Challenge to Kent Local Tests Backfires

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.