One school of particular interest is Invicta Grammar, at the centre of a national scandal concerning off-rolling students at the end of Year 12 in 2016 to improve standards at A Level. There were 26 students that year (15% of the total) who left or were encouraged/forced to leave at or before the end of Year 12, with the school going to town about its excellent A Level results as it regularly came at the top of league tables. For the current Year 13, this problem has completely vanished with just one student leaving over the period. Unfortunately, a consequence is that when compared with schools that followed the rules, its position in the tables has fallen sharply with Progress – Below Average for the second consecutive year.

Highest proportion of losses  for 2019 was at Barton Court , with 10% of its students leaving  in Year 12, l also highest with 13% in 2017, third highest with 9% in 2018.

I look at The Judd School outcomes below. 

In Gravesham, students at Saint George’s CofE Comprehensive exceeded and Northfleet School for Girls achieved the same academic standard as Mayfield Grammar. Both schools achieved these results in spite of having begun their A Level course from the much lower standard of pupils who had not passed, or not taken the eleven plus, as seen by the considerably higher Progress Level. 

I consider there is little value  in looking at the lower end of the n/s table. Each school will have its own policy on what it can offer, the academic levels at which it admits students to the Sixth Form and the size and nature of vocational courses it offers alongside A Levels. Several schools have recently made the decision that they are unable to offer an effective Sixth Form on grounds of numbers, choice able to be offered, or the financial cost of running small courses, and so have closed them down.  

Kent Grammar A Level Attainment

 Of those seven  schools that 'super' select most or all of their pupils at age age eleven through high Kent Test scores, just Judd (see below) and Sklnners are on the list of high performers at A Level, with Dartford and Tonbridge not counted as they take the International Baccalaureate instead of A Level. 

 TWGGS (Tunbridge Wells Girls' Grammar School), Weald of Kent and Highworth all take girls who were found selective at eleven, without regard to pass scores.

The performance of Highworth Grammar in Ashford, a girls school with mixed sixth form appearing in both grammar school lists, is particularly noteworthy, as it has none of the advantages of the five West Kent grammar schools.

 As a result, Judd has seen the third highest increase in numbers, from Year 11 to Year 12 in the county, of 48% high performing boys and girls. This is a net increase of just 54 students, suggesting that some 21 Year 11 boys either did not qualify, or did not choose to carry on into the sixth form. The very high Entrance requirement to the Sixth Form may well have dampened the progress performance, as there is less opportunity to improve towards the ceiling, although Skinners appears to have done so. 

Second highest increase is Simon Langton Boys, a moderately performing school in A Level performance, nearly doubling in size at 93% extra pupils, many transferring across from the two local girls' grammar schools. Whilst such a pattern is not uncommon, the level of it at Simon Langton is extreme. Dartford Grammar, also pursuing high performing pupils, recruits at an academic level similar to Judd, but its oversubscription cut off is by distance from the school rather than by highest performance.  For this September it more than doubled the size of its Year 11 cohort to 305 boys and girls, but far the largest grammar school Sixth Form in the county. 

The performance of Dover Boys Grammar is particularly concerning, as it lost nearly half of its Year Eleven students who did not proceed to the Sixth Form, this Autumn, possibly as a result of having the second lowest GCSE outcomes of any Kent grammar. 

Whilst this may well be controversial, the original policy included the sentence: ‘The school will contact Social Services if a child isn't collected by 4 p.m. and if parents cannot be contacted, children will be admitted into the care of the Local Authority’. Since creating enormous negative publicity, this sentence has been amended to read: ‘If a child is not collected by 4.00 p.m, we will contact the appropriate authorities e.g. Police and or Front Door Services Kent’. You will find a copy of the amended policy here. I am presuming the school did not contact the Local Authority to establish if this policy could be carried through (I can imagine their reaction!), nor the police who might also just reply that they have better things to do. As for Front Door Services, there is no indication from a website describing their activities that this is an appropriate route either. Presumably the reference to the Police is just a threat, but a very empty one at that and certainly not an appropriate message in a school policy.

In summary, Boy A, who from the reports appears to have serious issues, had been regularly bullying his victim, including alleged sexual threats and exposure. The victim’s mother had reported the bullying to the school which initially failed to take action apart from providing a talk to the relevant children about their ‘private parts’, as other incidents had also taken place. When she pressed the matter, the victim was asked to stand up in front of the class to identify the culprit, a totally unacceptable, almost unbelievable and humiliating action by the school, especially as Boy A was clearly known to them.  Not surprisingly, it appears he refused.

The victim’s mother claims she sent a formal letter of complaint which the school denies having received. The DfE Report then reportedly delivers a wide range of criticisms of the school’s failure to act. In particular: ‘There is no evidence that the school Designated Safeguarding Lead (Mrs. D. Gibbs-Naguar the headteacher) referred the matter to other agencies, recorded their decision making regarding the situation, or monitored the victim's and Child A's behaviour or appearance for any length of time.

Also: ‘The report said it found the school had numerous opportunities to take appropriate action, and that a referral was only made to Kent County Council 15 months from the time of the victim's disclosures and 12 months after his mother's formal complaint. Even then, the referral was found to lack key information - including the name of Child A, that the victim had made separate disclosures, that the disclosures followed previous 'incidents of a sexual nature' and that Child A's behaviour was "sexualised, repeated over time, escalated in nature, and included the threat of physical violence'. Unsurprisingly, the victim has been withdrawn from the school and one can only hope that he has received appropriate support and perhaps protection, needed as a result of Holy Trinity’s failures. The reasons for Child A's extreme actions also give rise to concerns.

The Report then listed a series of elementary Safeguarding actions required to be undertaken, underlining that the school and the Designated Safeguarding Lead had failed badly in their responsibilities. For those not familiar with school procedures, it must be stressed that Safeguarding matters are now rightly at the top of any school’s priorities and, for example, an Inspection will fail a school completely if these are not followed. My own view is that the seriousness of this case should have caused the school’s leaders and governors to consider whether they are suitable for the posts they hold , to be ashamed of what they have allowed and been negligent over, and taken strong disciplinary action where appropriate.

In September 2018, the school received an Ofsted Inspection  whilst the DfE Investigation was presumably in progress, where it was found to be Good: ‘The arrangements for safeguarding are effective…. Pupils and parents state that pupils feel safe. Staff provide good pastoral care and support for pupils and families As such, pupils are confident that any concerns raised will be supported by a trusted adult’. This is surely so far from the reality that Ofsted ought to return to carry out a special Inspection.

The Kentonline article also carries a quotation from the school’s Assistant Headteacher, Mrs L Edwards, the matter being deemed so unimportant that neither the Head nor her Deputy could spare the time to make it. She said: "When we first became aware of the incidents relating to this particular complaint it was discussed by the school's safeguarding team and referred on to the safeguarding team at Kent County Council as is normal protocol. Appropriate safeguarding measures were then put in place to ensure the safety and well-being of all pupils going forward. We acknowledge receipt of the subsequent report, the findings of which were also discussed to ensure the appropriate safeguards had been actioned and were effective."  

Try and spot any hint of apology, regret over the events, or even that the DfE Report had any value.

According to the school website:

 Whilst I do not normally mention private schools, one of my main advertisers is Rochester Independent College, the only Medway School with Above Average Progress at A Level, with a specialisation in picking up students who have underperformed elsewhere at GCSE. It has the second highest Grade per entry in Medway, with the largest Sixth Form of 114 students taking three A Levels. 

Waterfront UTC (previously Medway UTC) had none of its 36 Year 13 students taking any A Levels, as they would all have taken vocational courses. I have also omitted Greenacre as its three A Level cohort is too small to report on. It shares a sixth form with Walderslade Girls School.

It is not easy to make comparative judgements in Attainment at this level as schools vary so much in the pattern of their intake into Year 12. I therefore consider that the Progress score is the more important measure. The two measures may be a useful contribution to decisions on where to follow one's studies, taking into account the other factors that impinge upon performance.

However, in Medway, there is an average loss of 14% across the six schools from Year 11 to Year 12, with Chatham Grammar losing an astonishing 34% of its Year 11 pupils, arguably  a less poor performance than 2018’s 37%. However, not for the first time the failure to hold on to its students into the Sixth Form will raise questions about the school's viability. Holcombe lost 22%, and surprisingly Rainham Mark 20%, up from 16% in 2018. It is not possible to identify non-selective schools with similar problems because of the range of one and two year courses they may offer.

The big question is where do all these students go, as they are clearly not transferring to other local grammar schools?

Three years ago, I exposed the national scandal of schools forcing students out at the end of Year 12, to improve A Level performance. This began with Invicta Grammar in Maidstone, and went nationwide, as the practice was established to be illegal, and numbers dropped dramatically. Invicta saw 26 students leave during Year 12 in the first half of 2017, 15% of the total, but just one student left in 2019, reason unknown.

In 2017, Holcombe Grammar lost an astonishing 22% of its Year 12 roll in 2017, rising to 30% in 2018, but still appears not to have noticed the rules with 15% of its 101 Year 12s departing in 2019, nearly 50% of its total roll not finishing the course. Perhaps they were all disillusioned with what was on offer and simply withdrew from the school and their A  Level course, so there was no encouragement from the school. Rainham Mark lost 9%, but travelling in the reverse direction Chatham Grammar actually picked up two students, its one bright spot.   

You will find a full explanation of the various performance measures, together with links to key articles on this site here. 

Kent GCSE Performance 2019

Note: A previous article looked at schools where there was possible off-rolling before GCSE. Five of these schools also appeared in the lowest GCSE performance tables below.

 You will find the KCC take on the tables here, although I make it 46 Kent schools with at least the National Average for Progress 8, whilst KCC has 44.   

At the foot of the table, the embarrassment of Simon Langton Boys and Queen Elizabeth’s being Below Average have vanished, with Harvey, Maidstone Grammar and Simon Langton, having climbed out of the bottom six, to be replaced by Dane Court and Tunbridge Wells Boys.

As I observed last year, all on the list must all be concerned at their performance which will itself hinder future recruitment of the quality staff and leaders needed to improve matters. This is exemplified by Oasis Academy Isle of Sheppey, which in the year in question had just two thirds of its teachers with Qualified Teacher status.

I have written before about Hartsdown Academy, whose make up is described in the Ofsted Report of 2017 as: 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’. My article on the Report also describes its controversial headteacher, whose leadership would apparently turn the school around. Self-evidently he is failing to do so, with the lowest Attainment 8 in the country, and fourth lowest Progress 8 (excluding UTCs which recruit into Year 10). Further articles (easily accessible through my search engine) look at the subsequent bottom of the table performance of the school. The fantasy world that Hartsdown Academy exists in can be judged by its comment on this year's disastrous GCSE performance. From the school website at the time of writing: 'Hartsdown Academy Year students have been celebrating success in their GCSEs today, as the school produced yet another year of improved results....Head of KS4, Ms Rigden, said “It has been a fantastic two years working with this group of dedicated and aspirational young people. The Year 11 staff and I are delighted to be able to celebrate with our students after another increase in GCSE results.” Headteacher Matt Tate adds, “This has been a fantastic year for Hartsdown Academy. We are celebrating our best ever year for results at GCSE in Year 11".  To remind Mr Tate, lowest Attainment in the country, and fourth lowest Progress 8!!!!!!!

 There must also be concern amongst the  high number of previously apparently sound schools that have joined the list this year:Thamesview; Archbishops; Fulston Manor; Hayesbrook; Hugh Christie; and St Augustine's.

I am utterly bemused by the appearance of Thamesview, Fulston Manor and St Augustine’s at the foot of this list. I wrote an article about The Archbishop’s School earlier this year examining its decline and only on the day of writing this  received an enquiry from a local resident expressing extreme unhappiness about behaviour  which I also glimpsed on a recent visit to Canterbury.  Boys in Tonbridge have no realistic alternative to Hayesbrook or Hugh Christie, both declining for some years. In 2015 Hayesbrook was the fourth best performing non-selective school in Kent. Last year, I wrote an article about the Brook Learning Trust which looked at the troubles which beset all its three schools, including Hayesbrook and High Weald. I summarised my view of this school as: 'A disaster area by every single measure above'.  Goodwin Academy was run into the ground by the appalling SchoolsCompany Trust, which has now been closed by government, and the school taken over by the Thinking Schools Academy Trust from Medway, so there may be improvement.

 Last year, government published a list of what it calledCoasting Schools, defined as: 'A coasting School is one which has scored under -0.25 in Progress 8 for three consecutive years', and which attracted government support ,called 'intervention' although this measure has now beenscrapped.  Schools which appear not to have got the message and have gone backwards are: Archbishop's and Hugh Christie; also Homewood which, although not in this table has recently been given Requires Improvement, by Ofsted, down from Good. Aylesford; Holmesdale; and The North all appear to have got the message and shown improvement, the last two having been driven by Swale Academies Trust!  

A government document setting out details of the Selective Schools Expansion Fund (SSEF)  for 2019 applicants, the current scheme, sets out the criteria by which proposals are judged as follows:

In a previous article I look at the 2018 Round and the eight unsuccessful  2018 bidders,  some of whom  have reapplied for 2019. These were: Skinners', Cranbrook, Highworth, Tunbridge Wells Boys, Wilmington Boys and Girls (jointly), all from Kent and Rainham Mark in  Medway.

The article is set in the context of looking at Pupil Premium and grammar schools. You will find the 2019 Consultation document for Highsted here, although to my untutored eye it looks a little thin. Others are not readily available, but I am happy to be directed to them. 

Note: You will find a list of the 19 Kent Catholic Schools Partnership primary academies here. 

The initial decision contained in the letter to schools, and passed on to parents in many cases, was discussed at two Meetings of the Board of Directors of the Trust, as explained in relevant excerpts of the Minutes here. These include redacted sections which I have also received.

Between the two meetings, Mike Powis, Chairman of the Board, and CW sent out a holding letter, acknowledging the concerns and putting in a pause to implement the policy until it had been discussed at the December Board meeting.

In other words, a storm of protest as well as national media interest.

Also redacted: 'SH considered he had been put in a difficult position, with the Archbishop seeking a way forward and the Archdiocese being accused of unfair discrimination, so that legal advice had had to be taken' (but not apparently offered at the meeting). He also considered the policy meant that 'any headteacher of any school who had colluded with the Kent Test, may be open to disciplinary action'.

CW continued to support the decision, ‘highlighting that Catholic primary schools are the strongest primaries in Kent’. Therefore, 'the quality of Catholic primary education still gave children the best chance of passing the test wherever it was taken'.

The meeting concluded with most members of the Board supporting academies being able to administer the Kent Test on-site where they chose to do so. This clearly clashed with the view of CW who considered that Diocesan policy should be followed whatever the policy may be.

Amongst the many valid points it makes, are the following:

'The Archdiocese concludes that it cannot resolutely reassert a policy that does not have universal validity, is not supported Canonically from the Bishops’ Conference and has clearly been inoperable for many years. That policy would, if enacted, discriminate against those families whose older children have been supported to undertake the Kent Test, but who, under the terms of the edict from the CEO of KCSP in September 2019, would see younger siblings prevented from taking the same test ' - all in all a strong condemnation of the original proposal.

'Where parents conscientiously opt to enter their children for the selection process, headteachers should continue to promote the Catholic option but also continue to provide pastoral and academic support for the child'.

And in an attempt to excuse the original decision: 'We wish to emphasise that the problem is selection at 11+, not the Archdiocese’s unwritten rule of thumb which was an historical attempt to preserve comprehensive Catholic secondary education for those whose skills, gifts and talents are not adequately assessed by the battery of tests at 11+'.

The 2020 Kent Schools Commissioning Plan (KSCP) reports that there are 35 out of 353 primary Reception places free in the nine East Folkestone primaries in 2019-20, 20 of which are in Martello, with the same number of 35 forecast in 2023. There has been a fall in numbers entering primary schools, but no further decrease is forecast. As previous larger age groups leave the schools, there will be a total estimated loss of 154 pupils Years R-6 across the area, or 14 pupils per average sized school over the next three years. This is hardly a fatal loss. The problem for Martello is that because it is failing to attract pupils in the first place, it will lose a high proportion of this number. Cunningly, the Report covers up the specific problem at Martello, referring to a ‘Falling Primary Population in the Region’, without specifying the region. Overall across Kent, there will be a small rise in Year R pupils of 0.8% over the next five years according to the KSCP.  

There is a similar pattern in West Folkestone, except there has been no fall in Year R places, with a total of 58 free in 2019, including 44 at Morehall. This total falls to 54 in 2023.

So the threat in (2) should be replaced by: the continued failure of Martello and Morehall primaries to attract pupils, which undermines aggregated outcomes as the schools become financial liabilities. Indeed the Report records that Morehall Primary is running at a deficit of £105,000 at the end of the year, up from £90,000, whilst Turner Free School ran up a deficit of £58,000 in its first year of operation, possibly due to the overload of senior staff, with three deputies and a headteacher at the start of the year to manage 120 pupils.

Not surprisingly one of the Trust’s key objectives for the coming year(s) is: Ensuring appropriate student recruitment as the Trust's positive work with pupils becomes known. The recent difficulties with discipline at Folkestone Academy leading to Saturday detentions and a whole school detention following three fire alarms set off by individuals, is one of a number of indicators there is still much to be done. 

At that stage, Pent Valley School, the predecessor to the Turner Free School, had closed for new pupils and Folkestone Academy (described wrongly as a Christian faith school) was full to overflowing, although the DfE data suggests it hadn't noticed the school was and is an all through school. It considers that the opening of TFS with its 120 places would have a minimal effect on this, although FA is the only other non-selective school in town. In practice, by September 2018 when TFS opened, the intake of FA had fallen from 287 in May 2017 to 198 pupils and, after DfE gave TFS permission to expand to 180 places in 2019, FA its fellow Trust school saw intake fall again to 179. That is a loss of over 100 Year Seven places a figure which will in time increase to a fall of 500 pupils for  years 7-11. This will have a massive negative effect on the school's finances. Over the same period, Astor College described as suffering a potential Moderate Impact, saw its intake actually rise by three places to 134 !

The bigger blunders come in the Sixth Form. Clearly as TFS has only reached Year 8, it will be another four years before there is any possible Sixth Form impact. The new College has a reported 8,700 student, its numbers presumably being swollen by the  recent unpopularity of Folkestone Academy. FA has lost 200 of its Sixth Form students since Turner Schools took over, with a high proportion inevitably heading towards the College. At the time this document was drawn up with TFS having an intake of 120, it is unlikely that the Sixth Form is even going to compensate for the loss at FA, so the College won't even notice its arrival amongst the 20+ schools that feed into it. So: No Moderate Impact at all as identified. Not mentioned is the damaging effect a successful Sixth Form would inevitably have on the one already struggling at Folkestone Academy. 

The third relevant (?) educational institution listed is Hilderstone College, described as a General Further Education College, although I had never heard of it. This is no surprise as it turns out to be an English Studies Centre for foreign students in Broadstairs, 27 miles and a difficult road journey away.  This example merely suggests the pointlessness of the exercise in relation to Turner Free School and by extension must raise pressing questions about the process for other new Free Schools.

A government document setting out details of the Selective Schools Expansion Fund (SSEF)  for 2019 applicants, the current scheme, sets out the criteria by which proposals are judged as follows:

In a previous article I look at the 2018 Round and the eight unsuccessful  2018 bidders,  some of whom  have reapplied for 2019. These were: Skinners', Cranbrook, Highworth, Tunbridge Wells Boys, Wilmington Boys and Girls (jointly), all from Kent and Rainham Mark in  Medway.

The article is set in the context of looking at Pupil Premium and grammar schools. You will find the 2019 Consultation document for Highsted here, although to my untutored eye it looks a little thin. Others are not readily available, but I am happy to be directed to them. 

Please note that the information below, sometimes scarce, is gleaned from a variety of sources and I am happy to receive any additional material or to correct errors and omissions. My thanks to all those who have replied to my requests for information. 

When the Building Schools for the Future scheme was scrapped in 2010, 29 Kent secondary schools lost their improvement plans, including five on the current list. You will find a full list of those that lost out and those which survived the cut here. At least two who lost out: Castle Community College (now Goodwin Academy) and Meopham School, have since been rebuilt under different schemes. Two more: Pent Valley and Walmer Science College, have now closed. 

A consultation about closing one school on the list, Pent Valley Technology College, began in December 2015, although the outcome was inevitable, with the school finally being shut down eighteen months later. It has been replaced by the Turner Free School (TFS) opening on the same site in September 2018, run by the controversial Turner Schools (TS) academy trust, and now to be housed in new premises from a different funding stream. The school was originally planned for an intake of 120 pupils, but thanks to its normal ‘Blessings from on High’ has managed to obtain funding for 180. The main consequence of this is that Folkestone Academy also run by TS now has 91 vacancies in Year Seven, the second highest number in Kent, with TFS also having empty places. Clearly, the DfE has money to burn on favoured schools!

Benenden Primary School (School website appears ‘unsafe’ to visitors at time of writing). The scheme replaces historic Listed buildings around the village green. Completed September 2019 on a site just outside the village boundary. This was originally a KCC project approved in 2012, with plenty of detail on the KCC website, including here. KCC was then awarded the contract to carry out the rebuild, costing some £5.5 million as explained here.

Colliers Green CofE Primary, Cranbrook. A new build is nearly completed as described on the school website.

Platt Church of England Voluntary Aided Primary School, St Mary's Platt, Sevenoaks. Currently waiting to sign off funding as planning is almost complete. The school is hoping for completion in the next twelve months. 

Dover Grammar School for Boys is to be completely rebuilt, with the old school demolished and turned into a car park. When I used to visit over forty years ago, taking school chess teams to play, I could not believe the premises, built on the side of a steep hill, with a somewhat Gothic appearance and thought it not fit for purpose even then!  Previously on BSF List

The Folkestone School for Girls has a new six classroom block, replacing old modular buildings.

High Weald Academy. The new academy building, replacing most of premises is now open and is described as one of the most state of the art learning environments in the area. It boasts 69 climate controlled classrooms and offices, which includes eight science laboratories, three art rooms, five ICT suites and the purpose built drama studio. The school is the most undersubscribed in Kent, with an intake in September 2019 of 39% of its Published Admission Number, the lowest in Kent. Third lowest is Hayesbrook School, also run by the same academy trust, Brook Learning Trust. More details here. Given the school’s historic low intake this is surely below what is viable. I looked at the Brook Trust and High Weald in more detail two years ago, the Trust hoping that the new buildings will draw in more students, for if not one can only wonder at what will have been a monumental waste of money. Did not qualify for BSF in 2010, possibly because of its vulnerability.

 Mayfield Grammar School  Appears to have settled for a new science block, funded by KCC. No information from the school in spite of request. 

Pent Valley Technology College Closed, see above

Simon Langton Girls' Grammar School. A complete rebuild costing some £20 million.  The school sensibly offers a Q&A about the new premises on its website which also takes the opportunity to respond after earlier controversy about the design losing the character of the 1950’s design.

Swadelands School (now The Lenham School). Following the Ofsted failure of Swadelands in 2015 the school was taken over as an Academy by Valley Invicta Academies Trust and became The Lenham School. KCC had earlier won the PSBP contract to build a new science block at a cost of some £3 million. 

St John Fisher Catholic Comprehensive School was able to confirm that St. John Fisher is part of the Priority Schools Building Programme and that it remains the intent to address the significant condition need on the Upper School site, with further information in the coming months. 

The Howard School  was awarded £5 million for a new Science and Technology Block. Due to commence construction in the summer of 2019, unfortunately the contractor pulled out. A new contractor has now been appointed, the plan now being to commence construction this summer, with two buildings to be demolished by December 2021.

I remain very saddened that there is no one knowledgeable enough about the relevant aspects of education in Kent, who is willing to take on my unique advisory service, dependent as it on local knowledge of individual schools and processes. I have discussed it with several educationalists, but each has backed off upon realising the scale of the task. I continue to receive enquiries across England, from families desperate for assistance which sadly I am unable to offer. However, these will be families who have the wherewithal to make such approaches.

There is a desperate need for advocates for those unable to help themselves who are in need of independent educational advice of support. This is an approach which was tried some years ago in Kent, funding advocates for supporting such families with school admissions. I was initially invited to be part of this, but KCC officers were not having it, and ran the scheme themselves, completely destroying the point. Some time later it was scrapped. A recent meeting of the KCC Corporate Parenting Panel  was disturbed to discover that Children in Care were less likely than others to gain access to more popular schools - answer, no independent advice or advocates. Special Educational Needs are another area, where those who are able to afford professional support  can often make faster and further progress in settling an agreed programme of provision. I am shortly going to publish a full statistical analysis of a complex system, which sees too many children being allocated expensive private school places by an SEN First-Tier formal Tribunal, where legal representatives from both sides argue the case. A few years ago, I was quoted in the Daily Mail as arguing that 'middle-class' families had an advantage in this process, but was then criticised by KCC Officers who disagreed with my view and could not see the problem. 

I also continue to receive enquiries from local and national media who establish from internet searches that I have a unique independent source of knowledge and opinion on various educational matters. One  classic example is that of off-rolling in its different forms: before GCSE; half way through A Level courses; and generally forcing out undesirable pupils. Others are school admissions, appeals and  exclusions. Bizarrely, Kent and Medway media appear far less interested for reasons I don't completely understand, except that my outspoken independence is not always appreciated.  

As you can see, my decision to retire from offering individual advice certainly does not mean I am winding back any of my other activities. 

Peter 

The objection covers two matters. First, the objector argues that the Headteacher Assessment panel part of the LA’s Procedure for Entrance to Secondary Education (PESE) does not meet the requirements relating to admissions. She says that a “quota system” is used in different parts of the county. As a result, the process is not “fair, clear and objective” and parents cannot “understand easily how places…will be allocated”, as required by paragraph 14 of the Code. 7.

Second, the objector says that the school does not make clear that the reason it uses two tests for entry to the school (the PESE and the school’s own test, known as the “Dover Boys Test”) is because the Dover Boys Test “is selecting lower down the attainment scale.” She believes it is unfair that the school is using “a more complicated admission system than is necessary” and that holding the Dover Boys Test on a Saturday discriminates against some families, contrary to paragraph 1.8 of the Code.

The objector’s reason for believing that the HTA does not comply with paragraph 14 of the Code is that, “a quota system appears to be in operation giving children in some areas more chance of passing the test than in others.” She quotes my  own article dealing with HTAs in the Kent Test for 2017-18 which shows that  there is a higher proportion of successful referrals in East Kent, compared to West Kent, which she considers meaning there is no ‘objective’ reassessment of ability. The objector also alleges that there is, “inconsistency in the way panel [sic] assess pupils based on gender (girls are passed by the HTA panel more than boys) and a higher proportion of disadvantaged pupils are passed.  The last part of this is ironic, given current government priorities and the section below. The complaint also quotes another of my tables showing District variation in pass rates.

The most common complaint to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator (OSA) about grammar schools, below, is from parents complaining about arrangements that give priority to a higher proportion of disadvantage in their Admission procedure, complaints which rightly are dismissed with a thud. And so are these cases, in in five pages of clearly argued reasoning! The rulings of the OSA have a legal basis.

The main consequence of this decision will be to maximise the opportunities for potential pupils to access the Shepway Test, surely contrary to the Objection which sought to remove it completely.

There are also some minor breaches of the Admissions Code of Practice at Harvey and some of the other schools that are required to be corrected.

A second objection to the school admission criteria was lodged with the OSA in April 2018, and the ruling published in January 2009. I find this a very long document covering a wide range of points thrown up by the objector, many emerging after the original complaint. However I find the large majority of these are, in my view, not relevant. Again, there are questions raised about the validity of the Medway and Kent test processes, which serve merely to underline their legitimacy. Other than several minor points that needed addressing, in this case the objection appears to be a waste of everyone’s time.

Just over a year ago, I surveyed local grammar schools and their criteria in relation to Pupil Premium (PP), and found that 25 of the 32 Kent Grammar Schools and one out of six in Medway had given some form of priority to such children. Not surprisingly the survey also showed that the six Kent schools with the highest proportion of Free School Meals (the major subset of PP) were in the East of the county, the six lowest were in the West.

At the time, The Rochester Grammar whilst giving no priority to PP children, was the only local grammar school to be funded out of the Grammar School Expansion Fund for 2018. Its new criteria mark a radical change to qualify, giving absolute priority to PP children who are grammar qualified, irrespective of address. Further, it has completely scrapped its priority for high scoring girls, giving priority instead to those that live locally. Full details here. I find it difficult to visualise a more radical change for a grammar school and await news of the change of culture with interest. 

It sounds as if most objections received by the OSA were about the introduction of PP in schools by families who seek to preserve the purity of the highest scoring children being admitted. As priority by Pupil Premium is allowed by the Code of Practice (I heartily applaud this), such objections would have been thrown out.

There still remain six Kent grammar schools and four in Medway that give no such priority. In Kent: Dane Court; Dartford; Folkestone School for Girls; Harvey; Mayfield; Norton Knatchbull. Simon Langton Boys has now included Pupil Premium as a high priority.  In Medway: Chatham Grammar (in fact its criteria for September 20/21 are unlawful and should be challenged, but will not come into practice because of low numbers); Fort Pitt; Holcombe (strange because of the dramatic changes at fellow Trust School Rochester Grammar - one would have thought there ought to be a common philosophy, but every relevant action by the schools has been to force up the ability levels of pupils entering); and Sir Joseph Williamson’s Mathematical School.

Interestingly, the objector has frequently argued that grammar schools do not select enough disadvantaged pupils, but in this complaint she argues the complete reverse in complaining that: 'a higher proportion of disadvantaged pupils are passed' through the HTA. Surely this ought to be celebrated. 

This article was written for Monday March 2nd, National Secondary Allocation Day. I will updating it as I receive further information. Please note, I am always very grateful for families who let me know what is happening in specific areas or schools. There will also be a parallel article for Medway shortly.  The data will also be posted on the Individual Schools Section which provides a profile of every secondary school in Kent, with all data up to date at the time of writing except for the 2020 individual allocations.

On Radio Kent this morning (Monday 2nd) Mr Long stated: 'We have a total number of children who have applied, of 21,680 and the number of Kent pupils who have been offered a place was 18,159. I can tell you we have actually had the largest number of children who have had one of their preferences chosen on record'. Technically this is of course true, even if it is the smallest proportion on record! For using the press release tables (there are always minor adjustments going on), in 2020, there were 17,198 preference places offered which is 94.7%, of the total, whereas in 2019 there were 17,122 places offered  which may be a smaller number, but is also as in the previous nine years at least, a larger proportion at 95.3%. Difficult to know what to say. 

As always, when I get a school by school breakdown later this month I shall publish a fuller analysis  providing fuller details of allocation, oversubscription and vacancies for all Kent secondary schools.  You will find the parallel 2019 articles for Kent grammars here, non-selectives here, the two having been read 48,5785 times between them which offer considerable clues as to what is happening now. You will also find 2019 articles on Medway grammars here, and Medway non-selectives here, read by 9529 browsers to date.  These articles also provide considerable guidance on what to expect this time round.

The initial data for applicants for Kent secondary schools shows that 77.7% of  those from Kent were  offered their first choice, down from 79.1% in 2019. 955 Kent children have been given none of their four choices, at 5.3% of the total, up on last year’s 837 and virtually double the 2016 proportion of 2.7%. The proportion of children being offered one of their top two preferences at 89.3%, is down on the 90.7% of 2019, and again lowest for ten years.  At present, there are no obvious clues as to why the significant decline has happened, although I suspect it will be partially because of an increased  polarisation as families try to avoid certain schools.   

Tonbridge Grammar: In area places (Tonbridge, Tunbridge Wells and Sevenoaks addresses) 380 (tie-breaker at 1.847 miles); Governor places:  399 (no tie-breaker needed). For 2019, at this stage, the cut off scores were:  371; Governor Places 393.

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 2019 appeals should be taken as guidance only but again, you will find the appeal outcomes for each individual 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 headteacher, 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 16^th March in Kent, or go on any school’s waiting list after 22nd

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 waiting lists or win appeals at higher preferences, and some unhappy families remove themselves from the state system, all freeing up other places, so don't lose hope!

I regret I have retired from my Personal Appeals Service, being the only Kent and Medway appeals specialist until last year. I am afraid and am unable to respond to individual queries. However, I welcome comments and information about the allocation process and its consequences which I can report on for the benefit of all. 

 Life has been made much easier for me this year through the full co-operation of Medway Council, enabling me to get information out quicker for the benefit of concerned families.  However, the Medway Council Press Release to cover School Allocations continues to operate on a minimalist basis, grudgingly giving out limited information.

The two major differences since my 2019 article are the increase in non-selective places and the changes at The Rochester Grammar School. I You can find the 2019 articles for Non-Selective Schools and Grammar Schools via the links.

I anticipate that once again Chatham Grammar will increase its numbers through a large number of successful appeals, freeing up places elsewhere.  

Over two thirds of the 265 out of county places offered to children at Medway schools are at grammar schools, the large majority at Rochester (83) and also Chatham (43) and Holcombe (42) grammars. For non-selective schools, the District of Walderslade part of which is in Kent north of the M2, Bluebell Hill and the Malling road over the Downs each play a significant part. 22 Kent children were offered places at Greenacre and Walderslade schools this year, with 50 Medway children going to at Aylesford, Holmesdale, Meopham and Malling schools. Another 46 Medway children have looked to Kent for a Catholic education at St John’s, Gravesend and St Simon Stock, Maidstone as St John Fisher Catholic Comprehensive in Medway continues to be unpopular. St George’s CofE in Gravesend picked up another 10. In total 140 Medway children were offered places in Kent secondary schools.

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 2019 appeals should be taken as guidance only, with a breakdown of outcomes, other data and comment for each individual Medway school here. You will also find plenty of free advice in the appeals sections of this website at: Medway Grammar Appeals (complete with a warning about the Review process);  Kent Grammar Appeals; and Oversubscription Appeals (in the process of rewriting). 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. Mention of Kentadvice is banned from the site. 

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 and convoluted process in contrast to Kent's simple system. As a result, parents and I have often found it difficult to pin down a shifting procedure, the Medway Admission Booklet being of limited assistance. The phrase ‘at the discretion of the Student Services Management Team’ is used too often in discussion. Medway Council has scrapped late testing for grammar schools, and at present there are no schemes for individual schools, so there is no way in except for Chatham Grammar and Holcombe. These offer places in return for success at the Kent Test, or an Appeal possibility if your child has been unsuccessful at the Kent Test.

Every year we see a considerable ‘churning’ effect as children take up places off  waiting lists, as children win appeals at higher preferences, and some unhappy families remove themselves from the state system, so don't lose hope! 

Strood Academy is currently being run by Dijana Piralic, Associate Principal at the school  who was, until recently, Vice Principal at  Leigh UTC in Dartford. 

I will add to this article if and when I have further information. 

I have now learned (see comment below) that KCC has approached the Department for Education, requesting Emergency Legislation to enable Appeals to take place . This could involve a paper based appeals process, as in Option Two below. Apparently their hand has been forced because up to 90% of current panellists may be excluded through being in one of the at risk categories - I suspect a high proportion are over 70  years old! 

The current regulations require there to be for each appeal:  a Panel of at least three independent panellists: a clerk to the appeal: and normally a Presenting Officer from the school or Admission Authority (see Appendix below): together with representatives of the child, usually including one or both parents. One of the problems that will beset the current arrangements is that all panellists are volunteers, and many if not most are at least 70 years old who should not be taking part in such a gathering.

It may well be that there are further possible ways forward apart from the five options I consider below. Please let me know so that I can incorporate them into this article.

There is a growing problem where own admission authority schools and in particular newly formed academies are failing to adhere to the requirements of the School Admissions Appeals Code. Parents seeking places are often refused admission without being advised of their right of appeal. Furthermore, we have evidence of schools who have formed their own appeals panel from their governors and have considered admission without setting up an independent process. Funding agreements need to underpin the duties on these schools and make clear the requirements on governors to act in accordance with the law and expect fines or funding to be withheld where they do not....Time and time again it has been demonstrated that for a small number of schools, their senior leadership cannot be trusted to act in accordance with the code nor sadly to put the interest of children at the forefront of their thinking....The Admissions Appeals Process has no independent oversight, other than through the Ombudsman, most families will not know if a school is in breach of its duties nor if it has a properly constituted panel or arrangements. 

For those interested in such matters the Report also highlights some individual schools that KCC considers failing in its duties to individual pupils, looking at: Appeal Procedures (I have removed the remainder of this paragraph, following credible allegations that this section of the article could have been biased). 

Ms Colwell ran the school as one of Kent’s three tough love academies. With  large numbers of pupils choosing to leave or being driven with the effect of improving performance, it became one of the least popular schools in Kent, as confirmed by the statistics. She publicly condemned the parents of the children at her school in the second ‘Sunday Times’ profile last summer, as she left to run a private school in Mallorca. The letter from Baleares International College, Sa Porrassa announcing her appointment has unfortunately got its facts wrong, as it falsely claims‘she has turned around a failing school into one of the most improved in the country’. Neither of these claims is true. Ebbsfleet Academy was certainly not failing when she arrived, as demonstrated below. At the time of her departure. Last summer, Ebbsfleet Academy  was middling in terms of performance for non-selective schools in Kent (32nd out of 68 schools in 2019, 44th in 2018 by the government's preferred measure of Progress 8, with other Kent schools having improved and surpassed it.

Ms Colwell was no doubt encouraged to write the book by two profile items in The Times and Sunday Times. The first was in 2015, which I considered in an article written shortly afterwards, demonstrating the falsehood of many of the claims made. This is one of several articles I have written tracking the many problems in the school during Ms Colwell’s leadership, beginning here. Even her arrival was controversial, having been appointed to a post at Swan Valley (the then name of the school) working for headteacher Nigel Jones, possibly with an eye to what was soon to come. Mr Jones, her predecessor, had brought the school up by its bootstraps and been highly praised by Ofsted in doing so. Then followed a clandestine meeting at a hotel in Maidstone when she was offered his job before he knew he was going the following week. This was hosted by Simon Webb, the unlamented local KCC Area Officer,who went on to oversee the removal of multiple headteachers across the county. As a KCC school at the time, this broke regulations about appointing headteachers, and I am not aware of any grounds given for removing him. Mr Jones went on to show what he is capable of, currently running a nearby twice Ofsted Outstanding Special School (far more complex then Ebbsfleet Academy).

Interestingly, the author of The Times article interviewed me for the first article and, although clearly uninterested in any criticisms, managed to misquote me by totally reversing the meaning of my comment about the ‘anywhere but Ebbsfleet’ syndrome which developed under her leadership.

The Ofsted Report of January 2011 recorded that "Students’ attainment has risen significantly at Swan Valley over the last few years as a result of improvements in the quality of teaching and learning and careful tracking and intervention, particularly in Key Stage 4. Challenging targets have been set and exceeded. The proportion of students achieving 5A* to C grades at GCSE last year was the school’s best ever result at 63%. When mathematics and English are included, the number gaining 5A* to C grades was 34% in 2010, also a record for Swan Valley ". For 2011 GCSE performance, this figure rose further to 35%. For 2012 and 2013, now under Ms Colwell's leadership, GCSE performance had slumped to second worst in the county in both years, at 24% (with by far the worst progress level in the county) and 28% respectively, for whatever reason. By 2014, it had crept back up to 36% including maths and English, fractionally above where it was before she took over.

According to Ms Colwell's second ST article: 'Her regime transformed the lives of some children. She urged pupils to be in bed by 9.30pm, ready to rise at 6am. [...] The proportion of pupils getting five good GCSEs rose from 24% to 60%'. Apart from the strange and I believe intrusive imperative to rise before many of the children's families would be astir, the GCSE claim is misleading as the 24% figure comes under her leadership, and not before, and is a sharp fall from those previous years under Mr Jones. Yes, the proportion of 5 GCSE's new grades 4-9 did rise to 60% in 2017. which has been quoted for the next two years. More importantly, the more recent outcome for 2018 published way before her interview with the ST but not mentioned, and before she will have applied for the post in Mallorca, saw it fall back sharply to 47%. Progress 8 is the Government's preferred measure of performance and for 2018, Ebbsfleet reflected this decline, down to -0.39 (Below Average) placing it 44th out of 66 non-selective schools in Kent.  It did rise to -0.33 for 2019,  32nd out of 68 n/s schools, but still hardy 'one of the most improved in the country'.

Sadly, both appear false. In the first, she has as usual been selective. In the four years of the new GCSE grading system, for the 2019 results in Progress 8, the government's preferred measure, Ebbsfleet achieved a lower result than in 2016 and 2017. In the perhaps more relevant % Level 5 in English and Maths, 2017 was a better year with 37% against the 2019 32%. See here. The second quote about the seven wonderful years simply takes one's breath away, in its direct contradiction to her claims in Ebbsfleet Academy: Parents rubbished by departing Principal, and below when she talks about the flood of UK teachers leaving state education for private schools abroad would surge unless foul-mouthed parents are tackled. 7 Wonderful Years?

The success of the scheme in this unique year will depend even more on the volunteer panellists who will still be needed to make it work, and so arrangements to suit them, as well as parents, are critical. It remains possible, if there are insufficient volunteers, that some appeals will not take place until September if at all.

Further details are promised soon, so it is good to see that most cases are likely to be heard this school year. Currently, appeals have to be heard by June 15^th but government is looking to extend this deadline.

I have written a previous article on this theme, setting out a wider perspective than that now indicated by the government statement.The statement reads:

The key difficulty in all cases is the fact of schools being closed . This may mean that many families will not be able to get headteacher letters of support, or other evidence, which form critical factors in all grammar school and many other cases. Their absence would seriously damage the conduct of any appeal, making it impossible to come to a fair decision.

The first two sentences of this paragraph set out a fundamental rule of fairness which would rule out a written hearing. However, the caveat of sentence three opens the door wide to the current legitimacy of an appeal hearing being conducted in a single room or more probably remotely, the clerk ever present, with the appeal panel and possibly the Admission Authority’s Presenting Officer. However, a remote hearing (see below) would require a wide emergency change in regulations. One further tweak would be to allow the Panel to contact the appellants to chase up any missing evidence, or else to send out an enquiry to them in advance of the hearing, either setting out guidelines as to the evidence looked for by the panel (particularly important in the case of grammar school appeals), or else requesting specific information.

You will find advice on letters of appeal here for grammar schools and here for non-selectives, which may serve as a check on what has already been submitted.

For grammar school appeals, the key is evidence of grammar school ability, although it is increasingly difficult to get hold of this with school closures. I can’t see most appeals beginning before mid-May this year, so parents may be able to persuade the school to produce something more by then even though they are closed. If possible, a pattern of Test and other assessment performance at the school should also be provided (evidence from private tutors will tend to work against you) to support the case. If there are specific reasons for underperformance then evidence of these should also be provided.

My advice page on appealing for non-selective schools describes no clear strategy as panels at individual schools are looking for different things, often guided by the school case, so look closely at this when it arrives. Parents should remember that the letter and any follow ups are all the panel will probably see of the case, so make sure the pointers I have quoted in my article are picked up at a minimum.

In this scenario, Panels could collect together and be seated according to social distancing but many potential panellists may not wish to travel. It is therefore more likely that this operation will be carried out remotely, using an appropriate App such as the popular Microsoft Teams and Zoom. There is no indication at present about whether the number of panellists can be reduced to two, which could ease matters.

This all makes the work of the clerk even more important, as a record of proceedings will need to be kept, so that they are open to scrutiny. The correctness of proceedings can then be challenged through the complaints procedure, although this would be moving into totally new territory.

Clearly video conferencing is the nearest possible arrangement to the current procedure, but there are considerable challenges to be sorted out for it to work. There would need to be a video screen capable of showing up to six participants, as the three panellists also need to be kept apart and, as well as the appellants and panel there would be a presenting officer and clerk. However, even if the logistics could be sorted, many appellants would be uncomfortable with the technology and the complexity of proceedings.

Then there is the problem of where, physically, appellants are to be situated. Some, but not all, could take part at home via Skype or Facetime. Others would need to get to a place where they could access the system, but there may well be travel regulations in place prohibiting this. This all presumes that the technology to deliver this is available in every case, probably via one of the new Apps that have sprung up to meet precisely such an arrangement. However, even then, whilst I can see how this would work for Panels hearing a small number of appeals, the logistics of managing such a system with a school like Chatham & Clarendon Grammar and its 130 appeals last year are mind boggling.

Telephone conferencing is similar in many ways, but is obviously far less satisfactory. Many appellants who are not used to such an experience will inevitably feel bombarded by three unseen inquisitors and in a position of isolation and inferiority. In neither of these modes are panellists trained in the different skills required to treat appellants appropriately, and indeed I can think of no one currently with the skills or experience necessary to do so at short notice.

It is therefore my considered view that neither of these options is realistic in most cases.

I don’t think any of the solutions is fair to all, but we live in a different world from that of two months ago. I therefore consider that the written hearing will be the best way possible in the circumstances.