The sharp drop of over a quarter in the Sixth Form intake in September 2017 will be partially down to the removal of practical vocational courses including the thriving Hair and Beauty Department whose successes can be tracked by Internet searches or from the school website the year before it was closed down. Or the Catering Department, just a year after the grand opening of its Training Kitchen. In both areas, students learned to  provide for the public in a very practical way, surely the mark of a truly vocational course, but sadly not fitting Turner Schools’ model  of academic excellence for all. 

Sentence two tells us that not only are there 200 places available for external students, immediately contradicted by sentence three. There is NO general requirement for performance laid down, although deep in the Sixth Form Prospectus there is a requirement for Level 4 in English and maths. This is immediately contradicted by a proviso that students who do not achieve these grades can be considered after an interview with the Sixth Form Team although it is unlawful according to the Admissions Code of Practice cannot form part of a process on whthere to offer a place.

Just two flaws in this financial analysis. The falling numbers in Post 16 are a direct result of the school cutting out various practical vocational options in its drive to secure more Russell Group University places – although I am not sure how this helps or what is wrong with many other universities, and will be exacerbated by the poor GCSE results.  The ‘return to normal numbers’ in Year 7 is mainly due to the entirely predictable opening of the Turner Free School in September 2018, which the Trust must have known about when it took over the school and so can’t blame it on problems with the calculation, or some vague 'inheritance' with its inference of blame on the previous administration.    

The facts of the matter could of course have been clarified if Turner Schools had not refused my FOI request for the current figures in each year group of each of its four schools, on the presumably spurious grounds that it was planning to publish all this information some time. The fact that I am not aware of any other school in the country which does this voluntarily does rather cast doubt on the Trust's claimed intention and the matter is now in the hands of the Information Commissioner's Office. 

 SchoolsWeek records that the trust is in discussion with the DfE because it believes the correct clawback figure is “significantly less than the figure cited”. However, the academy’s own staff consultation confirms a funding deficit of £770,000, considerably more than the SchoolsWeek figure.  

The good news for Turner Schools is that it has excellent links with government and so may benefit from the SchoolsWeek  revelation that some ‘schools owing clawback have had the debt written off. The highest write-off was £1 million owed by the Greenwich UTC’. 

The Appointment Brief sent to candidates is yet another astonishing document following last summer’s bizarre adverts for Heads of mathematics and English. It quite reasonably explains that the Executive Principal will line manage the primary and secondary phase leaders, the Heads of School, among other colleagues. It then lists 19 key accountabilities and a personal specification looking for 27 qualities which candidates should possess or be able to demonstrate, although many appear to be just general platitudes.  It says almost nothing about the Academy itself apart from its new mission of ‘sea change’ focusing on implied or explicit criticisms of its past. However, it does require the Executive Principal to maintain an effective Partnership with the Roger De Haan Charitable Trust, whose work as previous sponsor the Trust regularly denigrates, although having performed considerably better at GCSE than under the new managements. I was interested to see the requirement to deliver a well-disciplined learning environment now described as Tough Love, a term I have used to describe other brutal environments in struggling Kent schools to little effect, except large numbers of pupils attempting to flee them.  Still none of the three are able to come near to the massive exclusion level at Folkestone Academy secondary section over the past year.  

Whatever the cause, Saxton Bampfylde has failed to find a suitable candidate to be appointed as Executive Principal of the all age academy, although one current Kent headteacher was interviewed. Instead the Trust has gone for an internal appointment, Wesley Carroll, as Principal working to Dr Saxton as CEO, responsible for the secondary section. This is a rapid rise for Mr Carroll, having been appointed as Vice Principal just 14 months ago and promoted to Head of School in April this year so, although short of senior experience he has certainly seen a kaleidoscope of happenings over the last 18 months of controversy at the school, including a turnover of three previous heads along with other senior staff.

He succeeds Mr Boxall, who Dr Saxton described in writing to parents as 'Principal of a number of schools including an Outstanding Academy in Kent'. She subsequently wrote to me denying knowledge of his history, which instead included a short stint at a failing academy in Medway, and appears to have limited interest in experience as a quality. For, whilst Head of Education at the Future Schools Academy Trust in 2013, she appointed a young headteacher to Pimlico Free School, the appointee still in training to be a teacher. Not surprisingly the appointment lasted just two weeks.

Although the commendation refers to my previous paid and voluntary work supporting admission appeals for children to all types of school, it highlights the section on this website that refers to the provision of information, advice, news and comment freely given, but subsidised to a small extent by advertising. You will find here over 200 pages of information and advice for parents on many aspects of education in Kent and Medway, although also followed by many professionals both locally and nationally.  Over the past 15 years I have undertaken, and in many cases been successful, in campaigns about injustices of various types, several reaching a national audience. 

Talking with the editor of 'Index' after publication, she referred to my very real independence. I do value this highly as will be confirmed by the many in authority I have challenged over the years. I believe I have always acted in and been driven by the interests of young people of Kent and Medway, but make no claim to represent anyone, being solely responsible for any views expressed. 

I am privileged to be in such company.

It is not for me to comment on the content, but observe that it is entirely proper for KCC to consider possible negative effects and warn schools to prepare for them, given our position between Calais and the rest of the UK. 

The phrase ‘home education’ unhelpfully encompasses a wide range of parenting styles – from those who choose to educate their children themselves for social and philosophical reasons and do so perfectly well, to those who choose to keep children out of the school system to avoid the eyes of the authorities or to deny them a secular education; and then those who would love to have their kids in school but cannot find a school to fit their needs. For this group of parents, educating their children at home is not a choice, but a forced response to difficulties fitting in at school. The child who is being bullied. The child struggling to cope with noisy corridors and classrooms; or sometimes with school uniform policies, homework and timetables. The child not receiving the specialist help she needs. These kids can reach crisis point and without additional care from schools or from external agencies such as CAMHS, the children fall through the gaps. It is sometimes schools themselves that put pressure on parents to remove children who don’t ‘fit in’. This practice, known as off-rolling, can amount to informal, illegal exclusion.

I have written about such issues in the past and it is pleasing to see the CCE place much of the blame for enforced EHE on a minority of schools themselves. The CCE records that: New research by my Office, published here, suggests that 1 in 10 schools account for half of the pupil movement. In Kent, the one in ten schools I have identified in my article account for a quarter of EHE, and a lower figure for Children gone Missing completely from Education (CME). She provides ample evidence demonstrating that for some schools, removal of problem children by one route or another is an unofficial policy. The Children’s Commissioner’s Office has spoken to many children and parents who said that they only chose home education because the situation at school had become so desperate – sometimes traumatic for the children involved. It is unacceptable that some schools are washing their hands of children - particularly the most vulnerable - in this way. She also identifies the problem as being greatest in academies. 

Of particular concern are children with Special Educational Needs or Disabilities (SEND), who comprise 22% of those Home Educated according to one survey. Many of those children are taken out of school by parents unhappy with the school's inability to provide for their children's needs. This can be because the costs of managing the child are too high, or because the school cannot or does not want to deal with problems the child's presence creates, including  poor behaviour typically in children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder. 

The CCE recommends strongly that: We need to know who these children are, where they are, whether they are safe and if they are getting the education they need to succeed in life. There is a clear case for the Government to introduce a compulsory register for all home-educated children, without delay,although this would prove very controversial for many positive home educators. Whilst those opposed would argue that they are best placed to make decisions for their children without government interference, the greater good has to be for the large majority. Too many of these slip through the net without a proper education at considerable cost to themselves and society. Only with such a register can the guilty schools be identified and pressure put on them to change their ways.

An issue reported to  me several times by Oasis parents is that of off-rolling. From the Report: Some parents report that they opted for home education after the school threatened to exclude their child or fine them for non-attendance, believing that this would help their children by avoiding a formal record of exclusion.

 Please note that nothing in this article is relevant to admission to Kent grammar schools. 

The Review procedure is explained in full here. You will find additional information in the relevant article for 2018 entry here and below, information about appeals and the practices of individual schools. You will find success rates at appeal for previous years here.  

The 202 families who went to Review started by filling in a form requiring them to set out their reasons why their child was of grammar school ability, often at great length and creating considerable emotional stress. However, although these forms were presented to the Review Panel of headteachers, they  completely ignored all submissions under instruction from the Council which rules it is no part of what is called an 'academic process'. Instead decisions were made on an assessment of work submitted by the schools, usually chosen by them with great care to put the child in the best light. This work apparently proved so poor that almost no further children were considered worthy of a grammar school place, even though the Panel was charged with finding up to 67 from Medway alone who met the standard! 

The Medway Council website clearly outlines the consequences of an unsuccessful Review for a subsequent Independent Appeal Panel to apply : If your child's test has been reviewed:Where a local review has taken place, the panel must only consider whether the child’s review was carried out in a fair, consistent and objective way. If there's evidence that this isn't the case, the panel must follow the process above. So, only if the Review is demonstrably unfair, inconsistent or subjective can an Appeal Panel consider other matters.  As can be seen below, the policy of each school’s Independent Appeal Panel, guided by the school, varies and could change again for 2019, often influenced by demand for places. You will find the pattern and level of demand for 2018 admissions and appeal outcomes here.  

For the first time in fourteen years advising families, I have no idea whatsoever what policy a school will follow with regard to unsuccessful Review matters or indeed any other matter relating to school appeals in 2019. There is no mention of the issue on the school’s Appeals Guidance, although the subject of Review is referred in several places and it states falsely that: ‘This process will identify (equivalent of 2% of the Medway cohort) students who will then be assessed as suitable for a Medway Grammar school’. 

I have also monitored outcomes from the Kent Test over the same period, but there is no similar pattern in either factor – unsurprising as Multiple Choice Tests are designed to remove the latter bias through the age standardisation process. However, what the Kent test shows is that girls tend to perform better in English and boys in mathematics, which cancel each other out.    

If all three tests were properly age standardised then there should be little variation in outcomes through the year. However, the English Test is not a multiple choice assessment, instead being designed by local schoolteachers removing the facility to be able to standardise in the same way.  This is likely to be one reason for the irregularities, with older children more mature and able to respond to literacy questions. The other is that the Medway Test is locally standardised taking the children from Medway alone to set the standard. The Kent Test takes a much wider national sample to compare performance against. The statistical theory of these shows the wider sample to be much more reliable. 

Meopham School now has the additional advantage that it is housed in a completely new site, opened a year ago at a cost of £14 million. One of the skills of SAT appears to be its ability to use expertise to the full to attract capital funding for its schools.  

Amongst other highlights:  Pupils in key stages 3 and 4 make excellent progress across the curriculum. Standards in English, mathematics and science are particularly impressive; Teaching overall is inspirational, fuelling pupils’ desire to learn and to demonstrate their learning; A vivid sense of cooperation and purpose permeates the school; Pupils’ behaviour is exemplary. They demonstrate a joy in learning; Pupils are rightly proud of the inclusive culture of the school; Progress and attainment in the core subjects of English, mathematics and science is exceptionally strong across the school.  Pupils with SEND make impressive progress from their starting points; Disadvantaged pupils make better progress overall than pupils in other schools due to the high-quality teaching and support that they receive. 

The only issue identified is in the Sixth Form, where even so: The leadership of the sixth form is good and the requirements of the 16 to 19 study programmes are met in full. However, the curriculum offer is limited to a narrow selection of subjects, so it does not cater for all Meopham pupils who would like to stay into the sixth form. Leaders are acutely aware of this and trying hard to balance a good quality of provision with the economic challenges of small classes. Yes, indeed it is increasingly financially difficult to provide a  viable Sixth Form curriculum for a small school.

Notes: Outst -Outstanding; Sp.M - Special Measures; NTI - Notice to Improve (inadequate); Satisf - Satisfactory (predecessor to R.I. - Requires Improvement)

Along with the two Outstanding schools, the remaining nine to have been Inspected are all Good, building on five schools Inadequate (Special Measures, or Notice to Improve) under KCC control and four Requires Improvement (previously Satisfactory). Remarkably both of Westlands and Istead Rise primary schools have three Outstanding Categories out of the five in their Ofsted Assessment making them close to Outstanding overall, whilst Beaver Green has one. I have followed the dreadful fortunes of both Istead Rise and Beaver Green for many years with frequent mentions on this site.  One article featuring  Beaver Green, written in 2014, is particularly poignant. It lambasts KCC and its School Support 'services' which were heavily criticised in the third Monitoring Inspection after being placed into Special Measures. The difficulties at Istead Rise go way back before 2013 when was not only placed in Special Measures, but also failed its subsequent Monitoring Inspections, as I reported in an article which also heavily criticised KCC's failure to support schools in difficulty. It then fell under the control of the notorious Meopham Community School Federation where it continued to fail until being bailed out by SAT.    

You will find the KCC Press Release here. 

I will update this article as I receive further information. As always, when I get a school by school breakdown, I shall publish a fuller analysis later this month, the 2018 articles for Kent grammars being here, non-selectives here, for Medway grammars here, and Medway non-selectives here. You will find these give considerable guidance on what to expect this time round.

What can you do if you don't have a school of your choice?

As noted above, don't panic. 

So what next? If you are not awarded the school of your choice, then certainly go on the waiting list for every school you have applied for and still wish to consider. You have the right to appeal to any and every school for which you have been turned down. My article on 2018 appeals should be taken as guidance only but again, you will find the appeal outcomes for each Kent school here.   You will also find plenty of free advice in the appeals sections of this website at: Kent Grammar Appeals; Medway Grammar Appeals; and Oversubscription Appeals. There is also copious grammar school appeal advice on the 11 plus Exams website, although it is not necessarily Kent specific and in any case often written for out of county candidates who have different expectations and perceptions, so be careful. 

Obviously, you should talk to your primary school who should be able to offer advice and, if you are not sure of the school to which you have been allocated, ask for another visit, which is likely to be as an individual rather than with the crowd who were there on Open Day. 

 You also have the option of making a late application for a fresh school, called an In Year Application from 15^th March in Kent, or go on any school’s waiting list after 24^th April. Details here (page 18). You can apply for as many schools as you wish through this process.  Every year we see a considerable ‘churning’ effect as children take up places off the waiting lists, as children win appeals at higher preferences, and some unhappy families remove themselves from the state system, so don't lose hope!

Medway is far more convoluted and parents and I often find it difficult to pin down a shifting procedure especially with late grammar school applications, the Admission Booklet being of limited assistance. The phrase ‘at the discretion of the Student Services Management Team’ is used too often in discussion.  

I regret I have retired from my Personal Appeals Service, being the only Kent and Medway appeals specialist I am afraid. I still offer a Telephone Advisory Service which provides an initial hard-nosed information and advisory assessment. 

Over the years, Medway Council school allocation statistics regularly quote the most generous interpretation of any number (‘over’ and ‘nearly’ being words to maximise a variation of less than 0.5), so it would be remarkable if they had changed practice for 2019.

Up to 2017 the proportion of successful first and second preference applications were quoted separately, but for my 2018 Medway article I had to obtain the full information  via a subsequent FOI. The skimpy 2019 data still shows there is an apparent surge in unhappiness from 4.4% of families receiving no school of their choice to a percentage more than twice as large, at some 9.5%. As a result, I am already receiving a larger than usual number of enquiries from some of these families. 

I will be publishing a detailed analysis of the data when I receive further details, but you may wish to look at the detailed Kent release to see the stark contrast in attitude of the two Councils towards the release of data.  

This rise in ability level is surely going to exacerbate the difficulties in changing the admission criteria completely for 2020 admission, when the school eliminates any high scoring requirement. I have written a previous article explaining the changes, which have now been finalised, the new (ridiculously overcomplicated and badly set out) oversubscription rules being here.   

So what next? If you are not awarded the school of your choice, then certainly go on the waiting list for every school you have applied for and still wish to consider. You have the right to appeal to any and every school for which you have been turned down. My article on 2018 appeals should be taken as guidance only, with a breakdown of each individual Medway school here. You will also find plenty of free advice in the appeals sections of this website at: Medway Grammar Appeals;  Kent Grammar Appeals; and Oversubscription Appeals. There is also copious grammar school appeal advice on the 11 plus Exams website, although it is not Medway specific and in any case often written for out of county candidates who have different expectations and perceptions, so be careful. 

Obviously, you should talk to your primary school who should be able to offer advice and, if you are not sure of the school to which you have been allocated, ask for another visit, which is likely to be as an individual rather than with the crowd who were there on Open Day. 

 You also have the option of making a late application for a fresh school. Unfortunately, Medway operates a very centralised convoluted process in contrast to Kent's simple system. As a result, parents and I often find it difficult to pin down a shifting procedure especially with late grammar school applications, the Admission Booklet being of limited assistance. The phrase ‘at the discretion of the Student Services Management Team’ is used too often in discussion.However, every year we see a considerable ‘churning’ effect as children take up places off the waiting lists, as children win appeals at higher preferences, and some unhappy families remove themselves from the state system, so don't lose hope! 

I regret I have retired from my Personal Appeals Service, having been the only Kent and Medway appeals specialist  operating I am afraid. I still offer a Telephone Advisory Service which provides an initial hard-nosed information and advisory assessment and advice. 

 I have reviewed the television programme and Report in a previous article, expressing my support for the Recommendations.

One remains stark in my memory, where an ASD (Autistic Spectrum Disorder) statemented boy had been unable to handle a new vividly bright colour scheme in his Unit and had lashed out at a teacher. The headteacher lied at the exclusion meeting with governors and at the exclusion appeal, as admitted to me some years later by the school's Chairman of governors who had supported him 'for the sake of the school'. Although the Appeal Panel saw through this and the appeal was upheld, the Panel recommended he be transferred to another school. KCC could not find one, his behaviour deteriorated whilst he was kept at home, and he was eventually placed in a boarding school in Somerset at a cost of £150,000 a year. Far from home, this unsurprisingly failed, and he was eventually placed in secure accommodation at untold cost and with no future. I am sure he is not alone and indeed a number of cases of families struggling with school failure to handle or wish to handle children with such medical conditions were reported at the meeting. 

The Council’s view is that they are acting lawfully, as parents can make late applications to grammar schools which then apply their own Testing procedures. However, schools that have not introduced this cannot set up such a scheme until 2021/22 entrance as they would have to change their admission policies. These need to go through a process which includes consultation before they can be applied,  For a variety of reasons they may choose not to in any case, thus removing the possibility of a late entry which would of course again be unlawful.

The published requirement states:

If you apply for a school place after the closing date, your application will only be considered if you can provide a good reason, for example:

• serious illness
• bereavement
• late move to the Medway area.

If you miss the closing date you can still submit an application up to 5pm on Friday 9 November 2018 with a covering letter explaining your reasons for being late.

We'll decide if late applications received by 9 November 2018 can be accepted. Any applications not accepted or received after 9 November 2018 will be held pending until after the offer of school places on 1 March 2019.

What is not stated is what happens to these pending applications. Every year I am approached by parents who inform me that Medway Council Admissions Team interpret this as meaning such applications are to be rejected because there are not exceptional circumstances. The Council has usually given in if parents are prepared to push hard enough as I have advised, but the advice appears to vary day by day and adviser by adviser. The coordinated admission procedure for 2019 states that such applications should only be processed after ‘consultation with the relevant admission authority for the named schools/academies’ which certainly gives them flexibility, but is not allowable, unless the child has been previously twice permanently excluded. The relevant phrase has been withdrawn for the 2020/21 coordinated scheme, underlining the illegality this year.

This was the second occasion we sparred, although we were both very concerned about the pressure on places, with six of Kent's 12 districts having no vacancies in any school and a further 496 places being added somehow at schools across the county, to head off the pressure of place. 

KCC data reveals there is considerable polarisation  partly driven by the unpopularity of nine schools in different Districts, which between them account for 633 of the Local Authority Allocations, or over three quarters of the total. 

I shall be publishing further details of oversubscription and vacancies shortly.

One problem I have is that KCC has introduced a new set of rules in data publication that redacts information relating to small numbers, although I consider there is no danger that individuals can be identified. As a result, I am delaying the updating of Individual School Information until I can obtain this information, although there is still much reported on each school, including the number of first choices. 

You will find my initial and more general thoughts here, with the parallel article on grammar schools to come. I look at individual Districts further down the article, with direct links at: 

 Note: KCC is not currently releasing data for individual schools where numbers are less than 5. This is only relevant in this table to the number of LAAs, which are likely to be greater than the figure quoted for each District.

There are new schools in the pipeline to cater for future housing developments, assuming sponsors come forward, but the first of these at Chilmington Green is not due until 2022!, so existing schools will need to expand further to pick up the shortfall.   

Dover is, as usual,  the District with most vacancies, but the proportion is falling year on year, down to 12%. As usual, Sandwich Technology School is full, as also is St Edmund's Catholic School for the first time in many years, having rebuilt its reputation since being placed in Special Measures in 2013. However, Astor College, which has had a difficult time in recent years including two DfE warnings about low standards, has 88 vacancies. It has now changed leadership, having been run by the same CEO as Duke of York's for some years, but appears to be sinking further. In 2018 it was helped out by a large number of LAAs, possibly from Folkestone, but no longer. The sharpest fall in intake at 39% since 2018 it has, along with Folkestone Academy, lost far more children than any other schools in the county. Presumably all shifting to St Edmund's.   

Goodwin Academy, in Deal, having been financially crippled with staff lay offs by the appalling previous sponsors SchoolsCompany has now been taken over by Swale Academies Trust and is building its reputation in brand new buildings.

Orchards Academy in Swanley continues to be popular, also thriving on the closure of Oasis Hextable a few years ago, offering places to all its 110 first choices, offering another fifteen places on top of the agreed 135 at the last moment, all LAAs, presumably to ease the pressure on nearby Dartford.

Oasis Isle of Sheppey Academy not only has 88 of its 390 places empty, but 79 of its offers are to LAAs. Many of these will be Isle of Sheppey families desperate to avoid the school who do not include it in their applications, but finish up being allocated as the other Swale schools are full. This year the pressure is even more intense with families to the south of Sittingbourne being allocated LAA places at Oasis Sheppey. A number of previous articles, most recently here, highlight the issues.  At 43%, third highest percentage of vacancies in Kent before LAAs added in, behind the two other unpopular Tough Love Academies. Second highest percentage of children leaving for Home Education in County in 2016-17, at 3.3%, the school reportedly suggesting this to complainants as a solution. Something needs to be done about the mismanagement of this school, but no one seems to care. The Kent Schools Commissioning Plan 2019-23 reports: 'The forecast surplus places (for Sheppey Academy) are a result of the increasing number of children travelling off the Isle of Sheppey for their education. In 2014 there were 126 students (4FE) living on the Island who attended a Sittingbourne non-selective school. This increased to 177 (6FE) in 2017. If this trend continues then an estimated 185 children will be leaving the Island by 2023.'. It also proposes: ' We will continue to press for access to the North Sittingbourne (Quinton Road) development to establish a new secondary school to meet the predicted need from 2022-23'. This has already slipped from 2021-22 in the 2018 Plan and I cannot recall any new school built on time in recent years,  so more problems next year!

I am regularly asked about the chances of appeal from Isle of Sheppey to one of the mainstream schools. Oversubscription figures for Fulston is in the chart on Page 1. Westlands although oversubscribed managed to avoid any appeals in 2018. Sittingbourne Community College and Abbey School, Faversham (easy ride on train) are a few places oversubscribed, but neither appears to have needed appeals either in 2018.  Well worth a try with a late application if necessary, if you can't face OISA. Some families desperate enough to avoid the  school Home Educate with some 150 families on the Island trying this at present! This should not be happening. Girls might like to try Rainham School for Girls in Medway.

Hartsdown Academy, one of my three Tough Love Academies almost appears to seek controversial headlines, an article last year covering just one of these. 24 children from the school left for Home Education in 2017-18, third highest percentage of any school in the county, only below Oasis Sheppey and High Weald (see below). Lowest performing school in Kent on Progress 8 and Attainment 8. Many non-selective schools lose numbers before September, some through successful grammar school appeals. In the case of Thanet the four popular ones each fill up from Hartsdown and Royal Harbour, also  taking on  extra pupils through appeals. In September, Hartsdown began the year with just 112 pupils for its 180 places, having lost 38% of those offered places in March 2018. The new school will hit this hard. 

 This can only be a rough guide to outcomes in 2019 as circumstances at each school can change and the number of applications for each school has risen considerably.  

Some of the Tunbridge Wells families will have put the oversubscribed  Mascall’s School in Paddock Wood as a back up, with 38 of its 240 places going to lower preferences. 

Certainly, High Weald Academy is seen as a school of last resort by many, and I have written about it elsewhere. The statistics in this article are similar to those for 2019, The 42 families (up from 32 in 2018) whose children have been placed there mainly because of the shortage of secular places in Tunbridge Wells, and now face a round journey of some 30 miles daily, cannot be happy. The most revealing figure in my table above is the new column that shows over half of the children being offered places in March 2018, had found alternative schools by the following September. 

The school is being substantially rebuilt at a cost of some £15 million, although it is a puzzle to many why it was chosen under the government priority, as it does not currently appear viable in terms of numbers. However, presumably government is anticipating that the new buildings will turn this round under the current leadership of Brook Learning Trust.  

The 2018 Commissioning Plan stated

One problem I have is that KCC has introduced a new set of rules for data publication that redacts information relating to small numbers, although I consider there is no danger that individuals can be identified, as is claimed. As a result, I am delaying the updating of Individual School Information until I can obtain this information fro all schools, although there is still much reported on each, including the number of first choices for 2019. 

You will find an initial article on allocation here, that also provides cut off scores for the super selective schools, and also the 2018 equivalent article here. You will also find further information on each secondary school here,  the pages currently being updated. Please let me know of any you wish to be brought up to date. 

Please note that all statistics in this page refer to grammar qualified children, both via the Kent Test and also through local Tests available through six grammar schools as explained below. I am sorry that my full analysis of Kent Test results has been delayed this year, but I hope to publish it soon.  

 Please note that whilst the 2018 appeal pattern may be a guide to the 2019 outcomes, there are often considerable swings from year to year. One very rough guide may be the number of places offered for Individual Schools for 2019, compared with 2018 (both on the same page).  

    * Admission Number Increased temporarily from 150

The four Folkestone and Dover grammar schools have, as s result of the Local Tests, considerably the highest proportion of  Year 7 children in Year 7 on Pupil Premium, next being Highworth with 15%. This is according to October's school census which has the average for grammar schools at 10%. 

 I am happy to confirm that my concerns about a particular academy, which led me to consider it as a possible candidate for the school in question, do not follow through and I am happy to confirm it is not the school described above. This follows a courteous request from the Academy Trust in question. 

You will find preliminary information on Medway allocations here, and details of the 2018 allocation process here. Kent Grammar Schools here. Medway Non-Selective places to come.

The unlawful ban on any child from taking the Medway Test late is an extension of the 2018 policy, also unlawful and discriminatory, of blocking Medway children from taking the Medway Test late, but allowing  out of county children to do so! Does no one at Medway Council care what its officers are doing in its name?

I was responsible for blocking changes to the Admission rules this year for Fort Pitt, Holcombe, Rochester Grammar following successful complaints to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) with The Math withdrawing their proposed changes before my complaint was considered. Medway Council was not interested enough in these proposals which worked against fairness to local children, to express a view in spite of being asked for one, although it is responsible for provision of places. 

Here is the summary picture for applications for each school; you will find further details below and at the Individual Schools Information Section here with  2019 outcomes on allocation, although some updating on text is needed.   

 Offers across the Medway Boundary 

The 242 ooc places taken up are mainly at Chatham Girls, Holcombe and Rochester grammar schools, offering over 60 ooc places each. 

The Medway secondary transfer procedure for grammar schools follows the School Admissions Code of Practice, stating that if a child is unsuccessful at Review an Appeal Panel cannot uphold an appeal unless the appellant can prove the process is unfair. Actually it is unfair as Medway Council, having stated that up to 2% of Medway children are selected by Review has overseen a process that saw just 4 out of 159 go through, or 0.12% of the total, details here. However this would be for an appeal Panel to decide, as historically those for the two Chatham grammar schools have done. Other schools see their own interpretation of the rules, which can vary year on year. See Individual School Information. 

Two new academies are supposedly in the pipeline. The Maritime Academy, for all ages, sponsored by the Thinking Schools Academy Trust, was planned to open in September 2019, but the last mention of it was on the Trust website in April 2017. The Medway Academy (secondary) was also approved by government in 2017 for opening in 2019, but I can find no further trace of it, including the website of sponsors Leigh Academies Trust. Good news for St John Fisher!

You will find the parallel article on Medway grammar schools here, and on Kent non-selective schools here. 

Please note that there will be some 'churning' as successful appeals for grammar school places remove some children from the non-selective schools. There were 66 successful appeals at Medway grammars last year (down from 93 in 2018); as well as 34 at four Medway non-selective schools (up from 25), 25% of those heard.

Notes: * Refers to schools that apply a Fair Banding Test, see below for details. 

               **  Which shouldn't happen with declared preferences taking up places before LAAs are allocated, but this is according to Medway Council data.

Not offered the school of your choice?

A large  number of children are offered places off waiting lists, most setting off a ‘churning process’ freeing up other places. You have nothing to lose from going on the waiting list for as many schools as you  wish. Sadly, chances of success at appeal are negligible in nearly all cases, as explained below. 

The Trust's closure was agreed in 2016, when government tired of its activities, having provided it with extensive additional funding including £122,414 from the ESFA to stabilise its finances, with one of its nine primary schools in Kent and Sussex, being awarded a grant of £507,546 in financial support.  None of this helped, and the verdict from the Trust's own August 2016  Annual Report and Financial Statements was that: 'The Lilac Sky Schools Trust is carrying a net deficit of £1,329,631 on these funds because: The Trust incurred extortionate and expensive Founder/ substantive CEO consultancy  costs for 232 days at a net cost of £217,500 along with other high cost support services, central  Trust  staffing  costs that  were far higher than average,  the cost of  settlement  agreements  (contractual  and non-contractual) paid to staff who were immediately appointed as consultants by the company and recharged to the Trust, minimal value for money procedures and a lack of competitive tendering'. It is the subject of a lengthy investigation by the ESFA which has now been going on for three years. 

Now look back at the justification by Mr Beeson (the Averre comes and goes) of those actions in the light of these facts and those below. 

You will find my analysis below of the 'progress' of the four companies at the heart of the Lilac Sky empire. 

My recording of the sins of LSSAT began when it came apparent that  with the open support of KCC it was financially ripping off a troubled school sending it spiralling further downwards. One of the key articles was here, which provided powerful evidence that LSSAT was failing its schools, financially benefitting to a  gross extent, all being championed by KCC and its Head of Education, who accused me of making false allegations, but although when challenged for evidence never replied or withdrew the false accusations. 

I can find nowhere any acknowledgement by KCC or LSSAT of their failures to show due care for the children under their care, who are always the victims of such abuse of power. For those who think the failures are now dead and buried, look at the subsequent fates of some of these schools, such as Knockhall Academy, Martello Primary and  Morehall Primary!  The Lilac Sky Companies appear to have hoovered up money from LSSAT and other sources, so it should be a surprise to learn that they have all financially failed, unless the money has somehow been extracted from them. LSSAT was uniquely identified in the Department for Education Annual Report  for 2016-17 as accounting for nearly half of the cash losses to schools nationally at £537,000. Mr Averre Beeson is quoted in the TES some years ago, as being in favour of 'run for profit' schools. 

I do not propose to reiterate my exposé of the sins of Lilac Sky further as they are covered in great detail elsewhere (follow the links), except to mention the sad story of Virgo Fidelis Preparatory School, a small flourishing private girls primary school which had the misfortune to come into contact with Lilac Sky who bought it out. Needing to get way from the by then toxic Lilac Sky brand, its name and the company were changed to that of Henriette Le Forestier, a Frenchwoman who founded a Catholic movement dedicated to the shelter and education of orphan girls, some way removed from the aims of Lilac Sky! You will find details of the the Employment Tribunal that awarded large sums  to employees of the school after it went bust seven months following its take over by Lilac Sky here.  Presumably as the company had been dissolved, the taxpayer became responsible for their losses.   

LS short for Lilac Sky throughout

* but also traded as Education 101 Outstanding Services from 1st September 2016, not a registered company, and whose website has now disappeared. 

Most recent Abbreviated Unaudited Accounts for Lilac Sky Schools Ltd, August 2015 show dividends of £76,500 paid to Mr Averre Beeson (£200,430 in 2014), and the company was owed £150,740 by Mr Averre-Beeeson (£148, 531 in 2014). No subsequent accounts were lodged.  

Liquidators of Henriette Le Forestiere Statement of Affairs to April 2017 shows unpaid creditors totalling £917,000, including back pay for employees.

Most recent Abbreviated Unaudited Accounts  for Lilac Sky Outstanding Services in 2015 show a loan to Mr Averre-Beeson of £180,521.  No subsequent accounts were lodged. 

 *Most recent Unaudited Financial Statements August 2016  show an advance to Mr Averre-Beeson of £245,438 sole director, which was more than the total assets at that time, but there is no record of them being repaid.. 

 Education 101 Ltd, set up in November 2017, and dissolved in February this year never filed accounts, although very active. Its website has now been taken over by the Trevor Beeson site, with much of the same outdated information and news, together with linked email addresses.