One of the reasons standards are improving according to the Ofsted measure is the steady conversion of schools, especially weaker ones, to become academies which, according to the rules, wipes out any past OFSTED outcome. It also leaves them free for Inspection for three years unless there are exceptional circumstances. Quite reasonably parents of children at some of these schools, who are concerned about standards, are very unhappy they will not be assessed in the near future.

This school should be hailed as an exemplar of excellent practice across the Local Authority, showing to LA schools and academies alike what can be done in the face of adversity with excellent leadership.

Archbishop Courtenay has had a troubled history for years, first placed in Special Measures back in 2012; Kent replaced the failed governing body by an Interim Executive Board, leading to a second Ofsted Inspection in March 2014 finding the school Requires Improvement, the Report making clear that there had been good progress. It was taken over six months later by Aquila, but in June 2017 was placed in Special Measures, again, failing in every aspect inspected, a damning indictment of all concerned. The pattern of high staff turnover at all levels is common to failing schools. Clearly in this case the three year lack of monitoring, and abject failure by the controlling Trust has  condemned a generation of children to a failed education.

I have included Kennington (my old primary school), although it was only inspected last month, as it its children were also failed under KCC control, the school being placed in Serious Weaknesses in May 2013. Three Monitoring Inspection followed showing Reasonable Progress, and in November 2014, it was taken over by Aquila. This time, the November 2017 Inspection found it good in three categories and Outstanding in Personal Development, Behaviour and Welfare.

Both Council School and Academy outcomes remain well below the national average at 67% and 60% of those inspected Good or Outstanding, way below national averages. However, with six of the sixteen schools inspected improving, against just two declining, there is some improvement, but from the very low baseline set by the Local Authority when it was responsible for all schools.

I spoke to a senior education professional later this evening who had considerable sympathy for the school, arguing that its pressing need to maximise exam performance to drive it up the league tables led it, along with many others, to try extreme measures.  This will be echoed in many schools and there is nothing new here, but of course, this does not take into account the health of children who are placed under such pressure to perform. I am not suggesting this is true of St John Fisher but, with mental health issues soaring amongst school children, schools need to be very wary of such tactics.

In its defence, the school argued its good intentions and that other schools were using the same approach. Both may be true but sadly neither makes it right. 

The March 2017 Ofsted Report for the school is highly critical of poor performance, weak teaching, a narrow curriculum, failure of governors to carry out their role, etc. However, it identifies that ‘Effective leadership from the new headteacher is leading to stronger accountability and rapid improvement in teaching, learning and assessment’ . Clearly this has played a major part in the improved 2017 GCSE results that place the school exactly in the middle of the Medway non-selective schools by performance and on which it is to be congratulated. Hopefully, the school will learn a lesson, put this behind it and continue its general good progress.

One further disappointment. The photograph above, taken today outside the school, still tries to claim credit for the Good 2013 Ofsted Inspection Report, published before the school went into decline over the next three or four years. Somehow, I doubt that the 2017 Report will be displayed in the same way. 

Please note the information will not be used for any other purpose and I will not get involved in the case.

I believe this to be a worthwhile piece of research and if this describes your circumstances, I would encourage you to follow it through. Certainly, from my perspective I have come across such cases where there may be little external scrutiny or recourse to a fair external arbiter. 

 My previous article on initial outcomes contains links to many relevant items, and comments on related issues, notably pressure on grammar school places across the county.  

There is a 21% target of automatic passes across the county, although the pass marks this year gave 19.9%. There is also a target of an additional 4% of children to found selective by Head Teacher Assessment (HTA) which looks at children’s work, previous test results, headteacher recommendation and pass mark. Further details here. The actual outcome for HTAs was 6.4% of the total cohort found selective, arriving at a total of 15.4%, very close to the target of 25%.

In the table of District Performance below, I have separated three of the KCC  Districts into component parts, as these each have a distinct profile of grammar school success. So: Sevenoaks Town and Sevenoaks rural; Tonbridge and Malling; and Tunbridge Wells and Cranbrook & Weald.

This highlights Sevenoaks Town as having by far the highest proportion of grammar school success, with 46% of all pupils being assessed selective. Next are Tunbridge Wells and surprisingly for many, Canterbury (see below), although this should come as no surprise for those who have followed this theme on the website before. 

At the foot of the table come Dover, Shepway and Swale all with a 20% pass rate. However, the alternative locals test for the Dover and Shepway grammar schools, and Highsted Grammar in Sittingbourne will considerably inflate these figures. Last year, these passes provided over half of the pupils offered places at the two Dover grammar schools and Folkestone School for Girls, so the pass rates would more accurately be around 40% in each District.  

Once again approximately 11.5% of all Kent automatic passes have gone to children in the private sector, but just 4% of the upheld HTAs, resulting in overall 10% of selective assessments being for children at private schools. The data calculations can only consider those children who took the Test, so the total numbers in each school year group are not known. However, a considerable proportion of these successes will not take up grammar school places, preferring to remain private.

Head Teacher Assessments

Recent changes in admission policy at the two Wilmington Grammars and the Judd School to favour Kent children is further inhibiting supply of places for out of county children, but certainly not demand. For 2017 admissions, of the 2165 (2002 in 2016) ooc Kent Test passes, just 454 (up from 412 in 2016, but almost identical to 2015) were offered places in March, over half at the four Dartford and Wilmington grammars, with this number likely to have fallen further before entry in September.

Of course this large proportion of speculative test sittings, in some cases merely provides free practice for grammar schools in other parts of the country for many as can be seen by the high number of enquiries on 11 plus forums from parents in possession of a selective assessment for their child. Many of these don’t even know where the Kent grammar schools are!

But of course, it is not free for Kent taxpayers, as the costs of administration, materials and provision of test venues falls on them. Sadly, there appears no way of recovering the costs, which surely run into tens of thousands of pounds, from those parents who have no Kent connections. 

Although it was a free paper also available online, I have always considered Kent on Sunday as a high-quality product, having been a regular reader since its first edition in 2002. This has been local journalism at its best, presenting reliable local information, news and comment, along with excellent sports coverage, and a variety of life style features.

Many of you will be aware of KOS’s support for my own information and campaigning articles in education, and over the years we have achieved notable successes together. A call from the editor: ‘Yes, this is important, I can give you 1500 words’ would be heart-warming indeed, with KOS offering a unique media outlet of information and independent advice on school admissions for parents, to pick just one example.

Although some years ago now but certainly having the biggest impact, KOS fronted my successful personal campaign to halt the closure of all Kent’s Special Education Units, then being pushed through by County Officers. This was and is a critical area of education provision for vulnerable children, now being expanded by KCC to meet increasing demand! You will find one of many articles from the time here.

You will find my first ever article, written in 2004, here, about pressure on secondary school places (nothing new here), although KCC management was very poor at that time, as the article reveals. You will also find all my more recent articles here, amongst the ‘Newspaper Articles’ section of this site. 

I have particularly enjoyed Chris Britcher’s strong editorial section, punchy, thought provoking, and not afraid to make strong political connections to local matters, again rare I suspect in such a local newspaper. Whilst he has been made redundant, his three quality reporters, also working with the Gravesend Reporter and Kentish Times, were initially offered posts at the Barking Office of the Archant Group (not quite local!), owners of the publication, but have since all taken up posts with Kent Messenger Group who can clearly recognise their worth. 

Of course, my own specialisation is just a small aspect of the coverage of Kent on Sunday, with big local issues: Lorry Parks, Manston Airfield, the local impact of Brexit, Hospital Trust scandals, Rail Chaos, all receiving the KOS treatment, not forgetting the ‘small but important issues’ which would often be highlighted in more detail than one would expect. I could probably have given some more impressive examples, but in their enthusiasm to erase the memory of Kent on Sunday, Archant have removed all trace of the paper's existence from the internet, including the record of past numbers. 

I could go on, but I hope my point is made. The Archant Media Group took over KOS in 2010, and at present have 63 local titles across the country. If a newspaper with a record such as this cannot survive financially with many advertisers switching to the internet, the future certainly looks bleak for many others.

Kent on Sunday, you will be greatly missed! I have been proud to be associated with you.

Mr Leeson was appointed to Kent in 2011, from his previous role as Director, Development, Education and Care for OFSTED, bringing experience that has been central to his work here. Before that he was Director of Learning and Children's Services at the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames and from these two positions brought an outstanding skills range for his leadership of education in Kent County Council, the largest Local Authority in the country. He is I think widely acknowledged to be by some way the best of at least the four most recent Kent Chief Education Officers. 

In an interview shortly after his appointment, he said: " My main job is to ensure that standards are good and children get better outcomes. Standards are good in secondary schools and most are either good or outstanding, which is great. But there are not enough good or outstanding primary schools. That's a key issue". An article I wrote at the time, underlines the depth of the then problem with Kent primary schools achieving just 42% Good or Outstanding OFSTED outcomes in the previous 18 months, compared with a national figure of 52%. In the six years post, his personal commitment to this task and his achievement in meeting it have been outstanding, with Kent primary schools achieving 85% Good or Outstanding schools for inspections in 2016-17, compared to a national average of 78% over the same period, whilst secondary schools, both selective and non-selective, have retained their strong position, with 80% of non-selective schools assessed as ‘Good’, almost equaling the national average for all schools of 82%. Unfortunately, because of a misreading of the data, presumably by his staff, Mr Leeson reports this as: 'of the 51 schools inspected in the last school year 61% were judged to be good or outstanding, and 37% were rated as requiring improvement. This rate was lower than the previous year when 72% were judged to be good or better', with a refusal by KCC to correct the error to the correct, much better outcome I have identified.

He has had to overcome enormous obstacles, primarily the rapid expansion of academies in Kent, to a total of 84% of all secondary schools, and 33% of primaries, who have chosen or been forced to change status for a variety of reasons. These include many stronger schools who made the move because they believe they are best able to manage their own affairs, or chased the money, or because they were dissatisfied with the service offered by KCC. Others have been forced to become academies because of their poor standards whilst under KCC control, including many of the 58% who Required Improvement or were found Inadequate by OFSTED from 2011 onward. As a result KCC has lost any control of a large swathe of the education sector, and is only able to operate by influence or persuasion with those academies that are willing to co-operate.

A powerful tool in his armoury has been the setting up of the Kent Association of Headteachers bringing all heads who wished to be involved together, to inform policy amongst other roles. Apart from an initial short-term disastrous leader, he has been extremely fortunate or alternatively skilled in recruiting the next two chairs who have presided over the organisation, Christine Gilbert CBE, after retiring as Head of OFSTED, followed by Pam Jones, OBE, an outstanding Executive Headteacher of the excellent Cedar Federation of schools, with a strong personal commitment to KCC.

We have also seen much greater openness under Mr Leeson’s leadership, although some KCC officers still too often ‘know best’ when hiding unhelpful matters, not yet having come to terms with the fact that the balance of power has changed.  

It is no secret that Mr Leeson and a number of his senior officers dislike me, primarily I believe because of my record in exposing aspects of KCC mismanagement that have led to damage to children’s education and teachers’ careers. Probably the two most public examples of this are the Lilac Sky and Furness School scandal and the ‘disappearing heads’ scandal, both described extensively elsewhere on this site. 

There are plenty of opportunities for many schools to claim a top position in one or more category, as shown in the following sections.

High performing Kent schools were: Rodmersham; Ethelbert Road; Temple Ewell CofE; Seal CofE; and Crockham Hill CofE all with 100%. They are followed by Fordcombe CofE, Sevenoaks; Our Lady’s Catholic, Dartford; Elham CofE; Canterbury; and Brookland CofE, Shepway. In Medway, after Barnsole with 89% (also top in 2016), come The Pilgrim and Oaklands with 86%, followed by St Thomas More Catholic with 82%, and English Martyrs Catholic with 79%.    

Lowest in Kent were: Tree Tops Academy, Maidstone 16%; Richmond Academy, Sheppey,  Goodnestone CofE, Canterbury, both 17%; and Charing CofE, Ashford, and Darenth Community, Dartford, with 21%.In Medway, the only school at this level is Elaine Primary with 20% of pupils achieving the expected standard.

In two schools, Amherst and Leigh, both in Sevenoaks, 34% of pupils reached this standard, coincidentally both having 86% of pupils on or above the expected standard. Both these figures are well up on the highest percentages in 2016. Next come: Whitstable and Seasalter Endowed CofE Junior (88%) and Wittersham CofE, Tenterden (85%) both on 31%; Selsted CofE, Folkestone (86%) and Ide Hill CofE, Sevenoaks (79%, top last year) both on 29%; and Gateway Primary Academy, Dartford (90%) and Chiddingstone CofE (79%) both on 28% high performing children. 55 Kent primaries had no high performers, sharply down from the 121 of 2016. 

In Medway, Barnsole Primary (89%) had 26%, and The Pilgrim (86%) had 24%. Seven schools had no high performers, again well down on 2016’s 19.

Richmond Academy, Sheerness (bottom of the pile on nearly every count) and Knockhall Primary Academy, Dartford, are two primary schools both ruined by the appalling and now thankfully defunct Lilac Sky Schools Academy Trust. It would be wrong to blame the new Trusts which have taken over the schools, Stour and Woodland Academy Trusts who have not had time to repair the damage (pity about the children whose education has been blighted by TSSAT). Incredibly, the owners of Lilac Sky are still allowed to promote themselves under the new company name of Education 101, in Kent and elsewhere.

The children of Tree Tops Academy, Maidstone, were failed by KCC over many years, then again by Academies Enterprise Trust. In 2014, I wrote an article: “Is this the worst school in the country, run by the worst academy chain?”, tracing back the dreadful history of the school since 2004. The poisoned chalice has now been taken over by Leigh Academy Trust, but only this week it one of 130 schools nationally in in a list of shame published by OFSTED of schools that have not shown any improvement since 2005. It was also below the floor standard in 2016, although OFSTED in May described a very different picture of the performance of pupils unfortunate enough to have to attend the school: “By the end of key stage 2, the majority of pupils, including those who are disadvantaged, catch up and achieve similarly to the national average in reading, writing and mathematics”. These are the same pupils whose school has now failed them to deliver the worst SAT achievement of any school in Kent. How can OFSTED have got it so wrong??

Charing CofE Primary School, Ashford, also failed to reach the Floor Standard in 2016, and has been through years of turmoil as one of the more unpopular schools in Kent: “Parents have been justifiably concerned about the frequent changes in leadership and exceptionally high turnover in staff. Many parents chose to withdraw their children from the school, which led to a dramatic fall in numbers and impacted negatively on already small cohorts of pupils in each class. The number of pupils who have joined or left the school over the past two years has been very high.”  This is taken from a glowing OFSTED Report of March 2017, which praises the turnaround taking place in the school under new leadership but again fails to notice the dreadful KS2 standard to be delivered for the second time just two months later. Progress Levels are particularly low. The school was taken over by the Aquila Academy Trust (Anglican Diocese of Canterbury) in July, so plenty of work to be done, although as a CofE Voluntary Aided school prior to conversion, will it be the same leadership that failed the children for so many years previously?

Parkside Community School, Canterbury had by some way the worst level of achievement in Kent in 2016, at 8% of pupils reaching the required standard, so this 25% could be regarded as showing progress, although actual progress levels are below floor standard in both Writing and Maths.  OFSTED in February 2017 which awarded the school ‘Requires Improvement’, stated: “The headteacher and deputy headteacher work well together and form a strong team to lead the school effectively. They have managed the considerable turbulence in staffing and the changing profile of the school well. Despite a decline in the school’s performance since the last inspection and a legacy of underachievement, pupils’ progress and the quality of teaching and learning are now improving”, but perhaps theoutcome  is not really a surprise: “Pupils in key stage 2 are not making enough progress to catch up from their low starting points at the end of Year 2”. It is not clear why this school, failed by KCC for many years is not at  present being taken over by an Academy Trust, although Trusts are becoming increasingly picky about who they take on, and refusing to take on unpromising schools. Meanwhile numbers have fallen, just 50% of places taken up on allocation in April, and there are clearly parental concerns about possible closure, ‘Future of Parkside Letter’. Sadly, KCC promises have not always been delivered in the past. 

I do not have the three year data to determine the Coasting schools. 

Treat all the data outcomes with a certain amount of scepticism. Firstly, there were all the problems with changes to the Test assessment process which ranged over the whole of the school year 2016-17, and which have been widely publicised. Never forget that schools are under immense pressure to deliver the best possible Key Stage 2 results. The future of individual schools are sometimes at stake and this set of results will lead to some schools being taken over by others, by Multi-Academy Trusts, or even transferred between them. Some headteachers will lose their jobs. Other headteachers will yield under pressure and manipulate outcomes, for example one method can be to reduce Key Stage One outcomes to improve the progress rate through to Key Stage Two.

Government sets performance levels apparently somewhat arbitrarily as a tool to achieve its aims, so it is impossible to say if standards have improved or declined. What is certain is that the pressure to succeed is ever greater, so (1) look at other features of schools important to you than simply these tables. OFSTED performance, although strongly influenced by this data, the ethos of the school, the headteacher, do you see your child fitting in, etc., (2) High attainment performance is an indicator of high ability children in the school or else good progress or both.  Different families will choose different measures as a priority. (3) A sharp difference in progress assessments may be simply due to the teacher of mathematics (for example) having left, been ill or been on maternity leave with the school unable to make alternative arrangements. Find out if this problem still exists or has gone away (4) there appears currently an obsession in some areas over using the number of grammar school successes as a guide to a good school. Untrue and irrelevant. Firstly, this is six years of education away for the child entering a Reception class and many things can happen to change a school in that time. Secondly, success rates are likely to be related to the proportion of high ability children in the school. Thirdly, the tutoring factor which happens outside the school and applies to a high proportion of potential grammar school applicants is of considerable importance and is not reflected in these figures.

Primary school data is now far too complex for many parents to be able to compare schools and I suspect most will ignore it. However, if you put two schools together for comparison, accept all the caveats about poor data, look at what is important for you, if there are marked differences between the two it may prove helpful. However, bear in mind the enormous pressure on school places in many areas, and you may find you actually have no real choice at all! Sorry.

Has this school failed, or have circumstances conspired to fail it?

In previous years the Trust has followed the spirit of the mandatory School Admissions Code which does not allow sibling priority in schools where all places are allocated on the basis of highest scores achieved in the admission Test. Presumably the Trust now sees the criterion of attendance at one of its primary schools, as enabling it to ignore this rule for Rochester Grammar (RGS), so still allowing it to select most children on high scores.

First priority (as for all schools) if the proposals are implemented after the current Consultation would be grammar qualified Looked After Children (see criteria for details of all categories), followed by: girls with a sibling at a local Trust secondary school: then children attending Trust primary schools: children of staff employed by the Trust; health reasons (very difficult to justify); and finally rank order according to scores in the Medway Test.

The previous musical ability priority which from memory used to admit up to 10 girls, but has shrunk to two by 2018 admission, is now to be removed.

The three secondary schools offering priority are RGS, Holcombe Grammar, and Victory Academy. The last named school has had a very difficult history since its opening in 2010 as Bishop of Rochester Academy, but  with a good OFSTED in October: “This is a rapidly improving school, due to strong leadership and effective support from the Thinking Schools Academy Trust”, along with strong GCSE results.

This is a super-selective school and I am too often contacted by families of RGS girls seeking advice where their children are having difficulty in coping with the academic and social pressures of the school; although all will have provided evidence of high performance in the Medway Test. The new proposals are going to require a sea change in the school ethos if the potential new intake is to be welcomed and enabled to succeed. For it will comprise girls who have not achieved the cut off score, including some who will have scraped a pass. Alternatively, they may of course be put off by what they find, as happens each year to some potential applicants who decide to go elsewhere.

I suspect, at least in the first few years of the new proposals, the majority of the new type of intake will come from siblings of pupils already in one of the Trust secondary schools especially RGS itself, who would not have qualified under the high scoring criterion. The cut off score will inevitably be forced higher by these changes, with fewer places (I guess some 20 less) available for high scorers.

The Rochester proposal further weakens the case for co-education at Holcombe, one of whose key arguments was that some girls from the Trust primary schools were disadvantaged by not being able to attend a Trust grammar, which is now a false argument, but also because RGS will admit even more local girls, with fewer left potentially for Holcombe..

The school appears to thrive on controversy, most recently unlawfully keeping out seven pupils it had offered places to, a decision wrongly supported by Medway Council, in view of its illegality. Headteacher Juliet Diaz retired at the end of last term.

Also last year the school came up with the unlikely arrangement to admit girls from the non-selective Victory Academy full-time in various age groups, whilst remaining legal (?) by retaining them on the Victory roll. Not surprisingly, the girls found themselves in a difficult social environment and all appear now to have returned to Victory with the scheme quietly dropped.

Meanwhile the Regional Schools Commissioner is still considering the proposed co-educational scheme nearly a year after submission. One can only conclude that he is examining the major flaws in the proposal such as those I have pointed have out. He can now add to these flaws with the RGS proposals providing even more places for local girls than in previous years, undermining the case for co-ed even more sharply. Not surprisingly, Holcombe is one of just two Medway secondary schools that have not yet submitted proposals for change to its admission rules where required!

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

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

The table is led by Rochester Grammar, the only Medway school to score 'Well above Average' for progress from Key Stage 2 to GCSE.  Chatham Grammar Girls is only making average progress.

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

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

  Please note that I use the time span 2012 to 2017, rather than the one provided by the BBC, as this coincides with the start of the period of rising numbers in Kent secondary schools.  

Localised population increase has also partially contributed to the pressure on West Kent schools, both grammar and non-selective, as recorded here in many articles. These date back as far as 2010 when I was warning about the shortage of primary school places especially in Tunbridge Wells, that are now working through the secondary sector. I am regularly contacted by families looking to move into the area explicitly to seek grammar school places. A recent article looks at continuing problems in TW.

However, with grammar school places increasing in parallel with rising numbers, this is not a factor contributing to the greater proportion of successful grammar pupils, as the process continues to deliver the target figure of 25% of the population.  

Kent County Council operates a system that successfully delivers the target 25% of children selected for grammar school. With the largest number of additional children comes from parental appeals, it is clear that a few grammars look to increase numbers by this mechanism by encouraging panels to stretch the criterion of ‘grammar school ability’ to the full. Sadly, too often some of these children will bail out or be forced out at the end of Year 11. I can find no evidence to support the claim that numbers of children joining grammar schools leave during years 7-11.  

The Local Tests in Dover and Shepway which also add a considerable number of children to the grammar school total, were certainly not brought about by the claimed parental power, but are offered by the schools to boost numbers, arguably to support social mobility in an area of social deprivation.

  Please note that I use the time span 2012 to 2017, rather than the one provided by the BBC, as this coincides with the start of the period of rising numbers in Kent secondary schools.  

Localised population increase has also partially contributed to the pressure on West Kent schools, both grammar and non-selective, as recorded here in many articles. These date back as far as 2010 when I was warning about the shortage of primary school places especially in Tunbridge Wells, that are now working through the secondary sector. I am regularly contacted by families looking to move into the area explicitly to seek grammar school places. A recent article looks at continuing problems in TW.

However, with grammar school places increasing in parallel with rising numbers, this is not a factor contributing to the greater proportion of successful grammar pupils, as the process continues to deliver the target figure of 25% of the population.  

Kent County Council operates a system that successfully delivers the target 25% of children selected for grammar school. With the largest number of additional children comes from parental appeals, it is clear that a few grammars look to increase numbers by this mechanism by encouraging panels to stretch the criterion of ‘grammar school ability’ to the full. Sadly, too often some of these children will bail out or be forced out at the end of Year 11. I can find no evidence to support the claim that numbers of children joining grammar schools leave during years 7-11.  

The Local Tests in Dover and Shepway which also add a considerable number of children to the grammar school total, were certainly not brought about by the claimed parental power, but are offered by the schools to boost numbers, arguably to support social mobility in an area of social deprivation.

For 2018, with an initial PAN of 150, an additional priority was inserted at Priority 2: Up to 10 places to pupils registered in that academic year for Free School Meals, ranked according to their combined test scores. Applicants in this category will need to have filled out a Supplementary Information Form. Subsequently, the PAN was increased to 160 on a temporary basis, maintaining the number of high scorers to be offered places.

The proposal for 2019 keeps the PAN at 160, but entirely changes the basis on which priorities are ordered. The first broad priority now becomes: Up to 140 places offered to applicants living in the West Kent Area which is defined as the area within three miles of the school measured by straight line distance, plus 33 named Kent parishes. However, this is then sub-divided with the first two divisions being Children in Care, followed by up to 5 places for those on Free School Meals. Then come children scoring over 360 in the Kent Test, headed by (a) siblings; and (b) sons of staff members. The remainder of the over 360s are no longer to be selected by high scores, but by nearness of residence to the school.

If there are any of the 140 places to be allocated by this mechanism are left unfilled, they will be made up by boys passing but scoring under 360, again in the order of (1) siblings (2) sons of staff members, and (3)nearness of residence to the school.

The final 20 places (minus Children in Care irrespective of residence) are then allocated to children in the Outer Area, defined as on the mainland of the United Kingdom, on the same basis as for the West Kent Area, the first five places again going to FSMs.

The school has moved right away from the concept of highest scores, and aligned the school along with Maidstone Grammar and Simon Langton Boys, who have similar arrangements also with a priority cut off of 360.

One question that will be asked by families living inside the outer limits of the West Kent Area, is whether all local over 360s will be offered places, or if there will be a geographical limit? Last year the cut off was an aggregate score of at least 371 for all successful applicants, up from previous years. I suspect this increase was because of the related decision by The Judd School to also prioritise most Kent applicants.My own sense is that all East Kent Area applicants scoring over 360 will be offered places, but don;t hold me to it. although I don’t believe that those families who will carry out complex calculations to estimate their chances will come to any more accurate conclusions on a subject with so many variables.

All this means the nature of Skinners will change with a number of boys being admitted with levels possibly as low as a Head Teacher Assessment pass; especially if the category of under 360 is reached which is possible. What is certain is that in a few years time, as with Judd, when these cohorts reach GCSE or whatever replaces it, the two schools will not be able to compete at the very highest level, as at present.

Congratulations to both schools on making decisions in the interests of the students, rather than chasing trophies for themselves.

Add in the increase in numbers at Tunbridge Wells Grammar School for Boys, and the pressing shortage of places for Kent grammar school boys in West Kent, brought about by the current non-arrival of a boys annex in Sevenoaks, will certainly be eased.

The proposal made two main additions to the more conventional 2018 arrangements giving priority as follows:

d) Children who attend a Valley Invicta Primary School, a child who has attended a Valley Invicta Primary School who has passed the PESE test.

e) (Section in italics): Children of staff who work at the school, or Valley Invicta Academies Trust, full time with at least two years’ continuous employment or where the school Trust considers a member of staff has been recruited for a position for which there is a demonstrable skill shortage.

It is reported in the Kent Messenger that the proposal has now been dropped as KCC considered it ‘unreasonable, unfair and unlawful’, following a petition from parents. The KCC view is likely to have been based on a decision by the Schools Adjudicator  following complaints about The Aspirations Academy Trust for one of its schools, Rivers Academy, Hounslow, dated 11 November 2016. This set an important precedent, which ought to have been known by Invicta and indeed The Rochester Grammar School, see below and previous article (which now needs to be revised!).

This is a complex decision, covering a whole range of issues, but the relevant conclusion was:

For the reasons set out in detail above, I uphold the objection to the oversubscription criterion in the 2016 arrangements that names two feeder primary schools which, while clear, transparent and made on reasonable grounds as required by paragraph 1.15, are not fair as required by paragraph 14 of the Code because it is unfair to children who have attended two other local primary schools and are not reasonable as required by paragraph 1.8 as they are not reasonable in their impact on these children. I also determine, for the same reasons, that the oversubscription criterion in the 2017 arrangements naming two feeder primary schools does not conform with paragraphs 14 and 1.8 of the Code.

Or more simply, it is unfair and unlawful to discriminate in favour of pupils from Trust Primary Schools in oversubscription criteria. 

Whilst not expressing a view on the children of staff from other Trust schools, the same interpretation would clearly apply.

The Trust has clearly accepted the advice from KCC, more importantly implicitly acknowledging it is not appropriate for Valley Park School either, one of the most oversubscribed schools in Kent, where the consequences would have been much more serious. 

This clearly and more comprehensively breaches the Code, as interpreted by the Schools Adjudicator, above, and I have written to the school and Medway Council pointing this out, although missing the short Consultation Period. The school now has until 28^th February to finalise its policy, after which complaints can be made to the Schools Adjudicator who has the final say. In the case of Invicta Grammar, it was parents who raised the issue before the consultation was completed, for Rivers Academy it was other local primary schools, who feared their popularity would be damaged who logged formal complaints.

I cannot see these proposals remaining unchanged, although it would be a great pity if RGS cannot come up with proposals that give some element of priority to local children, perhaps on the lines of the Tonbridge and Judd Grammar criteria that award places on high scores, but with 80/87% to local children and 20/13% to out of area, or even following the Skinners model above. There are plenty of other good models around that maintain the principle of chasing the high flyers to secure the best results.  

Whilst looking at this case, I became aware of a number of other Medway schools, both selective and non-selective that also appear to be proposing to act unlawfully, to be followed up in an article currently in preparation. 

A different development building on government and KCC policy, is that over half of all Kent grammar schools now offer some priority in admissions to pupils on Pupil Premium or Free School Meals. In Medway just Rainham Mark Grammar appears to be considering the same priority and no non-selective school in either Authority has proposed such a preference. I shall look at this further in a later article. 

A number of the proposals are currently non-controversial as the secondary schools have vacancies for local children, as explained below but, with secondary numbers rising more will come into effect causing considerable unfairness on a greater scale.  

The stated rationale behind several of these situations is continuity of teaching and learning style, but the major consequence is to leave parents in confusion. Should they make choices for their children entering primary schools at the age of four/five, on the basis of a linked secondary school when its popularity and circumstances seven years hence are unforseeable? My very rough rule of thumb is that it takes one year for poor leadership to damage a school's reputation, and up to five years of good leadership to restore it. The reality is that secondary school choice is now becoming much more of a lottery than it should be in Medway, as Academy Trusts look to their own interests rather than that of the children they exist to provide for. 

All schools give priority to Children in Care, and most give priority to children with health reasons that need attendance at a particular secondary school, and most to siblings of children already in the school in question.

There is already considerable uncertainty caused by the Holcombe Grammar proposal to become co-educational, still under consideration by the Regional Schools Commissioner, which would create waves for boys on the Hoo Peninsula as explained below. 

Note: There are several references below to Fair Banding Tests in the individual school comments, explained at foot of article.  

Two complaints to the Adjudicator about Medway grammar schools in 2016 differentiate clearly between under and oversubscribed schools, and can be regarded as guidance on what to expect from a complaint this year, although there are of course other factors taken into consideration and each case is considered on an individual basis. The two cases are outlined below, along with the proposals or current status of all Medway secondary schools. You will also find a table of all showing the primary schools belonging to all Medway Trusts with secondary members at the foot of this article. The name links are to the proposals for 2019 admission.

The 2016 proposal of the school setting out new criteria for admission was rejected on a number of grounds, the key one giving priority to boys attending Trust primary schools being summarised by: ‘I then considered this criterion against the Code’s requirement in paragraph 14 that arrangements are “fair” and concluded that this criterion disadvantaged boys who live on the Hoo peninsula and who do not attend one of the trust schools. In this respect I have concluded that the arrangements are unfair.’ The objection was upheld.

SJWMS is heavily oversubscribed and, recruiting on distance grounds, draws most of its students from a tight urban area around the school. This results in virtually no boys, apart from siblings, from the rural Hoo Peninsula being offered places without appeal for some years. Along with the normal oversubscription criteria, the new proposals include: “Children who at the time of application attend a primary school within The Williamson Trust”, which is identical to thatrejected in 2016. Perhaps they are simply hoping there will be no complaints to the Schools Adjudicator from Medway Council, from other local primary schools who may lose pupils to the 3/5 Trust primary Schools, or from those parents who are now given difficult choices for children aged five or  those who can see their children being discriminated against.

The 2018 criteria which went unchallenged, as well as prioritising children of Trust Primary schools, expanded the common priority of staff children to those with a parent working at any Trust school, which is not in the Admission Code that allows priority for ‘children of staff at the school‘. Whilst Holcombe Grammar was heavily oversubscribed with overflow from London children for 2017 admission, I am confident that all local boys who were grammar qualified and sought places at the school were offered these. Holcombe is one of just two Medway secondary schools whose proposed or established admission criteria for 2019 are not published on the Medway website. This will be because of the continued uncertainty of the school’s proposal to become co-educational, which has still not been ruled upon by the Regional Schools Commissioner, nearly a year on from its submission, as discussed here and previously. If the proposal is upheld, there will be a shortage of boys’ grammar places in Medway, and so the objection will come into place with meaning.

Currently, the school is the only option for most children on the Hoo Peninsula (the case for SJWMS prioritising some Hoo schools!), but if it were to go co-educational this could close down as many Hoo boys would be excluded on distance grounds, leaving the only grammar school route via a Williamson Trust primary school.  Now that is a recruitment incentive attracting pupils for the Williamson Trust schools away from those who are not in the Trust!

Fair Banding Tests: These are set for all applicants for places in some  schools which are potentially oversubscribed. Then a proportion of pupils in each ability band in ratio to the whole population are offered places, aiming to replicate those ratios, and produce a good ability spread. I suspect that where there are grammar schools this has the effect of selecting a higher proportion of the top ability level children applying. 

This is the third policy decision the school has failed with in the past two years, and the one with the most far-reaching negative effects on grammar school provision. However, the local scene has also changed dramatically in the short time since the proposal was submitted, with many London families failing to get their children into grammar schools in Dartford, Gravesend and Rochester, having now washed up in Chatham. Chatham Grammar School for Girls, having offered 143 places, including 16 Local Authority Allocations back in March 2017, itself an increase of 70% from 87 in 2016 as London children presented themselves, now has 183 girls in Year 7.  I suspect this dramatic expansion was driven by the threat from Holcombe’s co-educational plan, and a need to secure numbers as the school was in financial difficulty. No longer!

Holcombe, which was happy to expand up to 180 children if it went co-ed, offered 128 places to boys in March, but settled with 161 (see below). It offered just 91 places in 2016. The London effect ensures that the two schools, both previously struggling for numbers are now both secure. 

There is still a clear logic for one of the Thinking Schools Academy Trust (TSAT) grammar schools to become co-educational, but it is not Holcombe. Perhaps we shall now see a proposal for The Rochester Grammar School to admit boys as well, which would provide local children with two girls grammars, two boys grammars and two co-educational!

The Chief Executive of TSAT, in a letter to parents, claims two chief merits of the failed proposal which would ‘benefit all students in the local area’ (although these merits have changed with each launch). The first is the apparently enhanced choice for selective students in Medway, which is a nonsense in view of the reduction in opportunities for selective boys’ places. Secondly is a greater collaboration between Trust schools, although why this needs such a dramatic change in provision is not explained; surely greater collaboration can just go ahead as it stands. Whilst the letter explain that the DfE 'recognised the merit and potential of our application', it unfortunately gives no clue as to the reasons for turning it down! Naturally, most of the letter talks of the academic strengths of the school at present.

I do have concerns about the large number of Holcombe students who leave half way through their A Level course, 20% of the total  this year, by some way the largest fall of any grammar school in Kent and Medway, which certainly helps with performance.

The other organisation with egg on its face is Medway Council which opposed the first application, but found favour with this second proposal, flying in the face of objections from most other Medway secondary schools, and certainly not in the best interests of most Medway selective students. Their capacity for misjudgment is enormous!

Firstly came a plan to admit pupils by decision of an Admission Committee which would decide if they were selective, without having to pass the Medway Test. It is not clear if my publicly pointing out this was illegal led to it being dropped! This then morphed into a proposal to admit girls from the non-selective TSAT Victory Academy during Year Seven who were considered high flyers, although keeping them on the Victory Academy Roll. Notes of a meeting for parents record that only in exceptional circumstance would such girls be admitted into different age groups. In the event, all the younger girls offered places returned to Victory for their own reasons and does not appear to have been repeated for 2017 as a consequence. The only current evidence of the policy is three girls in Key Stage 4 classes, presumably all exceptions and all still on the roll of Victory Academy (to be on the roll of Holcombe would be illegal).

Secondly was last summer’s debacle when the school offered places to late grammar qualified applicants, and then placed them on the roll of Victory Academy, denying them the right of appeal.  Sometime after I commented this was illegal, the Department for Education ruled the same.

Back in October, Government published provisional results to inform parents making secondary school choices, and allow schools to make a case for removing pupils in certain categories. This is an amended version of the article I wrote at the time, reflecting those changes, although in nearly all cases they are not significant.

Both Progress 8 and Attainment 8 are measured across eight curriculum subjects, English maths, 3 qualifications from sciences, computer science, history, geography and languages, and 3 other additional approved qualifications.  The results are measured by an arcane formula whose meaning and spread is very difficult to comprehend, but enable schools to be placed in an order. For Progress 8 there is a target national average score of 0, with most schools being between +1 and -1. Both measures have had their methodology changed to suit government priorities and the new grading system for English and maths. As a result, numbers are not directly comparable with those of 2016. 

The government floor standard, or expectation is to be above -0.5, in which case “the school may come under increased scrutiny and receive additional support”. and seven Kent secondary schools fail to meet this, including Simon Langton Boys (an exceptional case as explained below). There are further details of the outcomes below.