculum; Reading for all; and Trust’- now that is what I call an ambition, transforming standards across East Kent.‘Ultimately, every student from TFS will have the chance to follow any dream, achieve any goal, and to be anything they want to be’

Currently one wonders what those  children who have signed up will discover. The school is already planning to increase to 180 for 2019, in contradiction of its claim that: ‘As a smaller than average secondary school all pupils will be known and educated as individuals’.There is a four page prospectus, equally slogan heavy and fact light, leading with:‘A Traditional Education for the 21st Century’ . However, there are a few aspirations thrown in: ‘By providing an outstanding education for your son or daughter - with a focus on English, mathematics, science, humanities and a modern foreign language - we will secure their future. These subjects (together forming the EBacc) will mean that your child will be able to follow any pathway, from A Levels and on to studying at Russell Group universities, or on into the world of professional employment….In addition to the EBacc subjects, we will equip our students with a detailed core knowledge in a range of areas, including STEM, music, art and select sports….We will also offer a range of enriching extra-curricular activities and trips in order to broaden the horizons of our students and to bring their learning to life. All students will have access to a range of additional sporting and academic experiences, which will also build their confidence and resilience. This will include residential visits, music and drama performances, debating, mock legal trials and a variety of competitive sporting events…..We will encourage positive relationships through our House System, which will inspire students to strive for both personal and team success’ although this is a principle which appears opposed to the one being dismantled at partner Folkestone Academy (below) as incompatible with the Trust’s vision! ‘we will operate a system of Family Dining, which will be packed-lunch free (pity about those with dietary restrictions). All staff will dine with students to build relationships, ensure social inclusion and develop confidence in trying new foods. This will ensure that all students are part of our community and that they can develop fluency in conversation, impeccable manners and the ability to show appreciation for those around them’. And that is about it. Pity about the non-Russell Group Universities who don’t appear to be up to it; no mention of supporting children with Special Education Needs or disabilities, who seem to cause problems in the Trust primary schools.

Although there is no mention of premises or facilities, surely an important factor for all enquirers, the old Pent Valley buildings are currently being adapted for their new use. A whole school roll of 120 pupils or fewer in the first year is very difficult to staff, as is this level of uptake in higher year groups in the future, but all those at Folkestone Academy are having their contracts changed so they can teach across the Trust, clearly planned as an integral part of provision.

A headteacher designate, Kristina Yates, has been appointed. She is currently Vice Principal at Folkestone School for Girls, but with a background at the non-selective Marsh Academy.

It appears that the success of Turner Free School will depend on the further unpopularity of Folkestone academy.

Folkestone Academy

The Academy was founded under the sponsorship of Roger De Haan, a Folkestone businessman and philanthropist from its opening in 2007 at a reported cost of £40 million, until it was taken over by Turner Schools in December 2017. In recent years the school has been struggling, so a new approach is to be welcomed in principle.

I have been sent a Consultation document by a blog called ShepwayVox, about a major reorganisation of the secondary section, with appendices for the restructuring and redundancy issues. The academy proposes to abolish 42 posts although ‘This reduction is mitigated, to a large degree, by existing resignations’ , reflecting the high rate of turnover of staff this year. The proposed changes of staff responsibilities clearly indicate a transformation in philosophy moving the school to a much more academic curriculum led approach, with the well established vocational courses appearing to be downgraded and the number of ‘Aspiration and Inclusion Staff’ being nearly halved down to 39 staff members. This is a coastal area with a high level of disadvantage and lack of aspiration. The school is scrapping its vertical House system: 'Amovefromaverticalhousepastoralsystemtoonebasedonyeargroups; a new House system will be introduced for charitable fundraising, sporting and other competitive events. 

The document makes clear that the reorganisation is driven by budgetary considerations: 'Likeotherschools,wearealsooperatinginstraitenedtimes'. The school remains based on a ‘realistic’ intake of 270 pupils (rather than the inflated 300 places per year that were assumed and funded in recent years)'. The quote in brackets suggest the Trust has not bothered to check the reason for the previous increased roll, which was simply because the school took on additional places at the closure of Pent Valley, hardly deserving of the pejorative ‘inflated’. Staff contracts are being revised to operate on a Trust wide basis, presumably so that the school can provide teachers for the Turner Free School.

The document ignores provision for children with Special Education Needs, who don't fit into the knowledge based curriculum concept as outlined by Dr Hirsch

This is not a happy school.

The Primary section of Folkestone Academy carries an Outstanding Ofsted, and appears to be adopting none of the strong philosophies or models that operate in the other three Turner Schools, or the new brand of the secondary section.

As the Department for Education classifies Folkestone Academy as a new school by virtue of its new sponsors, it will be free from Ofsted for three years. 

Morehall and Martello Primaries

One year on, pupil numbers have slumped from being full in 2017 with 30 places on offer, to having just 11 families choosing one of the school’s 60 places for next September, the second lowest take up rate in the county, before another 9 Local Authority Allocated children were added in. Oddly, the school had increased its Planned Admission Number from 30 in previous years, presumably in anticipation of a growth in popularity because of its re-branding, as it had been full or nearly full in each of the previous seven years.

Dr Hirsch is quoted here as defining the Trust’s purpose as: ‘To be culturally literate is to possess the basic information needed to thrive in the modern world’. The raising Aspirations section includes: ‘University visits in Kent and beyond’   - nothing like early planning!”

The school website opens the door to a very high powered, if controversial, series of video clips on educational theory (the link does not work on the Morehall site) which may not be the first thought to attract potential families, many of whom are described by Ofsted as: ‘A higher-than-average proportion of pupils leave and join the school at various times during the school year. Since September, over 20 pupils have joined the school. A higher-than-average proportion of children are from minority ethnic groups and speak English as an additional language. A much-larger-than-average proportion of pupils are supported by pupil premium funding’. On the website I tried: ‘Dr. Jo Saxton asked Dr. E.D. Hirsch (an American theoretical educationist):“How young can you start with a knowledge based curriculum? The link diverted me to a commercial website selling resources to schools, but also filled with educational theories. Choose the right link to take you to a series of video clips, one of which is the required one, which seeks to justify the knowledge based curriculum of Martello Primary.

‘As a starting point children are taught to be aware of each subject they learn and its unique identity. Pupil versions of subject descriptions, or rationales, can be found around the school building to help children scaffold their learning'. It is unclear to me how this approach is intended to relate to the parent body of this school.

Although the school has an Autistic Unit, it has had problems with Special Education Needs, including staff turnover, seemingly at odds with the ‘knowledge based curriculum’ that, according to Dr Hirsch, should be offered to all children and if they cannot absorb it, then they won’t come to harm. Having said that there is an enormous SEN Policy, full of aspiration and offering apparently unlimited  resources, but which appears to clash with the reality encountered by some families. However, there is also plenty of expensive external consultancy to steer the school.

What is clear is that the school is not popular with parents, with just 18 families choosing to apply to the school’s 30 places, with another four Local Authority Allocations, second lowest take up in Folkestone.

An exceptional Ofsted Inspection took place in December, triggered by concerns raised from an informal visit from an HMI. In the end the outcome was broadly satisfactory, with staff still settling in to the change of regime, although Ofsted confirms the  large turnover of staff, for just 147 pupils.

Mr Achilleos continues to run SchoolsCompany, ‘a specialist educational consultancy, training and school management company’ which helps ‘a wide range of schools and the education public sector to improve the quality of their services’, which will no doubt have provided services for the Trust schools. I first wrote about SchoolsCompany as long ago as April 2014, but looked at it in more detail the following month. This was after it helped take the school, then called Castle Community College, from Outstanding to Special Measures in less than three years. At that time SchoolsCompany was under a four year contract with KCC to deliver the Kent Challenge programme of helping underperforming schools, although it did precisely the reverse and was given the school as a Sponsored Academy for a reward.

An indication of the level of financial incompetence of the Trust can be seen in a Financial Notice to Improve issued last October. The next set of Company Accounts is due next month, and with new Chief Executive, Angela Barry, now in charge they should make interesting reading, given her track record of demolishing the now defunct Lilac Sky Academy Trust in a parallel Report in 2015, and exposing its profit taking.

I would anticipate that another Academy Trust will now take over Goodwin Academy, with its shiny new premises and plenty of potential, although crippling financial debts.

Meanwhile Mr Achilleos will no doubt carry on with other financial ventures, including his most recent, the Royal Academy for Construction and Fabrication in Nigeria.

This annual report is the longest article I write in the year and will become one of the most visited in time. Please let me know of any errors or areas that need expansion. You will find Ofsted outcomes for all schools in the Individual Schools section, and a survey of 2017-18 outcomes here. There is a survey of Key Stage 2 results for 2016-17 here. 

KCC has a target of securing 5% to 10% vacancies in each District, but the norm is that this often hides a sharp distinction between urban and rural areas, with many towns coming under more pressure. I separate these below, the table showing the only rural area with fewer than 10% vacancies is the countryside hinterland of Canterbury.

Whilst the pattern of the most popular schools changes each year, demand remains high, and it is lower down where there are more satisfied families. Brent Primary in Dartford has shot to the top of the list after its ‘Outstanding’ Ofsted in January 2017, up from ‘Requires Improvement’, with Newington rising for the same reason. Herne Infants’ leap in popularity, is less explicable especially as it is the only oversubscribed school across Whitstable and Herne Bay. Herne and St James also both have ‘Outstanding’ Ofsted Reports, but now well out of date in 2010 and 2011 respectively. There is no doubt there is a high correlation between Ofsted category and parental preference, underlining the importance of a strong Ofsted assessment to a school. 

The Districts surveyed are:

Page 2 - Ashford; Canterbury (including Whitstable and Herne Bay); Cranbrook; Dartford; 

Page 3 – Dover, Deal & Sandwich; Faversham; Gravesham; Maidstone; Malling (including Kings Hill)

Page 4 -Sevenoaks; Sheppey; Shepway (including Folkestone and Hythe); Sittingbourne; Swanley

Page 5 -Thanet; Tonbridge;Tunbridge Wells; Junior Schools

Wittersham CofE has the second highest all-through Key Stage Two performance at Level 5 in English & Maths across the county, at 31% of all pupils, but did not fill.

Of the 12 rural schools, just two have vacancies. Hersden with a PAN of just 15 has just six offers, the sort of fate that can happen to any of the very small schools, depending on the number of children in the village of that year. The other is Chartham. Both accepted one of the two LAAs, so the large majority of children were still awarded one of their choices. Most oversubscribed schools are Bridge & Patrixbourne, and Blean, turning away 15 and 14 first choices respectively.

By contrast, a total of 18% of places available at the nine Canterbury Coastal schools went unfilled. Just two of these had no vacancies, Hampton which just filled, whilst Herne CofE Infants turned away 43 first choices for its 90 places, massively up from the nine of 2017 for no obvious reason.

In the east of Dartford, where I also include Hartley, just three schools are significantly oversubscribed with more than ten first choices turned away, led by Stone St Mary’s with 18, followed by Hartley Primary Academy and Our Lady of Hartley, both with ‘Outstanding’ Ofsteds. Last year’s new Cherry Orchard Primary had an additional 30 places added to its original 30. With 10% vacancies overall, seven of the 12 schools had spaces, led by Knockhall Primary, with 26 of its 90 spaces empty, previously unfortunate to be a Lilac Sky school, but still generating negative comments under its new owners, alongside Key Stage Two results amongst the lowest in Kent.

In Deal and Sandwich, where there are a large number of rural schools, again over half the 19 schools have vacancies, three being over half empty, Goodnestone and Nonington for the second consecutive year. Just two schools significantly oversubscribed, Hornbeam in Mongeham with 13 disappointed first choices, after having last year’s additional temporary class removed, and Warden House Deal with 11.

The only area under pressure is Northfleet, where KCC oddly persuaded sponsors to pull out of a planned new school in the expanding area of Ebbsfleet, on the grounds it was not needed. They have done exactly the same once before arguing that a new school in the area would place the struggling Dover Road School (now Copperfield Academy) in jeopardy, resulting in a shortage of places. Copperfield is still struggling, a recent critical Ofsted Monitoring Report making clear it has been failed by its sponsors, the Reach 2 Academy Trust. To compensate for the lost school, KCC kept Dover Road at an expanded 90 places, although it has failed to fill a whole class of them, also taking in 11 LAAs. I presume the extra class has been folded for, there being no other vacancies in Northfleet, some pupils are being taxied right across Gravesham to the East of the town where there are spaces. Cecil Road (close to Copperfield) remains one of the most oversubscribed schools in Kent, turning away 32 first choices, closely followed by St Joseph’s Catholic with 27.

Meanwhile in Gravesend, half the schools have vacancies, all on the East side of town, with Singlewell the only significantly oversubscribed school having 21 disappointed first choices. In the countryside, Cobham continues to be popular, now alongside Higham which turned away 11 first choices. Istead Rise continues to be a problem, even after its takeover by Swale Academies Trust, its most recent Ofsted back in 2014 being Special Measures. Even with its capacity cut back by 15 places to 45, there are still 19 vacancies.

Second most oversubscribed school in the County is Eastborough, turning away 52 first choices (well up from the 34 of 2017 when it was also the highest in Maidstone), followed by St Michael’s CofE Infants (‘Outstanding’ in 2014) with 32, Greenfields 22 (I remember the days when families fought to avoid Greenfields), St John’s CofE with 21, and South Borough 14, having cut back its 30 additional temporary places in 2017 to the previous intake of 60 children, as did West Borough.

All four schools with vacancies have history in these pages, and are probably struggling to lose their reputation. Tree Tops Academy, which I once described as probably the worst school in Kent, still on Ofsted ‘Requires Improvement’, has a third of its places unfilled. Barming was placed in Special Measures in 2015, then made worse by a temporary head put in place by KCC, who also ran Palace Wood for a while. Becoming a sponsored academy the next year, Barming does not get another OFSTED until at least 2019. Mole Hill Academy failed Ofsted five years ago, then run, like Tree Tops, by a disastrous Academy Trust, but has worked its way up to ‘Good’ in January this year, probably too late to influence applications.

The pressures are also seen through the 62 LAAs, nearly one in every six in the county. The large majority of these have been placed in one of three schools: St Paul’s Infant, St Francis (once Special Measures but now ‘Good’), and Mole Hill. The first two are now full as a result.

Outside the town, although the number of vacancies has fallen sharply from 20% in 2017, to 12% because of building developments, once again nearly all children have been offered a school of their choice. Most popular is Loose, oversubscribed by 37 first choices, now fully recovered after initial difficulties following the amalgamation of Infant and junior schools. It is followed by Bredhurst, with 20, on the border with Medway (from where a number of its applications will come).

Three of the 21 schools have more than a third of their places empty, most at Sutton Valence with 53%, over half empty for the second year and with a continued ‘Requires Improvement’ Ofsted, in spite of having been oversubscribed in 2016. Next comes Harrietsham 38%, although the extra spaces were created by an additional class being set up, which has probably now been collapsed. 

There is little oversubscription, but headed by the village school of Ryarsh with 15 first choices oversubscribed, and an ‘Outstanding’ Ofsted, dating back to 2012. It is followed by Ightham with 13, and St George’s CofE, Wrotham with 10. Eighteen schools have vacancies, headed by Staplehurst, 41%, now Ofsted ‘Good’ but getting over a previous ‘Serious Weaknesses’, and by the two villages at the north of the area, Wouldham and Burham, each with just over a third of their places empty.

The large hinterland of Sevenoaks District (excluding Swanley below) has a total of just 11 first choices denied across its 21 schools. 15 schools have vacancies, most at Edenbridge with 60% vacancies, which dropped two categories to Special Measures in January with large numbers of families removing their children previously. Churchill CofE VC in Westerham, whose Ofsted classification fell from ‘Good’ to ‘Requires Improvement’, has 57% of its Reception places empty for September. All other schools have 70% or more of their places filled. Overall, there were 21% vacant spaces.

Leigh Primary has a high Key Stage Two performance, and the highest proportion of pupils in all-through schools with Level 5 in English & Maths performance in the county, at 34%, but does not appear to affect its popularity being full, but no first choices turned away. Ide Hill came third with 29%.

Most vacancies was St Edward’s Catholic, also in Sheerness with 43% empty spaces, out of Special Measures by virtue of academisation. Followed by Richmond Academy, another Sheerness school, worst performing school in Kent last year, yet another ruined by Lilac Sky, at 28%. Regis Manor had an additional 30 places put in leaving it with 24 empty spaces out of 90.

The 83 children who did not get their first choice are spread across nine schools, most at Sandgate (21), St Martin’s (16); and St Eanswythe’s (11). St Mary’s Primary Academy which shot from nowhere to the sixth most oversubscribed school in Kent in 2017, has slipped back to 11 first choices oversubscribed.

Selsted CofE has a high Key Stage Two performance, and the fourth highest proportion of pupils in all-through schools with Level 5 in English & Maths performance in the county, at 29%, but this does not appear to affect its popularity being full, but no first choices turned away.

Just six children applying for the 19 schools in Hythe, across Romney Marsh and in the rural hinterland did not get their first choice, with five of these at Seabrook. The 23% vacancies are fairly widely spread, although Brenzett CofE is still suffering from its failed Ofsted in 2015, and has three quarters of its 20 places empty, a higher figure than 2017s 65%. Stowting CofE had 60% of its places empty, and three schools – Hythe Bay CofE, Palmarsh (these two being neighbouring schools on the coast, so there may be a population issue), and Stelling Minnis, CofE all a third empty.

In and around the town just three schools are significantly oversubscribed, headed by Tunstall CofE now relocated in its new premises on the edge of town, with its ‘Outstanding’ Ofsted, and turning away 23 first choices. Next come Canterbury Road, 18, and Grove Park 10.

Over half of the 11 schools have vacancies, Milton Court Primary Academy, now having two ‘Requires Improvement’ Ofsted inspections since being taken over as an academy having a third of its Reception places empty.

In the rural area, a third of the schools are oversubscribed with first choices, headed by Borden with 13, and Bobbing with 12. The 16% vacancies are well spread out, although Lower Halstow has 53% of its 30 places unfilled.

17 schools have vacancies. After Ellington Infants with 63% of its 90 places empty, the four TKAT Academy Trust schools follow, with Drapers Mills Primary Academy 53%; Dame Janet Primary Academy 49%; Salmestone 35%; and Northdown 32%. As I wrote at this time last year: ‘The big story in Thanet is not of individual schools but of the sheer unpopularity of the schools run by the Kemnal Academy Trust (TKAT) as described below. What are they doing?’ All four schools are ‘Requires Improvement’, the only schools in Thanet less than Ofsted ‘Good’, apart from St Gregory’s Catholic which separates them, with 40% vacancies, also ‘Requires Improvement’. Northdown fell from ‘Good’ earlier this year.

The new provision at St George's Foundation School in Broadstairs had just two vacancies for its 60 places. The school is now the third all through 4-18 school in the county, and offers priority for places at the senior section which is the most oversubscribed non-selective school in Kent, as a powerful bonus. The Ramsgate Arts Free School, now in its third year has also nearly filled after two difficult previous years in shared premises. 

One consequence of this is that Slade Primary has lost its 2017 position as most oversubscribed school in Kent, although it still turned away 25 first choices. It was followed by Stocks Green in Hildenborough with 10.

Over half the 15 schools have vacancies, most at 57%, at Royal Rise Primary. This became an academy last year sponsored by Cygnus Academy Trust which also runs two primary schools in Dartford. Under its previous name of St Stephen’s, the school was placed in Special Measures. Cage Green Primary, which is Ofsted ‘Requires Improvement’, had 40% empty spaces.

Least popular school is regularly Temple Grove, a sponsored Academy with a previous high profile Chairman of Governors who failed to make an impact, this year with 45% vacancies. A third of the 33 places offered were LAAs. Next comes St Matthews High Brooms CofE VC with 30%. 

The only school seriously oversubscribed is Whitstable and Seasalter Endowed CofE Juniors, turning away 26 first choices, nearly all being placed in Whitstable Junior School. The main attractions of the Endowed school include an ‘Outstanding’ Ofsted, above average Key Stage Two performance and the third highest Level Five KS2 performance in Kent at English and Maths. Highest proportion of vacancies is at Herne Bay Junior with 14%, suggesting a good fit of Infant/Junior in general. 

I must declare a personal interest, having recently retired from being a governor of the Cedar Federation (and before that Chairman of Governors at Ifield), and still carrying out voluntary work at Kings Farm. I take considerable pride from my continued association with both schools. 

‘Exceptionally for a school in such an area ‘This year a significantly higher proportionofpupilspassedthe KentTest(11plus)thaninpreviousyears’ , with a nearly a quarter of the cohort qualifying for grammar school, ahead of most other Gravesend schools.

King's Farm has been assisted in its success by becoming the lead school of three in a £200,000 project set up by the Goldsmiths' Company to improve standards in maths, with excellent early results.

One of the most striking features of King's Farm, regularly commented upon by visitors and now by Ofsted is the excellent behaviour, courtesy and attitude of pupils at all times, which I have regularly seen at first hand.

‘The school is a calm orderly environment. Pupils conduct themselves well in lessons and respond positively to teachers’ high expectations for behaviour and learning. Pupils demonstrate high levels of effort and take great pride in their work. Work in their books reflects the high standards teachers set for them’.

‘Leaders ensure that pupils have a suitable range of rich experiences. These include, for example, engaging in sports and debating competitions, as well as participating in Shakespeare productions, dance activities and residential trips. An impressive number of pupils take part in extra-curricular clubs before or after school. These activities combine to make a significant contribution to pupils’ personal and academic achievement.

Again, I have regularly witnessed these at first hand. Remarkably for a profession under pressure, I regularly witness large numbers of pupils going home after an hour of such activity on a Friday afternoon, teachers having given freely of their time after a long week. Others come in on Saturday morning to support older children who choose to come to school to improve their standards further.

In reality, the only thing stopping the school becoming Outstanding is the handicap set by previous gross mismanagement. This delayed the excellent progress now being achieved, but hard working school staff and pupils have all but put this behind them. It also underlines the falsehood behind the political assumption that grammar schools necessarily have transferable skills to benefit struggling primaries (see also items on the Williamson Trust). By contrast King’s Farm now owes much to its Federated school, Ifield Special School - the two working closely together and sharing skills, as well of course to its own endeavours.

Ifield School

One key element is illustrated by: ‘The school ensures that it has the expert teachers it needs and initial teacher training supported by the teaching alliance it leads and by an alliance of local special schools. Newly qualified teachers are extremely well supported to develop the skills and expertise they need. They feel encouraged and valued by the school. The school works extensively with other schools, supporting the development of better provision for all pupils into adulthood’. Both schools benefit from this, placing a high priority on the welfare and development of their teachers, which ensures that steady supply of excellent staff, who are well supported and developed and contribute to high morale.

The statement was presented to the Appeal Panel, describing the reasons why applications for admission were refused and why appellants  who had not qualified through the Medway Test should not be offered a place. The key paragraph is as follows:

Thiscurriculumisdesignedforthetop25%oftheabilityrange.Studentsbelowthislevel wouldstruggletoengagewiththecurriculumanditsdelivery. Therefore,studentswho have not been deemed selective should not be considered for a place at Holcombe GrammarSchool.Anyscorearoundthe100mark,(50th percentile)indicatesaverage.A score below 100 suggests that there may be difficulty in that area unless there are mitigatingcircumstances.Foranappealtobesuccessfultheremustbeastrongcasewith compellingevidence.

This is quite simply factually wrong. I give a more technical explanation of the misrepresentation at the foot of this article below but, as briefly as I can make it, the reference to a score of 100 being at the 50^th percentile or nationally average only applies to the Kent Test. The Medway test, which the large majority of applicants to Holcombe take and with a very different method of scoring, is not described. In the Medway Test the pass mark of 495 for this year is made up of the total of five components. For example these could be scores for the three Tests of 100 marks each (English and maths marks then being doubled to provide the five components) which would secure a grammar assessment with a total of 500 points. Therefore, a score of 100 is the equivalent of a pass mark, the mathematics suggesting it comes in the top 27% of candidates taking each paper, well above the false claim of 50% by TSAT.

One has to ask the question as to whether this false claim was deliberate or through ignorance? I hope it was not the former. Whichever, it makes the whole appeal process a travesty for those candidates who were not initially found selective, as they would have been on a hiding to nothing if the Panel swallowed the story. Unfortunately, we have no idea of this, as the Panel does not appear to have questioned the claim, possibly because they were Kent based and so wrongly simply accepted it as truth.

The Executive Principal (and Director of Secondary Education for the Trust), who was previously headteacher of The Rochester Grammar School, the super selective Girls Grammar in TSAT, may never have come across this fundamental plank of the Medway Test, as that school sets a higher pass mark than other Medway schools, this year at 520, twenty-five marks above the official pass. So scores of 100 would not normally come under consideration for selection or appeal. Even if the result was due to his ignorance, it is shameful that no one at Holcombe bothered to check, adding to the catalogue of errors they have committed recently (below).

There is no doubt it is an unforgiveable blunder, making a mockery of the appeal process and compounding the months of stress of families waiting for what they assumed would be a fair appeal. It also strengthens my hypothesis about the aims of TSAT towards Holcombe Grammar School. So, don’t be surprised to see another change of character proposed after the two previous failed attempts to become co-educational. It appears the school is attempting to emulate The Rochester Grammar School (RGS), lead school in the Academy Trust, which offers its places to the highest scorers in the Medway Test, this year offering 81 of the 205 places outside Medway, fifteen of them to girls from Greenwich. . The difference is that for RGS these are mainly girls who made a positive choice for the school.

A few years ago, when they were struggling for numbers, both of the Chatham Grammar Schools introduced the Kent Test as an alternative route to qualify for entrance. This means that boys who may have had no initial thought of looking at Holcombe, suddenly find they are eligible for a place. As a result 20 boys offered Holcombe had placed the school fourth, fifth or sixth choice, probably having been rejected from Dartford Boys, Wilmington Boys and Gravesend Boys grammars on the way, all nearer their homes in one of the London Boroughs.

The sad thing is that the events described in this article take place whilst Holcombe is clearly working well in other areas as confirmed by the recent Good Ofsted Report. However, whilst the Report does not consider external matters, even the Inspectors came across a current of unhappiness about the school that I regularly still pick up: ‘Some parents do not appreciate the good work that is going on in the school. Approximately one third of the parents responding to Ofsted’s online survey Parent View do not feel that the school provides valuable information about their child’s progress. A similar proportion does not feel that the school responds well to concerns raised, and many additional comments suggested that concerns raised were not always responded to in a timely manner’. The school website is unusual in that no one’s name is mentioned anywhere (except occasionally in letters home) echoing a concern that parents do not know who to contact about issues. Why the secrecy?

The Report also failed to pick up the enormous fall out of 22% of students half way through their A level course, more than double that of any grammar schools across Kent and Medway (apart from one on 13%). This follows my exposure of the practice of illegal expulsion of pupils in 2016 in local grammar schools, which caused a sharp fall in students leaving half way through their course everywhere else, but clearly not at Holcombe!

Holcombe Grammar has made two controversial and seriously flawed failed attempts to become co-educational, which would have reduced opportunities for boys in the area, and threatened the viability of neighbouring Chatham Girls Grammar. In the first proposal, the school confirmed its ability to take up to 180 pupils; in the second it recorded that ‘We have the capacity to provide enough places for every boy and girl who wants one’ ( presumably of grammar school ability, but not mentioned)!).

It also came up with the astonishing, unlawful and ridiculous plan, to be able to fill the vacant places after allocation by a Committee of Governors making their own decisions. They would do this by setting a new test to choose additional pupils who had not passed the Medway Test to fill places. The second proposal for co-education was accompanied by a plan to allow girls (not boys) to transfer from the TSAT non-selective school Victory Academy to Holcombe without formal assessment. This was also turned down, a pilot plan admitting girls on this basis failing because the girls chose not remain.

Then there was the unlawful transfer of boys who had been accepted by Holcombe, to Victory Academy for their education, keeping them on the roll of Holcombe. This was supported by Medway Council, but was declared unlawful by government and had to be scrapped.  

In his time as headteacher, Phil Karnavas has trodden on many toes in his determination to do everything in his power for ALL children. In his mind the oft repeated words ‘comprehensive education’ means so much more than the conventional term. In all my years of reporting on schools for parents I have seen nothing like the recent amazingly powerful Ofsted Report, which I describe here. This is surely Outstanding to all but the bean-counters back at Ofsted who require rigid criteria to accommodate their limited understanding of what a great school truly delivers.

For some in authority, including Ofsted in a bizarre attack two years ago, he is still falsely blamed for the demise of the Chaucer Academy in 2015, badly run, badly governed, badly overseen by KCC and badly failing its students,  as explained in a number of articles on this website, including what has been by far the most read news item I have ever published. The truth of the matter is that Mr Karnavas expanded his school at the time and at short notice to provide a home for many children who would otherwise have been exposed to the appalling standards then on offer at Chaucer.

The statement was presented to the Appeal Panel, describing the reasons why applications for admission were refused and why appellants  who had not qualified through the Medway Test should not be offered a place. The key paragraph is as follows:

Thiscurriculumisdesignedforthetop25%oftheabilityrange.Studentsbelowthislevel wouldstruggletoengagewiththecurriculumanditsdelivery. Therefore,studentswho have not been deemed selective should not be considered for a place at Holcombe GrammarSchool.Anyscorearoundthe100mark,(50th percentile)indicatesaverage.A score below 100 suggests that there may be difficulty in that area unless there are mitigatingcircumstances.Foranappealtobesuccessfultheremustbeastrongcasewith compellingevidence.

This is quite simply factually wrong. I give a more technical explanation of the misrepresentation at the foot of this article below but, as briefly as I can make it, the reference to a score of 100 being at the 50^th percentile or nationally average only applies to the Kent Test. The Medway test, which the large majority of applicants to Holcombe take and with a very different method of scoring, is not described. In the Medway Test the pass mark of 495 for this year is made up of the total of five components. For example these could be scores for the three Tests of 100 marks each (English and maths marks then being doubled to provide the five components) which would secure a grammar assessment with a total of 500 points. Therefore, a score of 100 is the equivalent of a pass mark, the mathematics suggesting it comes in the top 27% of candidates taking each paper, well above the false claim of 50% by TSAT.

One has to ask the question as to whether this false claim was deliberate or through ignorance? I hope it was not the former. Whichever, it makes the whole appeal process a travesty for those candidates who were not initially found selective, as they would have been on a hiding to nothing if the Panel swallowed the story. Unfortunately, we have no idea of this, as the Panel does not appear to have questioned the claim, possibly because they were Kent based and so wrongly simply accepted it as truth.

The Executive Principal (and Director of Secondary Education for the Trust), who was previously headteacher of The Rochester Grammar School, the super selective Girls Grammar in TSAT, may never have come across this fundamental plank of the Medway Test, as that school sets a higher pass mark than other Medway schools, this year at 520, twenty-five marks above the official pass. So scores of 100 would not normally come under consideration for selection or appeal. Even if the result was due to his ignorance, it is shameful that no one at Holcombe bothered to check, adding to the catalogue of errors they have committed recently (below).

There is no doubt it is an unforgiveable blunder, making a mockery of the appeal process and compounding the months of stress of families waiting for what they assumed would be a fair appeal. It also strengthens my hypothesis about the aims of TSAT towards Holcombe Grammar School. So, don’t be surprised to see another change of character proposed after the two previous failed attempts to become co-educational. It appears the school is attempting to emulate The Rochester Grammar School (RGS), lead school in the Academy Trust, which offers its places to the highest scorers in the Medway Test, this year offering 81 of the 205 places outside Medway, fifteen of them to girls from Greenwich. . The difference is that for RGS these are mainly girls who made a positive choice for the school.

A few years ago, when they were struggling for numbers, both of the Chatham Grammar Schools introduced the Kent Test as an alternative route to qualify for entrance. This means that boys who may have had no initial thought of looking at Holcombe, suddenly find they are eligible for a place. As a result 20 boys offered Holcombe had placed the school fourth, fifth or sixth choice, probably having been rejected from Dartford Boys, Wilmington Boys and Gravesend Boys grammars on the way, all nearer their homes in one of the London Boroughs.

The sad thing is that the events described in this article take place whilst Holcombe is clearly working well in other areas as confirmed by the recent Good Ofsted Report. However, whilst the Report does not consider external matters, even the Inspectors came across a current of unhappiness about the school that I regularly still pick up: ‘Some parents do not appreciate the good work that is going on in the school. Approximately one third of the parents responding to Ofsted’s online survey Parent View do not feel that the school provides valuable information about their child’s progress. A similar proportion does not feel that the school responds well to concerns raised, and many additional comments suggested that concerns raised were not always responded to in a timely manner’. The school website is unusual in that no one’s name is mentioned anywhere (except occasionally in letters home) echoing a concern that parents do not know who to contact about issues. Why the secrecy?

The Report also failed to pick up the enormous fall out of 22% of students half way through their A level course, more than double that of any grammar schools across Kent and Medway (apart from one on 13%). This follows my exposure of the practice of illegal expulsion of pupils in 2016 in local grammar schools, which caused a sharp fall in students leaving half way through their course everywhere else, but clearly not at Holcombe!

Holcombe Grammar has made two controversial and seriously flawed failed attempts to become co-educational, which would have reduced opportunities for boys in the area, and threatened the viability of neighbouring Chatham Girls Grammar. In the first proposal, the school confirmed its ability to take up to 180 pupils; in the second it recorded that ‘We have the capacity to provide enough places for every boy and girl who wants one’ ( presumably of grammar school ability, but not mentioned)!).

It also came up with the astonishing, unlawful and ridiculous plan, to be able to fill the vacant places after allocation by a Committee of Governors making their own decisions. They would do this by setting a new test to choose additional pupils who had not passed the Medway Test to fill places. The second proposal for co-education was accompanied by a plan to allow girls (not boys) to transfer from the TSAT non-selective school Victory Academy to Holcombe without formal assessment. This was also turned down, a pilot plan admitting girls on this basis failing because the girls chose not remain.

Then there was the unlawful transfer of boys who had been accepted by Holcombe, to Victory Academy for their education, keeping them on the roll of Holcombe. This was supported by Medway Council, but was declared unlawful by government and had to be scrapped.  

Given reports that the number of permanent exclusions is rising around the country, Kent’s remarkable record of the lowest proportion of secondary school permanent exclusions in the South East at 0.05% in 2015-16 ( a third of the national percentage) is likely to see its national position  of 13^th lowest rate in the country with 51 exclusions improve even further when 2016-17 outcomes are published, at 49 secondary permanent exclusions. The proportion from primary schools at 0.01% of the population is negligible, at half the national rate.

There were just three children excluded who had Statements of SEN or Education Health Care Plans (the replacement classification) last year; contrast this with the 25 permanent exclusions of statemented children in 2013-14 out of a total of 87 or the 41 of 2011-12. For many years government policy has been that for statemented children exclusion should be a very last resort, but there remains considerable concern over the large numbers nationally. Kent has seen around one fifth of the national average of statemented/EHCP pupils permanently excluded in 2016-17, although I was still contacted by too many such families where the school was threatening exclusion unless they moved the child elsewhere.   

With numbers this low in Kent, it could be that a single major issue can give rise to a jump in exclusion figures for a school. It is perhaps unfortunate that Knole Academy is the only one of the five secondary schools with more than five permanent exclusions in one of the last three years, to suffer this fate twice. Given comments below, it may be relevant that three of the others are Ebbsfleet Academy, High Weald Academy and New Line Learning Academy.

However, some schools have taken up alternative strategies to exclusion to force 'undesirable' children out, such as encouraging families to change schools, take up Home Education for their children (see below), or transferring children to Pupil Referral Units designed for those at risk of exclusion (see below).

There has been growing concern about schools removing pupils in Years 10 and 11 to improve GCSE performance. 22 of the Kent exclusions were from these Year Groups, which I don’t think is a large enough number or proportion to suggest that exclusion is being used as a tool in this way.

When I investigated and wrote about the illegal exclusion of up to 32 students at the end of Year 12 at Invicta Grammar School in 2016, I did not anticipate it becoming the national scandal into which it developed. The effect of the rules being widely made available by government, so that the illegality became well known, has had a powerful consequence for staying on rates in grammar schools. In 2016, 264 students left or were forced out of Kent grammar schools at the end of Year 12. By 2017, when the rules were well known, this figure fell to 165, most of whom I must assume left for legitimate reasons. It is not possible to quantify the situation regarding non-selective schools, as so many pupils follow one year courses at these schools. 

One complication is the variety of reasons for choosing EHE, a list by the BBC reads: lifestyle choice; dissatisfaction or conflict with the local school; cultural reasons; bullying; special needs; or failure to get into a school of choice, as the main ones in order.

In Kent, the largest numbers are in Swale – 147 new cases; Maidstone – 119 new cases; Thanet – 100; and Dartford – 81.

After Ebbsfleet Academy at 4.1% of the school’s total roll – the equivalent of more than one child in every class leaving for EHE; and Oasis Isle of Sheppey Academy at 3.3%; come Hartsdown Academy 3.1%; Community College Whitstable and New Line Learning Academy 2.8%; and High Weald Academy 2.6%. All six are the schools of last choice in their local areas with few if any alternative schools available, and so inevitably take in numbers of children who have been turned down by all their preferences. This will inevitably have an effect on parental dissatisfaction if children are at schools they did not choose.  

It is no coincidence that the first three of these schools are the Tough Love Academies, accounting for 15% of the total, about which I have written several times before. Certainly, from parents I have talked with who have withdrawn their children from Sheppey and Ebbsfleet, it has not been a matter of choice, rather the final straw with several reporting threats by the school to leave or else face exclusion which, if proven would be unlawful. Sheppey operates what I believe to be an unlawful isolation system often for petty reasons, which could amount to abuse to improve behaviour. This is called 'Reflection' and appears designed to alienate its victims. Interestingly, this week I have had reports surfacing of staff being bullied at Ebbsfleet.

Hartsdown, NLL and High Weald all have sectional communities who may regard schooling as optional, compounding the issue. Hartsdown in Thanet also suffers because with all schools technically full, and a transient population with considerable levels of deprivation, it will tend to fill spaces with children who present a challenge, such as language, culture or Children in Care placed in Thanet by London Boroughs. The school’s headteacher describes Margate as ‘on the margins of English society, both culturally and economically’ and his own intake as having: ‘many who come from extremely challenging backgrounds. 27% of our students are EAL, with 10% Roma. Margate has become a bridge head for eastern European immigration and Hartsdown has specialised in integrating unaccompanied asylum seeking minors. 57% of our students are disadvantaged / pupil premium’. 

For reasons I still completely fail to understand, KCC refused to provide anwers to my FOI request for information on the Year Groups of pupils who left for EHE. See below, although they eventually provided me with everything I wanted and almost everything I had requested in the first place. Given current government concerns over issues around Home Education, most recently the number of children being forced out before GCSE, I find this attitude bewildering.

As it happens, the additional data has not substantiated my theory that Kent schools were forcing children out to improve GCSE results, as is reportedly happening with too many nationally, although some appear to use an alternative tactic in Swale and North West Kent (see PRU below).

The 338 primary leavers for EHE are spread across a wide range of schools, the eleven with five or more withdrawals including Drapers Mill and Dame Janet Primary Academies, in Thanet, and Minster and Richmond Academies, on the Isle of Sheppey, all in areas of considerable deprivation, together with Edenbridge Primary near Sevenoaks, recently placed in Special Measure whose failures including unchecked bullying.

The articulate and vociferous lobby for Elective Home Education and against regulation appears to consider their life-style choice to be the only reason to make it as a choice. They do a massive disservice to the victims of the system as described above, for whom it is no choice. 

Both these two are controversial, the Swale Inclusion Unit (SIU) being effectively managed by the Swale Academies Trust whose two schools use it extensively for both types of placement, and the failed NW Kent Alternative Provision Unit.

The North West Kent Alternative Provision Service (PRU), which had 36 of these pupils on Long Term Placements in October 2017, has failed them badly, as recorded by Ofsted in its Inspection Report when the PRU was found Inadequate, partly because ‘The local authority did not keep a close enough watch on the school between 2013 and 2016’. A new Headteacher is making reported to be making improvements.

For 2015-16, 21 of the 41 pupils taken off roll by their schools and placed in SIU were from the two Swale Academy Schools, Sittingbourne Community College and Westlands School, a further 6 from Oasis Isle of Sheppey. After I drew attention to this practice last year, the figure fell to 10 out of 26 in 2016-17, again with 6 from Sheppey.

The figures for NW Kent were smaller with 9 in 2015-16 rising to 19 in January 2017, but with the recent surge to 36 as reported by Ofsted. Census figures suggest that a considerable part of the increase is from pupils previously on the roll of Ebbsfleet Academy. 

For what is called dual Registration (i.e. pupils remained on their home school roll), there were a total of 561 pupils in 2016-17, including 10 from primary schools. Largest users were: Hartsdown placing 32 pupils, Oasis Isle of Sheppey 27 and Sittingbourne Community College 24. No one else had more than 20. NOTE: These figures are lower than in my previous version as I had included children from the Kent Education Health Needs Service in error. For that reason I have removed Langafel Primary from my list. 

Unsurprisingly, the largest figure for 2016-17 was in Thanet at 333, followed by 287 in Swale, 241 in Gravesham and 231 in Dover, all the way down to 67 in Sevenoaks.

Probably the biggest question remains: is the very low level of permanent exclusions achieved through encouraging the high rates of EHE and transfer to PRUs?

Whilst I can see evidence that a few schools are actively promoting this for difficult or low performing pupils, I am unconvinced the practice is widespread. Many vociferous lobbyists for EHE will argue that choosing to home educate is generally a life style choice, but this is not the case and it is far more complicated, as my article shows.

I have shown that other reasons for EHE in Kent are indeed those in the BBC list: living in an area of deprivation which may also tie in with failure to be awarded any school of one’s choice, itself often associated with dissatisfaction with the school attended. Bullying occurs in several of the examples above; and cultural issues can include an ambivalence about school attendance and membership.

There is also a vociferous lobby arguing that EHE is an easy way out for inadequate or uncaring families. This may be true for some, but in either case, the child will not receive any education, which will present a much bigger problem for society when they grow up. They should not be abandoned, but whose responsibility is it to tackle the issue?

Then there are the children missing from education, in some cases vanished completely. Whilst I feel it is completely out of my self-defined limits to comment on the horrendous issues this may be covering up, surely it needs a much higher priority than it is currently awarded by government.

A further, unsuccessful, complaint to the Ombudsman about the Kent policy was by a parent aggrieved at seeing her child moved down the waiting list as a result of this decision. The Ombudsman’s Report, published in July 2012 clarified the position. In summary:‘The Council was not at fault in adding to a grammar school waiting list a number of children whose appeals, on the grounds of academic ability, were upheld by the Independent Appeal Panel’.A key section is ‘It is for the Council to decide whether to place a child on the waiting list for the school. It has decided to place on the list all those children who have been found to be of the right level of academic ability, either because they passed the eleven plus test or on appeal. The Appeal Code requires the Panel to decide on academic ability when this is the reason for the appeal. So, in placing more children on the waiting list the Council is taking account of the Appeal Panel’s decisions. The Panel itself does not decide on the waiting list’. The regulations have not changed in principle since then, although they were ‘thinned out in 2012. Although this case was for a Local Authority School, one can replace the word ‘Council’ by ‘Academy’ where appropriate, as the latter becomes the lawful Admission Authority.

Current Situation

In summary, it is down to the Admission Authority as to whether the school will add pupils found selective by an Appeal Panel to the waiting list or not. In the case of Local Authority schools, the Council is the Admission Authority. In the case of Academy Trusts, Free Schools, Foundation Schools and Voluntary Aided Schools it is the school itself, or the Academy Trust. All Kent grammar schools that use a KCC Appeal Panel follow this principle, as do all other Kent grammar schools I am aware of. The situation in Medway is different, as explained below.

I have been delighted with the number of my Telephone Consultation clients and other families who have told me this year of their success via this route, following the recent re-allocation of places.

Please note that any decision by an Appeal Panel to find a child judged non-selective by the Kent selection process, as being of grammar school ability, is not transferable to any other school. Also, no child should be awarded a place via the waiting list until the number of places offered has fallen back to below the Planned Admission Number (the number of places offered on allocation in March). However, some schools will ignore this stricture and award additional places according to the waiting list criteria. They may not change the order when allocating places. 

Holcombe Grammar has been served well for a number of years by an Independent Appeal organisation that operates across a number of grammar and non-selective schools in Kent and Medway. However, for 2018 the organisation withdrew from the school in March, which then engaged another Panel operated by KCC. I have previously expressed my views on the operation of the 2018 appeals process, but this article takes the story on.

Warning: What follows is a long and unbelievably convoluted story. In summary, parents of boys who were found of grammar school ability by the Appeal Panel, but not offered places because the school was full, still do not know (29^th June) if they are to be allowed on the waiting list. This follows various differing messages from Medway Council (but nothing from the school which is the Admission Authority). The situation of London boys qualified through the Kent Test, who went to appeal for a place but were unsuccessful, is also unclear; both situations depending on alternative readings of the Council’s own Co-ordinated Scheme for Admissions which the council has misread. The article finishes with fresh information about the apparently misleading Case for the School submitted to the Appeal hearings.

The Admission process to Holcombe Grammar (and Chatham Grammar Girls) is complicated by an alternative qualification for admission is a pass in the Kent Test. The two are counted as of equal importance. Boys who took but have not passed the Kent Test are entitled to apply for admission and then go to appeal. 

To continue: 

The email records that 'In accordance to Medway Council’s Co-ordinated Scheme for Secondary Admissions, a child cannot be considered on the waiting list for a Medway grammar school if they have not been assessed as grammar through the Medway Test/Review process'. This is untrue and dishonest. The actual and authorised wording in the 2019 scheme (the one for 2018 appears to have been removed from the Medway Council website!) reads: 'The only exception is that a child cannot be considered on the waiting list for a Medway grammar school if they have not been assessed as selective (grammar)'. The Council appears to have deliberately added in the words 'through the Medway Test/Review process' in its letter to cut out children found of selective ability by an Appeal Panel and also those found selective via the Kent Test, and so such children are eligible to be added to the waiting list, which should be the end of the story. 

However, the reality of this response is that Mr Bassan wrote in the written Case for the School:  'Any score around the 100 mark, (50th percentile) indicates average'. I find it incredible (although this is Holcombe) that someone can prepare such a response without bothering to check what Mr Bassan actually wrote before denying it. Or was it simply they don't care? I think I understand the meaning of the final sentence. The fact that the question does not help to determine the ability of the child without an explanation of the standardisation process adds nothing.

As you might expect, I am taking this further.

Families who wish to complain about the school's actions need to prove both maladministration and injustice to the Education and Skills Funding Agency. However, whilst there are several examples here of possible grounds for complaint, I have to warn that it is very difficult to achieve success. 

 You will find the equivalent article and data for 2017 here; a preliminary article here; and the parallel Kent article here - which also records a second fall in pupil numbers.

I would encourage parents to apply to go on the waiting list for any of their preferences that have not been offered, as there will be movement over the next four months. This is your best chance of getting a school of your choice, as chances at appeal are generally very low because of Infant Class Legislation. For 2017 entry, of 66 registered Primary appeals organised by Medway Council where Infant Class Legislation applied (the overwhelming majority), just one was upheld. 

Note: the abbreviation LAAC refers to a child placed by Medway Council at a school they have not applied to, as all their own choices are full. PAN refers to the Planned Admission Number of the school.

You will find the equivalent article and data for 2017 here; a preliminary article here; and the parallel Kent article here - which also records a second fall in pupil numbers.

I would encourage parents to apply to go on the waiting list for any of their preferences that have not been offered, as there will be movement over the next four months. This is your best chance of getting a school of your choice, as chances at appeal are generally very low because of Infant Class Legislation. For 2017 entry, of 66 registered Primary appeals organised by Medway Council where Infant Class Legislation applied (the overwhelming majority), just one was upheld.

Nine of the 19 schools had vacancies. Highest figure at 42% empty spaces is Oaklands Primary, possibly still shrugging off a difficult history. This is more than double the percentage empty in 2017. However, the school’s recent Good Ofsted Report, too late in February to affect admissions is highly complimentary, including: ‘In 2017, the percentages of pupils attaining both expected and higher levels at the end of key stage 2 national assessments in reading, writing and mathematics were above those seen nationally. This represented strong progress from their starting points’ (as in 2016).Some of the 95 Chatham families who did not get their first choices elsewhere could do worse than look at this school. Altogether 33 children were awarded none of their choices and became LAACs.

Next comes Lordswood with 38% of its places empty, not having fared well under the Griffin Academy Trust since conversion (see also subsequent articles on this site). Then two schools on 37%. First is Luton Infants, Ofsted Requires Improvement, with 13 LAACs, but opens up to the Ofsted Outstanding Luton Juniors. Second, surprisingly is St Mary’s Island, CofE Aided that decided to increase its PAN to 90, above the published figure of 60, although it had only just filled in 2017, then only attracted 57 pupils. No other school had more than nine empty spaces.

Seven of the 12 schools have vacancies, most at Twydall with 40% of places empty, still scarred by its failed Ofsted four years ago, and a subsequent controversial headship (now departed)- one of the few from the Medway Council initiative to bring successful London teachers into the Authority as heads. Three of the other four schools with over 20% empty spaces suffer from a difficult Ofsted history, Napier with repeated ‘Requires Improvement’, and Oasis Skinner Street and Saxon Way, both Special Measures under Medway Council control but now ‘Good’ as academies. The fourth, Featherby Infant probably suffers from having its partner Junior School in Special Measures.

The most oversubscribed school is the Ofsted Outstanding Cliffe Woods Primary with 12 first choices turned away for its 60 places.

Six of the nine schools have vacancies, most at Deanwood and Meirs Court, both with a third of their places empty, both with Good Ofsteds.

Riverside Primary was expanded by 30 places to 60 in total, all but six having been taken up.

One oddity is the situation at the former Delce Infant and Junior schools. Delce Juniors was an Ofsted Good School, until it became an academy but was found to Require Improvement last year, with particular criticism being made of the Trust governance. For some reason the school chose to admit children at Reception age in 2017, putting an extra 30 places into the system, in competition with the Infant School and presumably to undermine it. Currently, this strategy is proving a failure with just 9 children choosing the school; another 3 being made up by LAACs (out of a total of 5 LAACs) resulting in 60% vacancies. Meanwhile the Crest Infant School (presumably it had to change its name to avoid confusion) admitted 54 children, there not being enough across the two schools to fill the original PAN of 90 in Delce Infants.

The only significantly oversubscribed school is St William of Perth Catholic, turning away 16 first choices. Last years second most popular school in Medway has seen its oversubscription level fall from 29 to 8 disappointed first choices.

Not surprisingly, Elaine Primary School, taken away from the Williamson Trust after poor performance, has the highest proportion of vacancies, with 42% of its 50 places unfilled. Next, with 27% empty spaces come Cedar Children’s Academy, with a difficult history, and Halling Primary, the vacancies in this popular school created after it raised its PAN from 40 to 60, attracting 44 pupils.

Folkestone Academy (FA) expanded to a temporary PAN of 300 places for September 2017, as requested by KCC to cater for additional pupils arising from the closure of Pent Valley. This is described pejoratively in a Consultation Document as: ’the inflated 300 places per year that were assumed’. In the event 303 places were offered, so the expansion was neither inflated nor wrongly assumed, although in the end just 267 arrived, some having taken up places at Dover schools rather than attend their local school; hardly the vote of confidence promulgated by Dr Saxton including her quote about one boy returning, in the correspondence below!

I understand that all but one of the 11 members of the Senior Leadership Team in post when Turner Schools took over have or are departing (the one  remaining is to go on maternity leave!). I have also been fairly reliably informed that at last count, there were 23 staff known to be leaving this month. Not surprisingly, this has enabled the Trust to write to parents informing them that there will be no redundancies, as were planned in the Consultation Document.

The Interim Principal of the Secondary Academy is Colin Boxall, appointed through an agency, although elsewhere described as coming from the wider Turner Schools team, was appointed in January until the summer. He is aided by Head of School, Wesley Carroll. It is unclear who has been appointed Principal for September.  

Meanwhile, the academy is closing its innovative Sixth Form Centre, the Glassworks, opened in 2013 in the centre of town under the previous ownership and catering for the current 279 Sixth Form pupils. This also contains the Academy's administrative address - two miles from the school. Apparently, although the 'The main academy was built to accommodate every year group, including Post 16', and rolls are falling, the academy has been funded for eight new classrooms to be built to accommodate the move. 

An article describing the Trust as 'The group with an ambitious plan to turn Folkestone Academy into the best school in the south of England' describes  'ambitious plans to transform the two worst performing secondary schools in Folkestone into some of the best in the country'.  Actually, as explained in my response to Jo Saxton's letter below, Folkestone Academy was comfortably in the top half of non-selective schools in Kent on performance last year, and with the only two other schools in Folkestone being the grammar schools, the comparison is worthless. It is difficult to discern the plans laid down to achieve this aim. 

When I challenged this I received a lengthy and courteous response which identified a number of potential errors and inaccuracies. This rightly spelled out in different ways: ‘There is no public interest in disseminating misinformation or inaccuracies. The public interest is best served when factual statements that are made are verified and underpinned by evidence, especially on controversial topics’. Unfortunately, she misunderstands where I obtain my material from, which is primarily official sources in the public domain verified and underpinned by evidence, only then confirmed by personal testimony.

Her other main issues are as follows:

 Turner Schools is a not for profit and none of its leaders have ever been in the service of for profit schools. (I have never claimed otherwise)

 You allege that we are heading into difficulty with all of our schools; yet we have significant successes in each which I would be delighted to talk to you and show you about, including at Morehall and Martello, where twice as many pupils are now able to read at their chronological age. (There are indeed some successes, but this response  does not address the failings)

 You state that we are failing to attract pupils, but we are daily receiving parents seeking places in each of our schools, meaning that there are some years in Morehall with a waiting list. In addition, the Local Authority have informed us that they expect final numbers will be higher than those published earlier in the year after re-allocation. In addition, Morehall has had spaces throughout the past decade. The roll is now stable +/- 10 pupils on average since we inherited it, so it is incorrect to imply that it has spaces due to Turner Schools, it had vacancies under Lilac Sky and under the Local Authority. Martello Primary was built by the Local Authority for basic need provision, has had Years R-5 since Turner Schools has been responsible for it, with 145 on roll at present and its first Year 6 this year. KCC are clear it was built to provide capacity so it incorrect to present this capacity as unpopularity. Folkestone Primary is oversubscribed, and Folkestone Academy receives daily requests from families to move in. Just last week, I met week with a Year 7 boy delighted to have been admitted from Astor now that a space has come up. Turner Free School has had two applicants for every place, and has an active waiting list. (see my response refuting, with evidence, the key assertions).

 In terms of the Martello leadership structure, there have not been three Executive Heads. There has been a fixed term Executive Head initially, a substantive Executive Head and once stabilised, a Principal. The substantive Executive Head remains actively involved with the school as Chair of Governors (agreed, Martello Academy has had just two Executive Heads, plus Dr Saxton as Headteacher).

 Reform at Folkestone Academy is to integrate academic and pastoral life so that the school’s students achieve their full potential. No teachers are being made redundant and there will not be 42 redundancies; this is about reform not finance (see Consultation Document which identifies 42 positions to go, including 24 teachers, because of ‘straitened’ finances. Because of the large number of teacher resignations, it is now probably true there is no need for redundancies. 

 Numbers at Turner Free School, and publication thereof: we have never published anything about number of places taken up on the Turner Free School holding page (the full website is in development now policies have been approved by the DfE and clearance for readiness to open has been given) (a month has gone since this letter was sent, but still no ‘full website’. The current website makes no mention it is to be replaced) . The article about 70 applications was on the Turner Schools website and it was published on 10th November 2017 (this was removed to avoid further confusion) (removed around 23^rd May only after my article pointed it out). The school had received 120 written acceptances by March 23, and this was communicated to parents, for whom we operate direct means of communication. The Local Authority have been informed of all TFS admission information throughout and are handling appeals. No family has accepted a place at Turner Free School and at Folkestone Academy (not true from personal contacts with families). 

 I have not read them, but am advised that many of the comments posted on your site made defamatory statements about me and the Trust (why has Dr Saxton not read the comments before making this serious allegation? She has not replied to my request to identify potentially defamatory comments; oddly since I offered to remove any such. In any case, I cannot find any such, especially as to the best of my knowledge as all my statements are supported by evidence).

I responded to this letter on 26^th June, in which I provide a refutation to all of Dr Saxton's allegations except the one, about Executive Headship at Martello Academy which I acknowledge what appears a technical error. 

Four Questions (amongst many)

I concluded by asking three questions I believe are important to which I have had no response. These are:

a) You have describe Mr Boxall as having been 'Principal of a number of schools, including an Outstanding Academy in Kent'. Can you please confirm which is the Outstanding Academy?

b) As you will be aware I have updated my article as further objective information has come in. The Section on FA now includes the following about staff vacancies: Four of these are Heads of Department, so will be unlikely to attract external applicants, as 31st May is the final day for submitting resignations for September. Three of these are for the major Departments of English, Maths and Geography. I happened to look at the first two. Oddly, they have a completely different structure, reflecting a school that has no clear strategy. Both have a very general introductory page, sent out for some reason from the Sixth Form Centre, but neither gives any indication of the radical change of approach set out in the reorganisation Consultation. The English Head of Department then turns via a Word download into a five page very generalised essay, although indicating that the successful applicants will be in charge of a single Key Stage, probably KS3. Amongst the specifics: the challenge of 'To establish strong cross-curricular links with other departments including helping to establish key numeracy skills', and 'Evaluating the design and delivery of the curriculum for a Key Stage in Dance'. The Mathematics Head of Department details lead in to a Head of Faculty, although Faculties are to be scrapped according to the reorganisation document. This follows into a single website page, multi-coloured and shouting (their word not mine!) that makes no mention of mathematics from beginning to end, but is merely yet another collection of generalised slogans! Try: 'Courage - To exhibit positivity and determination in your sprint and marathon goals'. There is no clue as to whether Courage is a requirement, a hope, or just a thought. There is no sign of planning or strategy here, just a sense of ad hoc decision making outside any sort of framework.
The appointment of Senior Staff is critical to any school. Would you not agree that these two job adverts show nothing better than sheer incompetence by those responsible for recruitment?

c) TFS now has four staff appointed for its 120 pupils in Year 7, a Principal and three highly qualified and experienced Assistant Principals (and therefore presumably highly paid). FA staff contracts have been changed to enable the Trust to order teachers to work elsewhere in the Trust including TFS. How many other teachers have been appointed to work primarily at TFS, and what will those highly experienced Assistant Principals be doing with their time?

Also in the letter, I posed the question about where the pupils come from to fill the Magic Money Pot. I am happy to be corrected in my data if I have made an error.

However, in addition to these four questions there are so many issues relating to Turner Schools, of a scale I have never come across before. September will no doubt answer some of them, but the chaotic nature of so many of these hardly gives one confidence. 

The key statement in the School Case to the Appeal Panel is as follows:

This curriculum is designed for the top 25% of the ability range. Students below this level would struggle to engage with the curriculum and its delivery. Therefore, students who have not been deemed selective should not be considered for a place at Holcombe Grammar School. Any score around the 100 mark, (50th percentile) indicates average. A score below 100 suggests that there may be difficulty in that area unless there are mitigating circumstances.The school case is signed off by Mr Gwynn Bassan, Executive Principal, April 2018.

The problem is that this Case uses data applicable to the Kent Test, very different from the Medway Test, and so seriously flawed. The issues are explained in detail here. As a result this sets a bar far higher than the Medway Test as the two are not comparable in any way. Kent data would however be familiar to the Appeal Panel provided by Kent County Council after the previous Panel understandably withdrew and it appears from Appeal notes that at no point was the discrepancy explained.  

'It is unfortunate that Mr Bassam, in the school statement, fails to understand the scoring system of the Medway Test, claiming that a score of 100 is that of the average child, and so a score of under 100 is unacceptable. In fact, it is the score of the average Medway child taking the Medway Test, which is very different. Indeed, a child with a score under 100 in all three tests, can qualify for Holcombe Grammar School under the Medway Test arrangements. Mr Bassam also falsely claims on this basis that ‘Therefore, students who have not been deemed selective should not be considered for a place at Holcombe Grammar School.’ This is the role of the appeal panel and he therefore denies the role of the appeal panel to come to their own opinion on this matter. Can you please confirm that Mr Bassam or his representative will be correcting these mistakes at each appeal, so the Appeal Panel is not misled?'

After an initial hiccup when the school could not even find its own copy of the school case, and asked me to provide it (!) I received the following:

'Mr Bassan understands the scoring of the Medway Test very clearly and did not refer to 100 as being the score of an average child.  The Panel asked him for the highest score from a case in each category and the lowest score so that they could make an informed decision of the ability of the child'.

Of course, this is a false claim as the school case, signed by Mr Bassan, explicitly states that Any score around the 100 mark, (50th percentile) indicates average, also highlighted in his statement above. I can see no way that asking for a highest and lowest score can enable a Panel to make an informed decision on ability of a specific

Not surprisingly, I took my FOI to the next Stage of Internal Review, writing:

‘I do not understand how Mr Bassan can deny what he put explicitly in writing. Further, you make it clear he did not correct this mistake in writing. …I remain unclear from your response whether this is a misunderstanding of the Medway Test scoring system, or a deliberate attempt to mislead the Panel. I cannot see an alternative explanation for this statement, but am happy to receive one. It is unfortunate you have chosen not to respond to my challenge about: “Mr Bassam also falsely claims on this basis that ‘’Therefore, students who have not been deemed selective should not be considered for a place at Holcombe Grammar School’’’.

On 9^th July, I received a Response that at last acknowledged ‘that the case from Mr Bassan does clearly state that “Any score around the 100 mark, (50^th percentile) indicates average”.  I have clarified with Mr Bassan and he has confirmed that this was an error in the letter’. Actually, it is the central part of the case (not a letter)! No mention of the false claims denying this in between, or any hint of apology to anyone.

The internal Review then claims that Mr Bassan provided the accurate information verbally to the panel at the appeals hearing, as the  Reviewer confirmed by looking at the Minutes of appeal meetings.‘These minutes support the verbal case Mr Bassan provided the panel and it has been recorded that Mr Bassan outlines in his case the average scores for each paper: 105 for English; 108 for maths and 106 for reasoning. In addition, the panel asked on a number of occasions the highest and lowest scores achieved by students who had been allocated a place.  Therefore, the panel had a very accurate picture of the type of scores students who passed the 11+ achieved’.

I have copies of four sets of Notes (they are not Minutes) of Appeal Meetings. There is no mention in any of these that Mr Bassan supplied the accurate information, or in any way acknowledged that the Case for the School was untrue! Nor is there any reference to the claim about average scores. Nor is it the recollection of these families that such statements were made. I suppose it could be a remarkable coincidence that these sets of parents were singled out not to be told the truth! I can see from the wording chosen in the response that Mr Bassan may have outlined the average scores for each paper on one occasion (although all families are entitled to the same information), but I can see no way that either this or knowing highest and lowest scores benefits the decision making of the appeal panel.

Even the conclusion that ‘the panel had a very accurate picture of the type of scores students who passed the 11+ achieved’, is false. The lowest score of any student ‘who passed the 11+’ was of course the pass mark of 495. According to a separate FOI, there was just one appeal heard from a boy who had been found selective, so there is no way the Panel could form ‘a very accurate picture of the type of scores students who passed the 11+ achieved’ from this one case. There is no record that they asked for other such cases. 

The Internal Review ends with: ‘I have finally reviewed the successful appeals that have been allocated and can also report that 2 successful applicants were supported who had scores below 100 which supports the view that the panel did not reject appeals on the basis you have identified. I therefore conclude that the written statement provided by the school is misleading however that at the appeal meeting the verbal presentation was correct and the panel understood this and therefore I do not support your view that this was deliberate’.

There is no recorded verbal presentation supporting this conclusion in the notes I have examined. I have never claimed the written statement was deliberately misleading; I put it down as one of two alternatives and asked which. I can only therefore conclude this is an admission of failure to understand. There were three successful appeals from boys who had not passed. Two had scores below 100, so one had all scores 100 or more, so he must have passed. Just a minor mistake compared to the others!

This response confirms my initial view that the Case for the School was misleading, arose because the author of it did not understand how the Medway Test operates, as supported by the subsequent and contradictory attempts to explain it away.

The above failures surely invalidate the whole appeal process, whilst the attempts to cover up this shocking situation surely reflect a culture that permeates previous controversial failures by the Trust relating to Holcombe Grammar School, as described here. Still, with the current lack of academy accountability, presumably Holcombe Grammar School and the Thinking Schools Academy Trust, ably supported by Medway Council, will simply march on to the next controversy. 

The key statement in the School Case to the Appeal Panel is as follows:

This curriculum is designed for the top 25% of the ability range. Students below this level would struggle to engage with the curriculum and its delivery. Therefore, students who have not been deemed selective should not be considered for a place at Holcombe Grammar School. Any score around the 100 mark, (50th percentile) indicates average. A score below 100 suggests that there may be difficulty in that area unless there are mitigating circumstances.The school case is signed off by Mr Gwynn Bassan, Executive Principal, April 2018.

The problem is that this Case uses data applicable to the Kent Test, very different from the Medway Test, and so seriously flawed. The issues are explained in detail here. As a result this sets a bar far higher than the Medway Test as the two are not comparable in any way. Kent data would however be familiar to the Appeal Panel provided by Kent County Council after the previous Panel understandably withdrew and it appears from Appeal notes that at no point was the discrepancy explained.  

'It is unfortunate that Mr Bassam, in the school statement, fails to understand the scoring system of the Medway Test, claiming that a score of 100 is that of the average child, and so a score of under 100 is unacceptable. In fact, it is the score of the average Medway child taking the Medway Test, which is very different. Indeed, a child with a score under 100 in all three tests, can qualify for Holcombe Grammar School under the Medway Test arrangements. Mr Bassam also falsely claims on this basis that ‘Therefore, students who have not been deemed selective should not be considered for a place at Holcombe Grammar School.’ This is the role of the appeal panel and he therefore denies the role of the appeal panel to come to their own opinion on this matter. Can you please confirm that Mr Bassam or his representative will be correcting these mistakes at each appeal, so the Appeal Panel is not misled?'

After an initial hiccup when the school could not even find its own copy of the school case, and asked me to provide it (!) I received the following:

'Mr Bassan understands the scoring of the Medway Test very clearly and did not refer to 100 as being the score of an average child.  The Panel asked him for the highest score from a case in each category and the lowest score so that they could make an informed decision of the ability of the child'.

Of course, this is a false claim as the school case, signed by Mr Bassan, explicitly states that Any score around the 100 mark, (50th percentile) indicates average, also highlighted in his statement above. I can see no way that asking for a highest and lowest score can enable a Panel to make an informed decision on ability of a specific

Not surprisingly, I took my FOI to the next Stage of Internal Review, writing:

‘I do not understand how Mr Bassan can deny what he put explicitly in writing. Further, you make it clear he did not correct this mistake in writing. …I remain unclear from your response whether this is a misunderstanding of the Medway Test scoring system, or a deliberate attempt to mislead the Panel. I cannot see an alternative explanation for this statement, but am happy to receive one. It is unfortunate you have chosen not to respond to my challenge about: “Mr Bassam also falsely claims on this basis that ‘’Therefore, students who have not been deemed selective should not be considered for a place at Holcombe Grammar School’’’.

On 9^th July, I received a Response that at last acknowledged ‘that the case from Mr Bassan does clearly state that “Any score around the 100 mark, (50^th percentile) indicates average”.  I have clarified with Mr Bassan and he has confirmed that this was an error in the letter’. Actually, it is the central part of the case (not a letter)! No mention of the false claims denying this in between, or any hint of apology to anyone.

The internal Review then claims that Mr Bassan provided the accurate information verbally to the panel at the appeals hearing, as the  Reviewer confirmed by looking at the Minutes of appeal meetings.‘These minutes support the verbal case Mr Bassan provided the panel and it has been recorded that Mr Bassan outlines in his case the average scores for each paper: 105 for English; 108 for maths and 106 for reasoning. In addition, the panel asked on a number of occasions the highest and lowest scores achieved by students who had been allocated a place.  Therefore, the panel had a very accurate picture of the type of scores students who passed the 11+ achieved’.

I have copies of four sets of Notes (they are not Minutes) of Appeal Meetings. There is no mention in any of these that Mr Bassan supplied the accurate information, or in any way acknowledged that the Case for the School was untrue! Nor is there any reference to the claim about average scores. Nor is it the recollection of these families that such statements were made. I suppose it could be a remarkable coincidence that these sets of parents were singled out not to be told the truth! I can see from the wording chosen in the response that Mr Bassan may have outlined the average scores for each paper on one occasion (although all families are entitled to the same information), but I can see no way that either this or knowing highest and lowest scores benefits the decision making of the appeal panel.

Even the conclusion that ‘the panel had a very accurate picture of the type of scores students who passed the 11+ achieved’, is false. The lowest score of any student ‘who passed the 11+’ was of course the pass mark of 495. According to a separate FOI, there was just one appeal heard from a boy who had been found selective, so there is no way the Panel could form ‘a very accurate picture of the type of scores students who passed the 11+ achieved’ from this one case. There is no record that they asked for other such cases. 

The Internal Review ends with: ‘I have finally reviewed the successful appeals that have been allocated and can also report that 2 successful applicants were supported who had scores below 100 which supports the view that the panel did not reject appeals on the basis you have identified. I therefore conclude that the written statement provided by the school is misleading however that at the appeal meeting the verbal presentation was correct and the panel understood this and therefore I do not support your view that this was deliberate’.

There is no recorded verbal presentation supporting this conclusion in the notes I have examined. I have never claimed the written statement was deliberately misleading; I put it down as one of two alternatives and asked which. I can only therefore conclude this is an admission of failure to understand. There were three successful appeals from boys who had not passed. Two had scores below 100, so one had all scores 100 or more, so he must have passed. Just a minor mistake compared to the others!

This response confirms my initial view that the Case for the School was misleading, arose because the author of it did not understand how the Medway Test operates, as supported by the subsequent and contradictory attempts to explain it away.

The above failures surely invalidate the whole appeal process, whilst the attempts to cover up this shocking situation surely reflect a culture that permeates previous controversial failures by the Trust relating to Holcombe Grammar School, as described here. Still, with the current lack of academy accountability, presumably Holcombe Grammar School and the Thinking Schools Academy Trust, ably supported by Medway Council, will simply march on to the next controversy.