Displaying items by tag: Primary Admissions
Primary School Admission Problems in Bearsted Area - Update
Pressure continues to build over the shortage of reception class places in Bearsted, centred on Madginford Park Infants School, Thurnham CofE Infants School and St John's Primary School. At the recent meeting of Bearsted Parish Council, Paul Carter, Leader of Kent County Council, listened to the concerns of many local parents whose children have no local school to go to, and has promised to do what he can to resolve the problem. One new issue is that at present, 43 of the 80 plus children without a school of their choice have been allocated places at St Paul's Infant School over two miles away. KCC is responsible for providing transport for those unable to make other arrangements, likely to be a minibus, driver as the only adult present, no seat belts, cost estimated at .......
Problems in Infant Class Admissions: Kent on Sunday - 22 April 2012
On the surface, Kent primary school infant class placements, which took place at the end of March look well with a healthy 95% of children in Kent being offered one of their three choices, similar to last year. However, looking beneath the surface, a much more worrying picture emerges because of increased numbers in some areas as the number of children being allocated a school they hadn’t chosen has risen from 564 to 818 in two years, a frightening rise of 45%.
Analysis of the figures shows a sharp contrast between most of West Kent and most of East Kent and between urban and rural areas. Maidstone town is the most difficult area, with over 100 children allocated to schools they did not apply for and NO places free in any school in the town. Other problem areas include Tunbridge Wells with just 16 places left free out of the 920 available, and 75 children having none of their choices. 15 of those 16 free places are in Pembury School (just outside the town), and only exist as its capacity was expanded by 30 at short notice last year, to cater for the difficulties. Sevenoaks has 94 children allocated, 7 places left free; urban Dartford, 71 children allocated and 7 places left free; the Ramsgate area of Thanet, 65 children allocated, 8 places free, all in Bromstone Primary school in Broadstairs; Folkestone, 43 children allocated, 6 left free; and the area around Faversham with 37 children allocated.
Kent County Council, in a confidential analysis of issues produced in 2009, identified major problems for 2011 entry in Dartford, Gravesham, Thanet and Tunbridge Wells, some of these other issues being masked by rural parts of the districts having spare capacity. Sadly, little was done to alleviate the problems at a time when finances were easier. What is clear is that although Kent’s Primary Strategy of 2006 has a policy that there should be between 5-7% surplus capacity in an area, it has not planned to meet this policy. Where additional places have been added, too often these are last minute decisions and often in inappropriate schools. What we are seeing is an unwritten change of policy from trying to meet parental preferences, to a minimalist offering to children of a school somewhere, no matter how suitable.
Riverhead Infant School in Sevenoaks has soared to the top of the oversubscription table, turning away 54 first choices with the neighbouring Sevenoaks Primary School turning away 44 children, in fourth place. In between come Madginford Park in Maidstone, and Priory Infants, Ramsgate. In fifth place comes St James CofE VA Infant School, in Tunbridge Wells, then: Slade Primary, Tonbridge; Sandgate Primary, Folkestone; West Hill Primary, Dartford; St John's Catholic Primaryl, Gravesend; Joyden's Wood Infants, Dartford; St Peter's Methodist, Canterbury; Holy Trinity & St John's CofE Primary, Margate; St John's CofE Primary, Tunbridge Wells; St Stephen's Infant, Canterbury; Ethelbert Road Primary, Faversham; and St Mildred's Infants, Broadstairs. All these schools turned away 30 or more first choices.
At the other end of the table, 14 schools, nearly all in East Kent, have over half their places left empty. Three of these have all admitted fewer than 50% of their capacity for each of the last three years. How on earth can they remain viable? However, the political controversy over closing such schools is always intense, even if this would release resources to provide extra provision in places of greatest need. Further information on all the key pressure points at www.kentadvice.co.uk.
Primary School Admissions, 2012 pressures on places
I now have detailed information on Kent and Medway primary school admission offers for September 2012. On the surface, all looks well with a healthy 95% of children in Kent being offered one of their three choices, similar to last year. However, with rising rolls the number of children being allocated a school they hadn’t chosen has risen from 564 to 818 in two years, a worrying rise of 45%.
You will find more general information in a separate article below. I have started to provide more detailed information on difficult areas, via the links below.
Analysis of the figures shows a sharp contrast between most of West Kent and most of East Kent and between urban and rural areas. Maidstone town is the most difficult area, with over 100 children allocated to schools they did not apply for (you will find an earlier article on part of the problem here) and NO places free in any school in the town. Other problem areas include:........
Infant Class Legislation
INFANT CLASS LEGISLATION
The previous Labour government honoured an election pledge to reduce all Infant classes to 30 children by introducing what is called Infant Class Legislation that banned any class of over 30, except in certain very specific circumstances. Although the most recent Codes of Practice removed the sanctions for schools to keep to this legal requirement, it is rare that they are broken except in certain very specific circumstances. The rules are laid down in the School Admissions Code (SAC) and the School Admission Appeals Code (SAAC), both of which carry the force of law. The rules also apply to Academies.
Parents often puzzle over why they are allowed to appeal and informed of their rights so to do, when they actually stand no chance of success. Sadly, that is the way it is.
You will find a recent news item on this subject here.
The rules for Admissions.
Neither the school nor the Local Authority can offer more places than allowed by the Planned Admission Number, which you will find in the school or Local Authority Prospectus, except in very limited circumstances. SAC states:
2.61 The law does not require a child to start school until the start of the term following their fifth birthday. The date compulsory school age is reached is determined by dates set by the Secretary of State for the autumn, spring and summer terms. These are 31 August, 31 December and 31 March.
2.62 Infant classes (i.e. those where the majority of children will reach the age of 5, 6, or 7 during the school year) must not contain more than 30 pupils with a single school teacher. While admission can be refused on normal prejudice grounds once an admission number of lower than 30 (or multiples of 30) has been reached, admission must be refused on “infant class-size prejudice” grounds where the published admission number allows for classes of 30, and the school would have to take ‘qualifying’ measures to keep to the statutory class size limit if more children were admitted, e.g. employ another teacher.
2.63 The class size legislation makes allowance for the entry of an additional child in very limited circumstances where not to admit the child would be prejudicial to his or her interests (‘excepted pupils’). However, every effort must be made to keep over large classes to a minimum. These circumstances are where:
a) children with statements of special educational needs are admitted to the school outside the normal admissions round;
b) children move into the area outside the normal admissions round for whom there is no other available school within reasonable distance (admission authorities must check with local authorities before determining that a child falls into this category);
c) children admitted, after initial allocation of places on the local offer date, because the person responsible for making the original decision recognises that an error was made in implementing the school’s admission arrangements and that a place ought to have been offered;
d) children in care admitted outside the normal admissions round;
e) children admitted where an independent appeal panel upholds an appeal on the grounds that the child would have been offered a place if the admission arrangements had been properly implemented, and/or the admission authority’s decision to refuse a place was not one which a reasonable admission authority would have made in the circumstances of the case;
f) children are registered pupils at special schools and by arrangement with another school which is not a special school, receive part of their education at that other school;
g) children with special education needs who are registered pupils at a school which is not a special school and are normally educated in a special educational needs unit attached to that school, and attend, an infant class in the school (i.e. not in the unit), where this has been deemed as beneficial to the child.
2.64 Except in the case of f) and g), the child will remain an exception for any time they spend in an infant class at the mainstream school or outside the special educational needs unit. In all other circumstances the child will only remain an exception for the remainder of the school year in which they were admitted. Measures must be taken for the following year to ensure that the class falls within the infant class size limit.
The Rules for Appeals
Here SAAC states:
3.19 Where a child has been refused admission to a school on infant class size prejudice grounds, an appeal panel can only offer a place to a child where it is satisfied that either
a) the child would have been offered a place if the admission arrangements had been properly implemented;
b) the child would have been offered a place if the arrangements had not been contrary to mandatory provisions in the School Admissions Code and the SSFA 1998; and/or
c) the decision to refuse admission was not one which a reasonable admission authority would have made in the circumstances of the case.
The third of these cases is usually the one which parents seek to challenge and although it appears reasonably mild, it actually states that the appeal can only be upheld if the admission authority (school or Local Authority) could have gone outside the rules for admission (oversubscription criteria) for the child in question. This is exceedingly rare and relates back to the rules for admission. Many parents seek to challenge the rules themselves, on the grounds that they have a very powerful case for being admitted to that school and not the one they have been allocated and this should have taken priority over the rules, but this is not a valid argument.
The Code wants to leave Appeal Panel members in no doubt as to what 3.19 (b) means and goes on to clarify:
3.25 In order for a panel to determine that an admission authority’s decision to refuse admission was unreasonable, it will need to be satisfied that the decision to refuse to admit the particular child was “perverse in the light of the admission arrangements" i.e. it was “beyond the range of responses open to a reasonable decision maker” or “a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question could have arrived at it
Infant Class legislation does not apply only when there is a Planned Admission number of a multiple of 30. Some primary schools combine two different age groups into a class of 30. This can happen when the Planned Admission number is 15, or 20 or a multiple of these. The Code also covers these cases. Other arrangements include smaller reception classes feeding into classes of 30 in Years One and Two. Again the Code covers this case:
3.29 The panel must also consider whether admission of an additional child would cause future infant class size prejudice e.g. a school publishes an admission number of 60, admitting 20 children to three reception classes, which become two classes of 30 children in Years 1 and 2. Admission of a 61st child to reception would lead to one of the Year 1 classes exceeding the infant class size limit unless the school takes remedial measures, such as recruiting an additional teacher. Therefore there would be infant class size prejudice.
Possible reasons for appeal:
(1)you have exceptional circumstances - and if you don't know if your circumstances are exceptional, they almost certainly aren't! Those unlikely to be exceptional include some heart rending cases of difficulty of travel, poor schools allocated, parental commitments, and children heading off in different directions. None of these are likely to be accepted as reasons for AppealPanels to break the rules they are bound to follow.
(2) A second possibility is where Infant Class Legislation does not apply, for example when instead of the normal class size of 30 children, the intake is not a multiple of 10 or 15 (these two numbers allow mixed age classes of 30).
(3) Some church schools where the oversubscriptiuon rules have been loosely drawn up, and contain flaws.
(4) a mistake has been made and a child who is lower down the preference list than you, has been offered a place.
(5) A family has been offered a place on fraudulent evidence. This can be withdrawn, creating a vacant space.
65) a very small number of academies may be prepared to break the rules!
DON'T FORGET TO PUT YOUR NAME ON THE WAITING LIST OF YOUR PREFERRED SCHOOLS.
Admissions Fraud
Last updated July 2017
Fraudulent Admission applications occur for places in both Primary and secondary schools and in every Local Authority in the country, including both Kent and Medway.
I believe this is a growing problem, and what is seen is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. The reasons for this are often through desperation, as parents seek either to secure a place at the best school in the area, or a suitable school when faced with unpalatable alternatives. As such, one can understand their motives, but this is grossly unfair to those children and families who play by the rules.
There are now two sanctions which are applied for applicants who are caught out making a fraudulent application. The first is the simple one of cancelling the application which can cause the perpetrator significant problems in securing an alternative place, or else cancelling a place at the school even if the child has taken up a place there. The second is for the Local Authority, or presumably the school Governing Body for a Foundation school or Academy, to initiate a prosecution as happened in two alleged cases in Harrow and Poole. Neither of these were successful for whatever reason, and may have inhibited other Authorities from taking similar action, but the problem remains.
I am regularly approached about this issue and will not advise on how to obtain a place at a school fraudulently. On the other hand, I have successfully supported clients who have found out about a fraudulent application, to see it cancelled to enhance the chances of honest families to secure a place at their chosen school. I am also happy to pass on information on this issue anonymously to the appropriate authorities.
Currently I am aware of only one Admission Authority, the Governing Body of Tunbridge Wells Girls Grammar School, which routinely carries out checks on applicants, an initiative I applaud for a massively popular school in an area where it is evident that some families do take out short term leases to attempt to secure school places. However, I anticipate that the practice of attempting to obtain school places by fraudulent means will grow.
The Schools Adjudicator carried out an enquiry into the practice of Fraudulent Admission to schools in 2009. He found some small and medium sized Local Authorities considered they had more than 100 identified fraudulent applications, whilst others, including large LAs, had none. In the same period KCC had 13 reported cases, of which most were dismissed. My own observations in the intervening years, suggest the problem has ballooned.
I consider Kent has two weaknesses in its procedure. The first lies in its delegation of discovering fraud to individual schools (I believe most cases of attempted fraud occur in primary schools), most of which do not have the resources to investigate such issues. The second is Kent's loose definition of place of residence when compared with some other authorities, which I have taken up with the Council but to no avail. Update July 2017: After years of lobbying by me, Kent now has a much tighter definition of residence for its own primary schools. Other schools should take note, but don't, some because they simply don;t want to know.
The most common method of fraud identified was the use of addresses of relatives, the next being the taking up of short term leases or rental agreements on houses with no intention of living there. Update July 2017: I believe the latter is now the most common although I only have circumstantial evidence for this through the examples I have come across.
Pressure on Kent Primary Reception Class Places
Medway Primary Schools
Updated May 2019
Entries on this page include the OFSTED Grade for each Primary School updated twice a year, also recording change from previous Inspection result, together with some other relevant information below. It is worth using the search engine on the Home Page to pick up other references to individual schools.
You will find advice on Primary school Admissions and Appeals here.
You can read the full Report on each Primary School at OFSTED. Each school is awarded a main Grade: Outstanding, Good, Requires Improvement (previously Satisfactory), and Inadequate (two sub categories - A school that has serious weaknesses is inadequate overall and requires significant improvement but leadership and management are judged to be Grade 3 or better - A school that requires special measures is one where the school is failing to give its pupils an acceptable standard of education and the school’s leaders, managers or governors have not demonstrated that they have the capacity to secure the necessary improvement in the school). Each Report carries a brief description of the school before justifying its decision in more detail. If a school is in Special Measures or Serious Weaknesses, the results of further monitoring visits are noted.
A majority of the schools that have previously had a 'Good' or 'Outstanding' assessment are given a Short Inspection (known as Section 8). These are indicated by 'Good (S). These will be confirmed in their assessment grade. However for some of these schools, the Inspection Team may consider that there are concerns, or in the case of a Good school, grounds for raising the Grade and this can only be done by a full Section Five Grade. These are recorded for example as 'Outstanding (SC) or 'Good (SR).
You will find an analysis of oversubscription and vacancies for Medway Primary Places for September 2020 Admissions here, 2019 Admissions here, 2018 Admissions here, for 2017 here, and for 2016 here. These each contain considerable additional material on many of the Medway primary schools.
Reports on Inspections between between September 2019 and April 2020 are in the first table, followed by other tables containing older ones. With all schools closed by Coronavirus after Friday 20th March, any inspections not published by that date will be held over until the re-opening. Whether there are any further school inspections this school year, will be up to government, but I consider it unlikely, as even if they do it will be on a very different basis to normal.
(A) Indicates the school is an Academy (2017 onwards)
|
MEDWAY PRIMARY SCHOOL OFSTED REPORTS
Sep 2019 - Apr 2020
|
|||
| School | OFSTED Grade | Date | Change |
| CHATHAM | |||
| All Faiths Children's Academy (A) | Good | Jan 20 | Up one |
| Kingfisher (A) | Good | Sep 2019 | Up one |
| Phoenix Junior (A) | Requires Improvement | Dec 19 | Down One |
| St Michael's RC | Good (S) | Nov 19 | No change |
|
GILLINGHAM |
|||
| Napier (A) | Good | Dec 19 | Up one |
| Saxon Way (A) | Good | Jan 20 | No change |
| Woodlands (A) | Good | Dec 19 | No change |
| HOO | |||
| Stoke (A) | Good | Jan 20 | Up one |
| RAINHAM | |||
| Riverside (A) | Good | Nov 19 | No change |
| St Margaret's Infant | Good (S) | Feb 20 | No change |
| Thames View (A) | Good (S) | Jan 20 | No change |
| ROCHESTER | |||
| Crest Infant | Good | Feb 20 | No change |
| Warren Wood | Good | Oct 19 | Up one |
| STROOD | |||
| No Inspections in this period | |||
|
MEDWAY PRIMARY SCHOOL OFSTED REPORTS
Sep 2018 - Jul 2019
|
|||
| School | OFSTED Grade | Date | Change |
| CHATHAM | |||
| All Saints CofE | Good (S) | Jul 19 | No change |
| Luton Infant | Requires Improvement | Oct 18 | No change |
| St Benedict's Catholic | Good (S) | May 19 | No change |
| Swingate (A) | Good (S) | Nov 18 | No change |
| Walderslade (A) | Good (S) | Nov 18 | No change |
| Wayfield (A) | Good | May 19 | Up two |
|
GILLINGHAM |
|||
| Balfour Junior (A) | Good (S) | Dec 18 | No change |
| Brompton-Westbrook (A) | Good (S) | Jan 19 | No change |
| Byron (A) | Requires Improvement | Sep 18 | Up one |
| Deanwood (A) | Good (S) | Nov 18 | No change |
| Fairview | Good (S | Apr 19 | No change |
| Hempsted Infant | Good | Sep 18 | Up one |
| Lordswood (A) | Good | Jan 19 | Up one |
| Twydall (A) |
Effective Action After
Serious Weaknesses
|
Mar 19 | |
| HOO | |||
| Allhallows (A) | Good | Jun 2019 | No change |
| Hoo St Werbergh (A) | Good (S) | Sep 18 | No change |
| St Helen's CofE | Good (S) | Jun 19 | No change |
| RAINHAM | |||
| Parkwood Infant | Good (S) | Feb 19 | No change |
| ROCHESTER | |||
| Balfour Infant | Good (S) | Jun 19 | No change |
| Balfour Junior (A) | Good (S) | Jan 19 | No change |
| Chattenden (A) | Good (S) | Nov 18 | No change |
| St Peter's Infant | Good | Dec 18 | No change |
| STROOD | |||
| Cedar Children's(A) | Good | Jun 2019 | Up one |
| Temple Mill (A) | Good | Oct 18 | Up two |
|
MEDWAY
PRIMARY SCHOOL OFSTED REPORTS 2017-18
|
|||
| School | OFSTED Grade | Date | Change |
| CHATHAM | |||
| All Saints CofE (A) | Good | Jun 18 | No change |
| Horsted Junior | Good | Mar 18 | No change |
| Luton Junior | Outstanding | Sep 17 | Up one |
| Oaklands | Good | Feb 18 | Up one |
| St John's CofE Infant (A) | Good | Jun 18 | No change |
| St Mary's Island CofE (Aided) | Good | Mar 18 | No change |
|
GILLINGHAM |
|||
| Burnt Oak | Requires Improvement | Jun 18 | Down One |
| Hempstead Junior | Good | Jun 18 | No change |
| Napier Community (A) | Requires Improvement | Oct 17 |
No change |
| St Mary's Catholic | Good | Oct 17 | No change |
| Twydall (A) | Serious Weaknesses | Jul 18 | No change |
| HOO | |||
| High Halstow (A) | Good | Jan 18 | No change |
| St James CofE Primary (A) | Good | Jan 18 | No change |
| Stoke Community (A) | Requires Improvement | Sep 17 | No change |
| RAINHAM | |||
| St Augustine of Canterbury Catholic (A) | Good | Jun 18 | No change |
| St Margaret's CofE Junior (A) | Good | Jul 18 | No change |
| St Thomas of Canterbury RC | Good | Jan 18 | No change |
| ROCHESTER | |||
| St William of Perth (A) | Good | May 18 | No change |
| STROOD | |||
| All Faith's Children's Community (A) | Requires Improvement | Nov 17 | Down One |
| English Martys Catholic | Good | Feb 18 | No change |
|
MEDWAY
PRIMARY SCHOOL OFSTED REPORTS 2016-17
|
|||
| School | OFSTED Grade | Date | Change |
| CHATHAM | |||
| Kingfisher Community | Requires Improvement | Jul 17 | No change |
|
Requires Improvement
|
Oct 16
|
No change | |
| New Horizons Children's Academy | Good | May 17 | First inspection |
| New Road Primary | Good | Jun 17 | Up one |
|
GILLINGHAM |
|||
| Inadequate |
Mar 17
|
Down one
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| HOO | |||
|
Outstanding
|
Sept 16
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| RAINHAM | |||
| Park Wood Junior | Good |
Mar 17
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ROCHESTER | |||
| Delce Junior | Requires Improvement | Mar 2017 | Down one |
|
Good
|
Feb 17
|
Up two
|
|
| Good | Feb 17 | No change | |
| Cuxton Community Infant | Good | Feb 17 | No change |
| Cuxton Community Junior | Good | Jul 17 | Up two |
| Warren Wood Primary Academy | Requires Improvement | Jun 17 | Up one |
| Wainscott Primary | Good | Jun 17 | Up one |
| STROOD | |||
| No schools inspected |
|
|
|
| MEDWAY PRIMARY OFSTED 2015-16 | |||
| School | OFSTED Grade | Date | Change |
| CHATHAM | |||
| Balfour Infants | Good | Nov 15 | No Change |
| Balfour Juniors | Good | Oct 15 | No Change |
| Horsted Infant | Outstanding | Jun 16 | Up one |
| Luton Infant | Requires Improvement | May 16 | No change |
| Oaklands | Requires Improvement | Jan 16 | No change |
| Phoenix Junior Academy | Good | May 16 | No change |
| St Michael's RC | Good | Jan 16 | Up one |
| Wayfield Primary (A) | Special Measures | May 16 | Down two |
|
GILLINGHAM |
|||
| Barnsole | Outstanding | Mar 16 | Up two |
| Hempstead Infant | Requires Improvement | May 16 | No change |
| Hempstead Junior** | Section 8 Emergency Inspection | Jan 16 | |
| Oasis Skinner Street (A)* | Effective Action to Remove SM | Dec 15 | |
| Effective Action to Remove SM | Mar 16 | ||
| Good | Jun 16 | Up two | |
| Saxon Way Primary (A) | Good | Jun 16 | Up two |
| Woodlands Academy | Good | Jan 16 | No change |
| HOO | |||
| Hoo St Werburgh | Good | Jan 16 | Up one |
| St Helen's CofE, Cliffe | Good | Nov 15 | Up One |
| RAINHAM | |||
| St Margaret's Infants | Good | Mar 16 | No change |
| ROCHESTER | |||
| Delce Infant | Good | Jun 16 | Up one |
| Hilltop, Frindsbury | Good | Feb 16 | Up one |
| STROOD | |||
| Elaine Primary Academy | Requires Improvement | Jun 16 | No change |
| Temple Mill | Effective Action to Remove SM |
Sep 15 | |
* Oasis Skinner Street, see article here.
Hempstead Junior** See articles here,
| MEDWAY PRIMARY OFSTEDS 2014-15 | |||
| School | OFSTED Grade | Date | Change |
| CHATHAM | |||
| Greenvale Infants | Reasonable progress to removal of SW | Nov 14 | |
| Requires Improvement | May 15 | Up one | |
| Kingfisher (A) | Requires Improvement | Jun 15 | Up one |
| New Road | Requires Improvement | Jun 15 | No change |
| St John's CofE Infant | Good | Mar 15 | Up one |
| St Benedict's RC |
Good | Jul 15 | No change |
| Swingate |
Good | Nov 14 | Down one |
|
GILLINGHAM |
|||
| Brompton-Westbrook (A) | Good | Feb 15 | No change |
| Burnt Oak | Good | Mar 15 | Up one |
| Byron** |
Reasonable progress to removal of SM | Feb 15 | |
| Insufficient Progress to removal of SM | May 15 | ||
| Fairview Community | Good | Jun 15 | Up one |
| Featherby Junior | Requires Improvement | Jan 15 | No change |
| Miers Court | Good | Mar 15 | No change |
| Oasis Skinner Street (A)* | Special Measures | May 15 | Down one |
| Park Wood Infant | Good | Mar 15 | No change |
| Rivermead | Good | Sep 14 | No change |
| Thamesview | Good | Jun 15 | Up one |
| Twydall** |
School not enough progress to removal of SM.
School improvement plan remains unfit for purpose.
|
Oct 14 | |
| Reasonable progress to Removal of SM | Jan 15 | ||
| Reasonable progress to Removal of SM | Mar 15 | ||
| Reasonable Progress to removal of SM | May 15 | ||
| Walderslade | Good | May 15 | Up one |
| HOO | |||
| All Hallows (A) | Good | Jun 15 | Up two |
| Cliffe Woods (A) | Outstanding | Mar 15 | |
| RAINHAM | |||
| ROCHESTER | |||
| Bligh Infants | Outstanding | Jul 15 | Up one |
| Chattenden | Good | Nov 14 | No change |
| Pilgrim | Outstanding | Mar 15 | Up one |
| St Peter's Infants | Good | Dec 14 | No change |
| Temple Mill**** |
Special Measures | Oct 14 | Down one |
|
LA Statement of Action fit for purpose
School Action Plan not fit for purpose
|
Jan 15 | ||
| Insufficient Progress to Remove SM | Apr 15 | ||
| STROOD | |||
| Cedar | Requires Improvement | Jun 15 | No change |
| Wainscott | Good | Mar 15 | Down one |
* Oasis Skinner Street, see article here.
**Byron, see article here.
*** Twydall, most recent article here.
**** Temple Mill, most recent mention here.
| MEDWAY PRIMARY OFSTEDS 2013-14 | |||
| School | OFSTED Grade | Date | Change |
| CHATHAM | |||
| Balfour Junior | Requires Improvement | Sep 13 | Down One |
| Greenvale Infants | Serious Weaknesses | Jan 14 | Down two |
| Good progress since SW | July 14 | ||
| Horsted Junior | Good | Apr 14 | Up one |
| Luton Infant | Requires Improvement | Mar 14 | Down one |
| Oaklands | Requires Improvement | Oct 13 | No Change |
| St Mary's Island CofE (Aided) | Reasonable progress following SM | Nov 13 | |
| Good | Mar 14 | Up two | |
| St Michael's RC | Requires Improvement | Oct 13 | No change |
| Walderslade | Insufficient Progress following RI | Sep 13 | |
| GILLINGHAM | |||
| Barnsole | Requires Improvement | Dec 13 | Down one |
| Byron | Special Measures | Jan 14 | Down two |
|
local authority statement of action is fit for purpose. |
May 14 | ||
| Featherby Infant | Good | Feb 14 | No change |
| Hempstead Junior | Good | Oct 13 | No change |
| Hempstead Infant | Requires Improvement | Feb 14 | Down one |
| Napier Community |
failure to make required improvements
from previous OFSTED (see below)
|
Oct 13 | |
| repeated failure to make required improvements | Jan 14 | ||
| Twydall Primary (see below) | Special Measures | Mar 14 | Down two |
|
LA Statement of Action fit for purpose following SM
School Action Plan not fit for purpose
|
Jun 14 | ||
|
|
|||
| HOO | |||
| High Halstow | Good | Jul 14 | Up one |
| Hoo St Werburgh | Requires Improvement | Oct 13 | No change |
| St Helen's CofE | Requires Improvement | Oct 13 | No change |
| St James' CofE Primary Academy | Good | May 14 | Up two |
| RAINHAM | |||
| St Augustine of Canterbury Catholic | Good | Nov 13 | No change |
| St Margaret's CofE VC | Good | Dec 13 | No change |
| ROCHESTER | |||
| Cuxton Junior
|
Special Measures | Oct 13 | Down one |
|
Local Authority Statement of Action not fit for purpose
School Improvement Plan not fit for purpose
|
Dec 13 | ||
|
Local Authority Statement of Action not fit for purpose
School Improvement Plan not fit for purpose
|
Mar 14 | ||
| Reasonable Progress in removing SM | Jul 14 | ||
| Hilltop | Requires Improvement | Nov 13 | Down one |
| St Margaret's at Troy Town CofE | Good | Sep 13 | Up one |
| St William of Perth RC | Good | Mar 14 | Up one |
| Warren Wood Community | Special Measures | Dec 13 | Down one |
|
local authority statement of action fit for purpose. |
Apr 14 |
||
| STROOD | |||
| Elaine Primary Academy | Requires Improvement | May 14 | No change |
| English Martyr's Catholic | Good | Nov 13 | No change |
| Gordon Infant Good | Good | Dec 13 | No change |
| Gordon Junior | Reasonable prog in Removing SW | Nov 13 | |
You will find my views on Medway Council's oversight of its primary schools and their poor performance at OFSTED here.
| MEDWAY PRIMARY OFSTEDS 2012-13 | |||
| School | OFSTED Grade | Date | Change |
| CHATHAM | |||
|
Kingfisher
(see below)
|
Special Measures | Mar 13 | Down one |
| Satisfactory progress from SM | Jun 13 | ||
| Luton Junior | Good | Jan 13 | Up one |
| Maundene | Good | Sep 12 | No change |
| New Road | Satisfactory progress from SM | Sep 12 | |
| Good progress from SM | Jan 13 | ||
| Requires Improvement | Jun 13 | Up one | |
| St John's CofE VC Infant | Requires Improvement | Mar 13 | No change |
| St Mary's Island | Special Measures | Nov 12 | Down one |
| Satisfactory progress from SM | May 13 | ||
| St Thomas More Catholic | Outstanding | Feb 13 | Up one |
|
Wayfield Community |
Good | Jan 13 | Up one |
| Walderslade | Requires Improvement | Jun 13 | No change |
|
GILLINGHAM |
|||
|
Barnsole
|
Monitoring Insp: Not enough progress
|
Feb 13
|
|
|
Brompton-Westbrook
|
Good
|
Nov 12
|
Up one
|
| Burnt Oak | Requires Improvement | Feb 13 | No change |
| Deanwood | Good | Sep 12 | Up one |
| Fairview Community | Requires Improvement | Jun 13 | Down one |
| Featherby Junior | Requires Improvement | Mar 13 | No change |
| Napier Community | Requires Improvement | Jun 13 | No change |
| Riverside | Good | Nov 12 | Up one |
|
Saxon Way
(see below)
|
Satisfactory progress from SM
|
Dec 12
|
|
| Satisfactory progress from SM | Mar 13 | ||
| Not enough progress from SM | Jun 13 | ||
| Skinner Street | Requires Improvement | Feb 13 | No change |
| St Mary's Catholic | Good | Jan 13 | No change |
| St Thomas of Canterbury | Good | Mar 13 | No change |
| Twydall | Good | Oct 12 | 1st inspection Academy |
| HOO | |||
|
All Hallows
(see below)
|
Special Measures | Mar 13 | Down one |
| Satisfactory progress from SM | Jun 13 | ||
| High Halstow | Requires Improvement | Oct 12 | 1st Inspection Academy |
| Stoke Community | Requires Improvement | Jun 13 | No change |
| RAINHAM | |||
| Park Wood Junior | Good | Jan 13 | Good |
| Thames View | Requires Improvement | Jun 13 | No change |
| Walderslade | Requires Improvement | Jun 13 | No change |
| ROCHESTER | |||
| Bligh Junior | Good | Feb 13 | Up one |
| Halling | Satisf progr from NtoI | Oct 12 | |
| Requires Improvement | May 13 | Up one | |
| St William of Perth RC | Requires Improvement | Nov 12 | No change |
| STROOD | |||
| All Faith's Children's Community | Good | Jun 13 | No change |
| Gordon Junior | Serious Weaknesses | Jan 13 | Down one |
| Satisfactory progress from SW | Jun 13 | ||
| St Nicholas CofE Infant | Outstanding | Jan 13 | Up one |
| Sherwin Knight Infant | Requires Improvement | Dec 12 | No change |
| Sherwin Knight Junior | Serious Weaknesses | Nov 12 | Down One |
| Reasonable progress to remove SW | May 13 (see note below) | ||
| Temple Mill | Requires Improvement | Feb 13 | No change |
Sherwin Knight Junior School is about to close and be absorbed into the Infant School which is extending its age range. Medway Council was criticised in the latest OFSTED Inspection for not monitoring or challenging the school sufficiently through a period of change. For instance, it has not asked leaders how pupils’ learning is going to be protected while the process of improving teaching takes place (quite important I would have thought).
Saxon Way Primary School, Kingfisher Community Primary School and Lordswood School are all to be taken over by the Griffin Schools Trust as sponsored academies in September 2013.
All Hallows Primary is becoming an academy as part of the Williamson Trust in September 2013, joining High Halstow and Elaine Primary Academy.
Twydall Primary School has been the subject of controversy following a proposal for it to become a Sponsored Academy (July 14)
| School | OFSTED Grade | Date | |
| All Hallows Primary, Hoo | Satisfactory | Jun 2011 | |
| Balfour Junior | Good | Sep 2010 | |
| Barnsole Junior, Gillingham | Notice to Improve | Nov 2011 | Good Progress Jul 2012 |
| Brompton-Westbrook Primary | Satisfactory | Dec 2010 | |
| Burnt Oak Primary, Gillingham | Inadequate progress | Jun 2011 | Monitoring inspection of Grade 3 schools |
| Byron Primary, Gillingham | Good | Mar 2011 | |
| Chattenden Primary | Good | Jul 2010 | |
| Cuxton Community Infant | Good | Jan 2012 | |
| Cuxton Community Junior | Satisfactory | Feb 2011 | |
| Deanwood Primary, Gillingham | Satisfactory | Mar 2011 | |
| Delce Junior | Good | Jul 2010 | |
| Elaine Primary, Rochester | Satisfactory | Jan 2011 | |
| Fairview Community Primary | Good | May 2010 | |
| Featherby Infant |
Good | Sep 2010 | |
| Featherby Junior, Gillingham | Satisfactory | Jan 2011 | |
| Glencoe Junior, Chatham | Inadequate progress | Mar 2011 | Not an inspection, but an Interim monitoring of Grade 3 schools |
| Gordon Junior | Special Measures | Jun 2009 | Good Progress Jun 2010 |
| Gordon Junior | Satisfactory | Nov 2010 | Removed from Special Measures |
| Greenvale Infant, Chatham | Good | Jun 2011 | |
| Halling Primary | Notices to Improve | Feb 2012 | |
| Hempstead Infant, Gillingham | Good | Jun 2011 | |
| Horsted Infant, Chatham | Good | Feb 2012 | |
| Horsted Junior, Chatham | Satisfactory | Feb 2012 | |
| Lordswood School | Satisfactory | May 2012 | |
| Luton Infant and Nursery, Chatham | Good | May 2011 | |
| Luton Junior | Good | Nov 2010 | |
| Miers Court Primary, Gillingham | Good | Nov 2011 | |
| Oaklands Infant Chatham | Notice to Improve | Nov 2010 | see below |
| Oaklands Infant Chatham | Satisfactory | Dec 11 | |
| Oaklands Junior | Satisfactory | Nov 2010 | |
| Napier Community Infant & Nursery, Gillingham | Satisfactory | Feb 2011 | |
| New Road School & Nursery Unit, Chatham | Special Measures | Oct 2011 | Satisfactory progress, Feb 2012, good progress May 2012 |
| Saxon Way Primary, Gillingham | Special Measures | Jun 2012 | |
| St Benedict's RC Primary | Good | Jun 2010 | |
| St Helen's CofE Primary, Cliffe | Satisfactory | Feb 2012 | |
| St James CofE VA Primary, Grain | Special Measures | Dec 2010 | Satisf Progress May 2011, See below |
| St James CofE VA Primary, Grain | Satisfactory | Jul 2012 | see above |
| St Margaret's CofE Junior, Rainham |
Notice to Improve | Sep 2009 | Inadequate Progress Feb 2009 (see below) |
| St Margaret's CofE Junior, Rainham | Good | Nov 2010 | Removed from Special Measures |
| St Margaret's Infant School, Rainham | Good | Jun 2011 | |
| St Margaret's at Troy Town CofE VC, Rochester | Satisfactory | Jan 2012 | |
| St Mary's Island CofE (Aided) Primary | Satisfactory | Jan 2011 | |
| St Michael's RC Primary, Chatham | Satisfactory | Nove 2011 | |
| St Peter's Infant, Rochester | Good | Mar 2011 | |
| St William of Perth RC Primary | Satisfactory | Jul 2010 | |
| Sherwin Knight Infant, Strood | Satisfactory | Jun 2010 | |
| Sherwin Knight Infant, | Inadequate Progress | Sep 2011 | Monitoring Inspection of Grade 3 schools |
| Skinner Street Junior | Special Measures | Jun 2009 | Good progress July 2010 |
| Skinner Street Junior, Gillingham | Satisfactory | Jan 2011 | Removed from Special Measures |
| Spinnens Acre Community Junior | Notice to Improve | Sep 2009 | Inadequate Progress May 2010 |
| Spinnens Acre Community Junior, Chatham | Special Measures | Oct 2010 | Satisfactory Progress Mar 2011. Good progress Dec 2011, see below |
| Spinnens Acre Community Junior, Chatham | Satisfactory | Mar 2012 | see above |
| Temple Mill Junior | Satisfactory | Nov 2010 | |
| Thames View Junior , Rainham | Satisfactory | Feb 2011 | |
| Twydall Junior, Gillingham | Good | Mar 2011 | |
| Walderslade Primary | Satisfactory | Sep 2010 | |
| Wainscott Primary | Good | Mar 2012 | |
| Warren Wood Community Primary, Rochester |
Special Measures | Jul 2009 | Inadequate Progress Jul 2010 & Sep 2010, Satisfactory Progress Mar 2011 |
| Warren Wood Community Primary, Rochester | Satisfactory | Jun 2011 | |
| Wayfield Primary, Chatham | Satisfactory | Sep 2010 | Inadequate progress, Monitoring Inspection, Mar 2012 |
| Woodlands Infant | Good | Nov 2010 |
Admission Comments for September 2012 entry (Written March 2012)
The general Medway picture on Infant Class admissions for the last three years is as follows.
| 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | ||||
| No of Medway Pupils | % |
No of Medway pupils |
% | No of pupils | % | |
| Offered a named Medway school | 2980 | 97.0 | 2842 | 97.4 | 2873 | 96.0 |
| Offered first preference | 2731 | 88.9 | 2678 | 91.8 | 2775 | 92.7 |
| Offered second preference | 184 | 6.0 | 127 | 4.3 | 98 | 3.3 |
| Offered third preference | 52 | 1.7 | 31 | 1.1 | ||
| Offered fourth pref | 13 | 0.4 | 6 | 0.2 | ||
| Allocated by Medway | 90 | 3.0 | 75 | 2.5 | 107 |
3.6 |
| Total of applications | 3071 | 2917 | 2980 | |||
The number of Medway children offered a place at a non-Medway school is 73, with 42 non-Medway children offered places in Medway primary schools, all of these were a preference expressed by the parent/carer. Most of these will have been in the Walderslade area, where the county boundary crosses the M2.
The percentage of Medway reception aged children being offered one of their four named schools is 97.0% slightly down from 97.4% last year. These figures will always be higher than those of Kent, who only allow parents to name three schools. However, the number who were not offered their first choice has risen significantly from 7.3% in 2010, to 8.2% in 2011, to 11.1% this year. This year's increase will be down to the 5% rise in pupil numbers for 2012 Year R.
Pupil rolls at Year R in Medway have been falling for many years, bottoming out in 2011, and figures are reported to show increases each year from now on for the next three years (all years that children have been born and can be counted). In 2010, Ridge View Primary School in Chatham was controversially closed and many parents have expressed unhappiness at the lack of provision this year, as revealed by the fall in proportion of first choices offered. As a result of the closure, the number of places has fallen by 60 to 3336, whilst the Medway Reception age group has risen by 154 children, an effective reduction in 217 places.
This still leaves just 3% of Medway children being allocated a school not of their choice, 33 of the 90 concerned being in Chatham, to Luton Infants School, the only school in Chatham left with any vacancies, and where the key pressure can be seen . This suggests that the closure of Ridge View was a mistake, with St John's Infants, which also came close to being closed, being full. No other school in Medway received more than 7 allocations. What is clear from the parental preferences is their quite understandable wish to avoid their children attending the 30% of Medway primary schools that are, or have been, failed by OFSTED.
Most oversubscribed school was Balfour Infants, with 41 first choices turned away, followed by All Saints CofE Primary with 34, then: Fairview Community Primary; The Pilgrim; Miers Court Primary; and Twydall Primary, all with more than 15 first choices rejected.
The Hoo Peninsula primary schools have the highest vacancy rate between them, with 18% of places empty, compared with 3% in Chatham and 9% overall across Medway. Four schools, all with a Satisfactory OFSTED are at least half empty.
In Year Admissions
There are various reasons parents want their children to change schools outside the normal transfer frameworks, both in the primary and secondary school sectors. The enormous scale of in-year admissions can be seen from KCC figures for applications between 1st September 2012 - 11 June 2013, when there were 9902 applications for primary aged children and 3020 for those of secondary age (these figures are not available for subsequent years as schools now handle their own in-year admissions - see below).
The most common is moving house: expatriates moving back from foreign countries; children of UK service personnel or crown servants returning home; those moving into Kent or Medway from another county, or those moving within the area.
There are also parents unhappy with their child’s current school or those seeking a grammar school place post the 11 plus or currently attending a non-selective school, or those simply looking for what they perceive as a ‘better’ school.
Some parents are unhappy with the primary or secondary school allocated during the normal school admissions process and wish to apply for fresh schools additional to those on their application form.
Finally (I think) those whose children have been home-schooled or attending a private school and, for a variety of reasons wish them to take up a place in a state school.
Moving House
· Proof of residence is often the key sticking point for those moving house.
Chances of success if the school is full will vary enormously, depending on the pressure on places.
Medway Council staff have a habit of offering different advice to different enquirers.
The following are not in-year admissions and will require you to apply through the normal processes:
- entry to reception until the end of term 2
- transfer to a junior school until the end of term 2
- transfer to year 7 until the end of term 2
If you follow the link to 'transfer to Year 7', it takes you back to Apply for a secondary school place, at the foot of which you will find:
If you apply for a school place after the closing date, your application will only be considered if you can provide a good reason, for example:
- serious illness
- bereavement
- late move to the Medway area
If you miss the closing date you can still submit an application up to 5pm on 4 December 2020 with a letter explaining why you missed the closing date. We'll decide if late applications received by 4 December 2020 can be accepted. Any applications not accepted as on-time or received after 4 December 2020 will be held pending until we process late applications from 19 April 2021.
If you follow the link provided, it takes you to a fairly random page including a section on
