The End of Top Schools

Chris's picture
by Chris
 118
Reading and Kendrick school, two top 10 schools, are in danger of being radically altered by a small group of disgruntled parents, who have been affected by changing catchment areas. These two schools that serve the brightest pupils from the Greater Reading Urban Area are being threatened with ending selection.

This proposal would end the possibility for pupils in Reading to experience top quality education, Reading School won the Times School of the Year 2010. Both are recognized as excelling academically. Also both schools run extensive community support schemes, over one hundred pupils are involved in such schemes throughout the year. These numbers are further bolstered by the running of Tag rugby festivals. Reading, in particular, is recognized by the Sutton Trust as having sent a large number of pupils to the top universities, 62% go to “Top Universities”. Reading school is recognised as a top institution for sending pupils to Oxbridge, 16% of pupils will mange this.

This is all done in sub-standard facilities. Previous administrations had barred the schools from applying for money to improve facilities, this means Reading school has a pool that regularly floods with chlorine, a gym that’s roof collapsed, a squash court that’s roof collapsed and no indoor dining facilities. It has to rely on other sources of income to get facilities built, as did Kendrick when they finally got their new 6th form centre built.

Rob Wilson, the local MP, said on the issue “Removing the grammar schools' ability to select their pupils would fundamentally change those schools. Rather than jeopardising the future of the outstanding schools, that we're lucky enough to have in our area, we should focus on the work of creating more good school places in Reading.” This reflects he feeling of the members of the school community, we feel that selection will ruin our schools unique nature, and therefore the results will slide.

Thank you for reading; hopefully we will be able to work together in saving these fabulous institutions for Reading.
Share on Twitter Share on Facebook
Category: 

Be notified by email of each new post.





Comments

J's picture
Sun, 29/05/2011 - 10:47

Again with calling the 11+ (which isn't what it used to be) an apartheid. It's highly off the mark and I'm sure quite offensive to some.

I see your point with the GPs now, but if you let anyone into Reading or Kendrick the standards would drop, thus getting rid of the one thing you wanted in the first place: high standards.

Fraser's picture
Sun, 29/05/2011 - 19:54

That GP would have to be a specialist GP, if they were to choose their patients, and by then making them treat all people in the area, no matter whether they needed treatment in the GPs specialist area, they would no longer be the 'excellent' specialist GP anymore because they would be treating people in areas they weren't as good at therefore making them an average GP.
'I think you'll agree that the above scenario of a public service funded by taxpayers and operating a social apartheid is not much different from the school you attend where a publicly funded service is selecting its intake based on subjective criteria.'

Rob Davies's picture
Mon, 30/05/2011 - 07:43

This is genius... Never thought of it like that before. Sorry, you are a bit too (ill, poor, insert your own) to attend my clinic. That would do wonders for their targets. Which in turn would substantiate the view that this was a better clinic, with better doctors...


An idea's picture
Wed, 01/06/2011 - 14:12

Rob you misunderstood what Fraser was trying to say. Perhaps before you made your hilarious remark you could have taken the time to have thought about his post? He is saying a heart doctor is going to treat heart patients, a liver doctor is going to treat patients with liver disease and an optician is going to deal with eye problems. Would you want an ear specialist performing open-heart surgery on you? The point Fraser was trying to make was Reading School caters for gifted and talented pupils so selects these pupils. As a heart doctor only treats those patients with heart disease.


Chris's picture
Wed, 01/06/2011 - 22:15

Exactly, parents don't want an underfunded unprofessional school, they don't even necessarily want a well funded, well facilitated school- they want the school that caters best for their child's needs.


Laura's picture
Sun, 29/05/2011 - 12:17

What I find interesting is that this debate seems to have been primarily sparked by the Maiden Erlegh catchment change, so that the school no longer lets in children from East Reading.

Now, Maiden Erlegh school is in Wokingham Borough, a different borough to the children it is no longer letting in, and therefore it is now only letting in children from its 'local' borough of Wokingham, which many people are now taking issue with. So, essentially, people have a problem with this school ONLY taking children from the borough which it is in.

Yet, the main argument that seems to be being used for why Kendrick and Reading are unfair is because they DO let in children from outside the borough which they are in. This seems curious and slightly flawed, given as it is the exact opposite of the ideal which people are trying to express in the other catchment issue.

The only argument common in both is that neither school seems to be accepting children on free school meals, from a poverty area.

Now, firstly for the free school meals statistic to have any weight, I feel that the statistic of number of children entitled to free school meals who take the test initially should also be provided. Of course, I can't be certain, but I believe you would find that only a small portion apply to take the test on FSM anyway, and therefore of course the intake would be lower.

Secondly, why should children from low income families be given priority to all of these three good schools, Maiden Erlegh, Kendrick and Reading, as seems to be your belief? My parents were both from FSM backgrounds and yet they worked up to give their children more opportunities, so why should they have less of a priority?

Surely the issue of fewer children in the grammar schools being on FSM, if it even is an issue, which I personally don't feel it is, would be better solved by encouraging children from such backgrounds to take the entrance exam?

Fiona Lane's picture
Mon, 30/05/2011 - 11:08

I think you've hit the nail on the head, Laura. Residents of Reading wish to highlight the double-standards of the present system, and a petiton is the only way to do this. Over the last five years, Reading's grammars have taken 278 children from all of Reading, but 729 from other boroughs, (354 from Wokingham).
At the same time, they are told that other boroughs bear the brunt of educating their children, though, as you point out, education is funded nationally. They are told that this can no longer happen, even though there are to be no changes to the admission of out of borough children to its own schools.
Reading residents now miss out twice; they have two very highly selective schools (due to the huge geographical areas they cover), where their children stand little or no chance of securing a place, or they must scramble for places farther away, not at their local school from which they have been excluded. Parents are faced with not just a lack of choice but no local school places at all.

Laura's picture
Tue, 31/05/2011 - 07:50

Many children from outside the wokingham borough attend Maiden Erlegh, but I don't see you complaining about that.


Fiona Lane's picture
Tue, 31/05/2011 - 08:11

I'm not. You misunderstand me; I obviously haven't made myself clear.

RBC does not have enough school places for its residents. All its schools are full to capacity, apart from a few places dotted through the year groups created by the itinerant nature of its school population which is common in urban areas. On the other hand, Reading's grammars educate far more pupils who come from neighbouring boroughs. You'll find that Reading residents accept this on the whole, but ask for equal treatment when the pupil traffic goes the opposite way. All this chaos is caused when school places are given to pupils along arbitrary borough lines, leaving Reading with too few schools to cater for the population, rather than according to geographical area and communites as had been organised by Berkshire LEA..

Harry Gosling's picture
Sat, 04/06/2011 - 07:57

No Fiona, you are completely wrong- please refrain from making up statistical evidence which is untrue. According to Rob Wilson, the MP for Reading East (a very reliable source), Reading Borough council schools have 15% spare capacity (http://www.robwilsonmp.com/Local-News/save-our-grammar-schools-says-rob....). Here are some more facts taken from the link above which prove that what you are saying is completely incorrect:

As at May 2010, there were 212 surplus places in John Madejski Academy in Reading. In maintained primary schools there were 1,596 surplus places and in maintained secondary schools there were 977 surplus places. (Nick Gibb, written answer, HC Deb, 11 January 2011, c291W)

• As at May 2010, there were 1,596 surplus primary places (14% of total capacity) in Reading; at secondary level there were 977 surplus places (15% of total capacity). Nick Gibb, written answer, HC Deb, 21 December 2010, c1245W)

Tom Hayes's picture
Sun, 29/05/2011 - 12:44

Janet, I'm afraid my last comment was unclear. Having read the OECD report, I saw how it refers to education on a much larger scale than just one area. Schools are very diverse, it would be wrong to assume all private schools are like Eton. Just the same as it is to consider, without further investigation, that the two schools in question have the typical effects that the report states selective education has.

I believe that what I have been trying to say hasn't quite come across, I haven't dismissed the OECD report, but I feel that you are putting too much emphasis on it. I have been unable to find a middle ground of evidence, that is in between international studies and personal experiences. This kind of data fits the situation on hand the
best. But I consider that the opinions of people involved is not invalid.

I, like Janet, have been trying to approach this debate as objectively as I can. But Mr Ford, I do believe that you have spoken inappropriately.

'Maybe your school needs to teach you a few lessons in the concepts of logic and altruism?' I appreciate where you are coming from overall, but this comment is not justified by your preceding comparison to local healthcare and is also rude.

Reading School and Kendrick have always had a larger catchment area than other schools in the area, why do you think Reading admits boarding pupils? This has been the case for longer than either of us have been alive, even longer than the existence of the local schools on the area. So you comments on 'outsiders' are absurd.

Nigel, I suggest you listen to the following link in which the principal of Reading School is interviewed at around 18.00 minutes. I fully support what he has to say, and it would be a good idea for you to listen to it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/p00gqtx7

Also people should stop referring to these selective nature of these two schools as an apartheid, it is a ridiculous comparison. I challenge anybody who would support the analogy. If you disagree please detail a specific piece of evidence to support your claim.

Julian Springer's picture
Wed, 01/06/2011 - 14:32

I started to write an essay as I went to this school but my blood has started to boil. I pray that this school does not lose its status. Reading school is the solution not the problem. How can the school expand to take 200 pupils each year? How can the other schools in Reading be more like Reading school? The real tragedy is that many pupils with huge potential/late developers who fail the 11plus don't get to be excellent because of the environment of mediocrity that is fostered in too many of our secondary schools (especially those in the poorer parts of Reading).

125 year seven boys get places each year. It is very simple. Turn up, pay nothing, be brilliant. Take some individual responsibility.

Nigel, Your use of language appalls me! an apartheid? Excuses for losers. Buy a book from whsmith, practice with your children turn the tv, ps3, xbox and internet off and encourage/inspire your children to be brilliant.

African Caribbean, local resident who walked to Reading school. Reading school brilliant since 1125.

Fiona Lane's picture
Sat, 04/06/2011 - 09:00

I do not make up evidence, nor do I rely on subjective anecdotal hearsay to subtantiate my points.

Prospect, JMA, Highdown, Blessed Hugh Faringdon are all oversubscribed (as was Bulmershe this year). These are the options now for Reading children. There may be places dotted throughout the year groups, but this is not the same thing as having places for whole cohorts of primary children needing places at secondary schools. Parents of children in year 5 and below have a very bleak outlook.

In the last 5 years, 54 private primary schools have sent children to Reading's grammars. The areas sending children range from Bath to London, with 2 children from overseas. I have not made this up. Check for yourself before dismissing it with over emotive language.

Over the last 5 years, 37 local children gained a place at Reading's grammars. 241 came from Greater Reading, while 729 came from further afield.

Anecdotal evidence such as "I live a 15 minute train ride away", "my parents aren't posh", "I wasn't tutored" is not good enough. Researched facts are needed for a convincing argument. Nor is it valid to argue that tradition makes something right and it should be continued. If this were the case, TB and murder would be considered worthy of continuation.

Reading's grammars are outstanding. There should be an outcry if they were not, given their intake. However, it is a myth that they are local schools serving the community. One poster argued that Oxbridge does not serve the community and educates the elite. This is true and so do Reading's grammars. The difference is that these schools were founded to educate local children, unlike Oxbridge, but in fact educate very few of them. This would not be a problem if the local children had access to good education. Unfortunately, they do not, and the privileged position of these schools would not be under attack by some Reading residents if they did.

I imagine many local parents would be appalled to see comments about their children glued to the XBox and the internet, and that they do not encourage or inspire them. Just because their children do not want/ are not intelligent enough to go to Reading's grammars does not mean they or their parents are lazy.

Harry Gosling's picture
Mon, 06/06/2011 - 16:21

Read the evidence from the Reading MP: it tells you everything that you need to know- Reading Borough council Secondary schools are not oversubscribed! And by the way, Reading and Kendrick were founded to educate the brightest children in the Berkshire area. It does have a catchment- apart from if you wish to board, and there are only 12 boarding places.


Destiny Hope's picture
Mon, 06/06/2011 - 08:45

Reading School is an amazing academic achievement! It is a good school because it is selective, if it changed it would no longer produce the same results and keep the same reputation. It is a ridiculous idea to scrap the 11+ entrance test, there are other schools for the 'less able' pupils, Reading School is meant for gifted and talanted students not average children. The majority of parents against the 11+ exam have children with no hope of passing the test, why should they just get what they want? Their children should have to work for the right to come to Reading School. BAM! xx


todd9t7's picture
Mon, 06/06/2011 - 08:46

selective schools are good because we worked so hard to get in and we deserve a good opportunity for all that hard work it is not fair on the people that worked so hard to allow people to get into the school with no effort or hard work


todd9t7's picture
Mon, 06/06/2011 - 08:55

i think this guy has a very good idea


TSN's picture
Sat, 11/06/2011 - 08:46

For those who compare NHS and school which uses the peoples tax money: Yes I agree the local GPs has to serve the local people rather than people from other counties. Hey guys Reading and Kendrick schools are NOOOT local GPs they are like specialists surgens. Surgens dont serve just the people in the catchment, they select the people who are in need the most. Similarly the Grammar schools select the people who are in a particular standard. Come out of the shell and think wide.


Pages

Add new comment

Already a member? Click here to log in before you comment. Or register with us.