Update 8th August 2020. You need only read this if you are misguided enough to think my evidence based proof is false.
Unfortunately, some of my critics still cannot accept that CF quoted the wrong data column from their own database whilst the whole database is self-evidently rubbish. Joanne Bartley is almost certainly regretting having voluntarily sent me a copy of the database she authored which clearly demonstrates this. I have reproduced a section of it here, containing the four key columns to prove my contentions for their benefit, as they appear unable to comprehend my previous explanation. I have changed the headings of columns three and four slightly to emphasise their meaning from 'Q3 -Number of places offered' and 'Q3 - only eligible due to criteria?'. to make it clear they refer to PP places. It is then self-evident that the oft-repeated claim 'When asked how many pupils were admitted through these priority policies 80 schools responded, revealing that just 574 disadvantaged pupils were offered admission out of their 12,431 available places...… there were 22 selective schools who responded to say they had failed to admit a single disadvantaged pupil through their policies’ applies to Column three and the 80 schools listed there, and NOT to column four as it should, which lists just 37 schools out of 162 reporting the number of schools offering places THROUGH THEIR ADMISSION PLACES. Column Three, which even when correctly read, allegedly shows 22 selective schools having offered no Pupil Premium Pupil places. This is starkly different from the reality that just a few months later, every single English grammar school admitted at least one PP child, with an average of 8% of all places being allocated in that way. This is explicitly demonstrated by DfE data obtained by CF. The column which should have been quoted, listed numbers from schools admitting disadvantaged schools through their policies. Perhaps because there are just 37 grammar schools reporting on the question, it was thought best to report the previous column with the biggest number. However, some of the schools listed here as admitting no children through their policies, did not have policies such as Norton Knatchbull, so it is a complete irrelevance. Dartford Grammar with its entry of 30 girls being admitted though this route should have sent enormous alarm bells ringing, etc. I am afraid that my analysis that identified the database is indeed rubbish, is correct. But why, why, why did no one notice it was rubbish, and why, why, why when it was repeatedly pointed out did no one do something about it?
What has astonished me is that the organisation, knowing their published data is false, has refused to acknowledge this. It could easily have done so in the ‘private’ correspondence, or simply taken down the false data quietly to avoid embarrassment. Instead, it publicly poured scorn on my discovery then refused to discuss it further, presumably content to have damaged the image of these schools. As Mrs Bartley has made clear, CF is a private organisation and so not accountable in the same way as the schools themselves.
Interestingly, when repeating the data harvest again this year, Joanne Bartley has greatly simplified her FOI request to schools, presumably to avoid getting confused by the responses again, if indeed that is the reason for the false data. I would hope it was not deliberate but in view of CF's refusal to discuss the matter, this must be a possibility.
To be clear, my initial article was neither pro nor anti-selection but simply an analysis of the current situation as both Kent County and Medway Councils face difficult challenges to maintain the proportion of Pupil Premium children through their grammar school selection processes in this difficult year.
