Talk:Holmer Green
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
12 plus
[edit]I have reverted the recent edit as it relates not uniquely to Holmer Green but to every Bucks village article. The scheme is in any case very limited in application only applying specifically to children entering the catchment area post year 7 not as implied in the edit anyway. I have suggested in edit commnt that a reference on Education section of Buckinghamshire article which needs some development antway or at Buckinghamshire#Education or possibly Grammar Schools#Contemporary British grammar schools is the correct place Tmol42 (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Bucks County Council use the term Late Transfer Procedure Testing, and it applies to children within catchment who wish to change school during KS3 (years 7, 8 & 9) as well as to children moving into the county. I agree that it is a generic subject and would be better covered in the Buckinghamshire article. ~ Scribble Monkey (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Or even better in a separate Education in Buckinghamshire article. -- roleplayer 14:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- As you may have gathered, I disagree with some of that. The late transfer procedure is not, as has been suggested, only for those children entering catchment post year 7. It is for any child already in Year 7 (that's the first year of secondary school) who wishes to apply, AND who is then given permission to sit the 12+ (or 13+) test on the basis of SAT test results, AND who then qualifies. If they do qualify, they still face the hurdle of actually being awarded a place. Although the 12+ is run on very similar lines to the 11+, it is basically a clearing system for the small number of places left over after the 11+ places are awarded. In other words, a child can fail to qualify for grammar school in Year 6, they then go to an upper school in Year 7. While there, they apply for, sit, qualify and possibly win a place under the 12+ rules. They will take their grammar school place at the start of Year 8 alongside the children they used to share a class with in Year 6 (who passed the 11+).
- Why that single line is worth a mention (IMHO) in the HG article is because, as you've probably guessed by now, in practice many children do not get awarded a grammar school place at 12+ (or they are awarded a place at a grammar school that is impractically far away) despite qualifying. There are whole swathes of Bucks which are not 'good places' to be when it comes to 12+ allocation (e.g. the M40 corridor from Stokenchurch to Wycombe to Marlow where some 12+ candidates struggle to get a grammar school place, particularly for girls. Parts of North Bucks are similarly poorly served). You will find examples on the elevenplusexams.co.uk Bucks forum of people who miss out on 12+ places.
- Holmer Green is in something of a 'hot spot' for both 11+ and, to a lesser extent, 12+. Boys can usually get into John Hampden (though not this year) and boys and girls can usually get into Chesham High. Given that the article already talks about the various school choices available in Holmer Green, it seemed fairly harmless to add a single line on 12+ prospects.
- I will however agree that a long article could be written about the vagaries of the Bucks system. I may well be happy to volunteer when I have more time but would need help on what to call it, how to categorise it etc etc... I hope that clarifies my position - it was admittedly getting difficult to explain that in the Edit Summaries ~ Proteus4 (talk) 1 June 2009 17:27 —Preceding undated comment added 16:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC).
- Without being able to cite the Bucks CC policy and its specific relevance to HG the reference is still not wholly demonstrateable. E.g. if you are going to cite Chesham High I would use some published statistics otherwise it is falling foul of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. In in any case the issue would be better placed as I think we all all agree on a specific section of a more general Bucks article to which you could then refer to those areas that have issues and link to from the HG site. I do think though you should drop reference to 12+ which is confusing as it is not used by Bucks CC and for everybody else would relate to the old 12+ scheme which still operates in some other counties. As you might guess I also live in bucks not that far away from Holmer Green and the issues of difficulty for parents to get their children into the school of their choice is widespread across the whole of Bucks in those locations which are away from towns where the popular schools are all located. I will not interfere anymore but hope you take these thoughts on board and am happy to coopersate on improving or creating an article elsewhere relating to Bucks Education Tmol42 (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Those are valid points. The access to Chesham High at 12+ (I'll come back to the point about "12+") does have some real evidence to support the anecdotal. If you look here (http://www.holmergreenparents.info/11twelveandthirteen.htm), it shows that in 2 out of 3 years, local children were awarded places. It will be too early for an FOI for this year's data but it is already clear that Chesham High places were awarded to 12+ applicants over quite a wide area including all of HG.....probably because there were an even higher number of spare places than usual - 50 to be precise (see within here: http://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum/11plus/viewtopic.php?t=8123&sid=127a1b749fecd35fb7450275465e5dd7). So that will be 3 out of 4 years and I believe - OK slipping into anecdotal here - that the 'difficult year' of 2007 was unusual.
- I presume the data on the HG parents site is based on earlier data from BucksCC as is provided in the 2009 late transfer procedure document. If so you could use this as a cite at a pinch although as it does not say where the data quoted is from as far as I could see the pdfs from Bucks would be the proper secondary source. I guess you may have these but alternatively I bet they are still floating around the Bucks CC site. The forum site is out as far as satisfyng WP:RS even though it looks reasonably well researched.Tmol42 (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Those are valid points. The access to Chesham High at 12+ (I'll come back to the point about "12+") does have some real evidence to support the anecdotal. If you look here (http://www.holmergreenparents.info/11twelveandthirteen.htm), it shows that in 2 out of 3 years, local children were awarded places. It will be too early for an FOI for this year's data but it is already clear that Chesham High places were awarded to 12+ applicants over quite a wide area including all of HG.....probably because there were an even higher number of spare places than usual - 50 to be precise (see within here: http://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum/11plus/viewtopic.php?t=8123&sid=127a1b749fecd35fb7450275465e5dd7). So that will be 3 out of 4 years and I believe - OK slipping into anecdotal here - that the 'difficult year' of 2007 was unusual.
- On the question of whether it is actually called the 12+, it is true to say that Bucks CC don't formally call it that. They have a single procedure for all transfers to secondary school after the Year 6 (11+) procedure and consequently give it a single name - the late transfer procedure. However it is completely dominated by Year 7s winning grammar school places through that selection process. The first external link above also shows some stats for how many Year 7 and Year 8 children actually win grammar places each year. There are more up-to-date stats on page 10 in here (http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/assets/content/bcc/docs/schools/late_transfer_procedure_booklet_2008_2009.pdf). It is only natural that the majority of people going through and winning places via the late transfer procedure should call it the 12+ process as they are fairly fresh from the 11+ process. And they do just that as the elevenplus.co.uk forums will bear witness.
- I've had a child go through the process in relatively recent times and referred to it in correspondence with Bucks CC as the 12+. There was never any misunderstanding of what was meant by that term. I guess the older generation in Bucks could confuse the term 12+ as referring to the main transfer process into secondary schools because that used to be the case in the 1970's and 1980's. Considering all that, I'm happy to change the article text so it refers to "Bucks' late transfer procedure for year 7s (commonly referred to as the 12+)".
- The 12+ system was actually around until 1997/8/9 when with a year of transition, when both the old 12+ and new 11+ ran in harness, the 12 + process was then abolished. Why not call it the late transfer proocess and then say in brackets (sometimes called colloquially by parents as the 12+ / 13+) By the way the year 9 or 13+ process used to exist as the entry route from the numerous private schools and has also been abolished (around 2005/6ish). Tmol42 (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Would that help or is there anything I've said above which still makes you think the line should be removed altogether?
- So in summary use the HG parents website or better still the Bucks CC pdf(s) on selection processes for stats as references and at the very least, as i think you were suggesting subordinate the 12+ / 13+ reference to the status of colloquail use. Tmol42 (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Would that help or is there anything I've said above which still makes you think the line should be removed altogether?
- I'd only add that there are general issues in space allocation but it affects some parts of Bucks much more than others. For example Gerrards Cross residents have had particular issues in accessing boys grammar schools. There are varying degrees of accessibility across different villages/towns but it all comes down to geography (and it doesn't mean that rural areas are necessarily disdvantaged as you suggest). HG sits slap in the middle of 5 towns (if one counts Great Missenden as a town) and therefore school place allocation 'hits' the village (in a nice way) from all directions.
- On rural areas draw a line from Little Missenden across through 2 miles north of Chesham to the Herts border. Every village north of this line has been impacted on as far as access to their catchment area schools, in particular Prestwood, Gt Missenden and all the villages north of Chesham. Traditionally this has been an issue for boys but this year it is girls as well. I agree Gerrards Cross is also affected and this is all due to the increased migration of families going on across the Middx ( Harrow etc) / Bucks Border since the Middx boys could no longer access Bucks schools from their side of the boundary. This was caused due to a big cock up by Bucks CC in 2004/5 due to miscalculation of the year 7 population a flawed consultation process and mistakes in drawing up new catchment areas for the two DC schools which was only partly fixed in 2007? and which might be again be partly rectified by the new catchment areas coming in next year. ( I too have many battle scars on this from all three sides of the fence governor, parent and local councillor!). By the way small point DCHS is in Little Chalfont not Amrsham. Tmol42 (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'd only add that there are general issues in space allocation but it affects some parts of Bucks much more than others. For example Gerrards Cross residents have had particular issues in accessing boys grammar schools. There are varying degrees of accessibility across different villages/towns but it all comes down to geography (and it doesn't mean that rural areas are necessarily disdvantaged as you suggest). HG sits slap in the middle of 5 towns (if one counts Great Missenden as a town) and therefore school place allocation 'hits' the village (in a nice way) from all directions.
- Thanks. I can't disagree with any of that and will take on board each of your comments. My only point re the rural areas vs towns was that it does not necessarily follow that a village has worse access to school places. But yes there continue to be issues with access to some over-subscribed schools. I just highlighted GX in particular (and parts of Beaconsfield this year, I believe) because the county has struggled to offer some applicants any of their grammar preferences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proteus4 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Just putting to bed the point I was making about access for rural vs town pupils. Since 2004/5 Bucks have adopted a distance from school criteria rather than an absolute points score method for determining who gets the limited places. This provided one the one hand a level playing field by saying there is a single pass score 121 for boys and 123 for girls (I recall)and removed all those appeals against the award of a low pass mark only just on or above 121. However it then created a new problem for children living in rural communities who were furthest away from the school which is the case for the DC schools as the catchment area is very long and narrow and the rural community is located in the north and south of the catchment area. So its the same for the villages in the north like Prestwood and The Lee and it is in the south for say Gerrards Cross but following their petition the latter were given access to Wycombe Schools to compensate. However it has still resulted in progressively more and more children each year not getting a place at DC schools. Supposedly this would free up more places but just encouraged more migration into the catchment area. This year any boy 6.2 miles from Amersham did not get a place at DCGS for 2009. One consequence of this is more pupils in the rural area will now select Chesham High as first choice which is a good thing as it then improves Chesham High's reputation which has begun to rise again but presumably then leaves less places for later transfer applicants for Holmer Green which is a negative at your end of the telescope. Tmol42 (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes that last point is a possibility given this year's 11+ place allocations but I'm not sure I agree that the situation is getting progressively worse. The first year of the new system had issues and this year there have been issues. There are up years and down years (and of course it still depends on exactly where you are and the sex of your child as to whether you think it's an up or down year). However even in the 'obvious' down years like this year, it is a bit more complex. For example this year Becky High was able to offer places to all who had it down as their highest preference. That's the first time in a very long time and has pleased a number of families around these parts. Ho hum. Proteus4 (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Meanwhile DCHS for the first time is several years could not offer places to all in the catchment area with a tide mark drawn across north and south of the catchment area.Tmol42 (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes that last point is a possibility given this year's 11+ place allocations but I'm not sure I agree that the situation is getting progressively worse. The first year of the new system had issues and this year there have been issues. There are up years and down years (and of course it still depends on exactly where you are and the sex of your child as to whether you think it's an up or down year). However even in the 'obvious' down years like this year, it is a bit more complex. For example this year Becky High was able to offer places to all who had it down as their highest preference. That's the first time in a very long time and has pleased a number of families around these parts. Ho hum. Proteus4 (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Just putting to bed the point I was making about access for rural vs town pupils. Since 2004/5 Bucks have adopted a distance from school criteria rather than an absolute points score method for determining who gets the limited places. This provided one the one hand a level playing field by saying there is a single pass score 121 for boys and 123 for girls (I recall)and removed all those appeals against the award of a low pass mark only just on or above 121. However it then created a new problem for children living in rural communities who were furthest away from the school which is the case for the DC schools as the catchment area is very long and narrow and the rural community is located in the north and south of the catchment area. So its the same for the villages in the north like Prestwood and The Lee and it is in the south for say Gerrards Cross but following their petition the latter were given access to Wycombe Schools to compensate. However it has still resulted in progressively more and more children each year not getting a place at DC schools. Supposedly this would free up more places but just encouraged more migration into the catchment area. This year any boy 6.2 miles from Amersham did not get a place at DCGS for 2009. One consequence of this is more pupils in the rural area will now select Chesham High as first choice which is a good thing as it then improves Chesham High's reputation which has begun to rise again but presumably then leaves less places for later transfer applicants for Holmer Green which is a negative at your end of the telescope. Tmol42 (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I can't disagree with any of that and will take on board each of your comments. My only point re the rural areas vs towns was that it does not necessarily follow that a village has worse access to school places. But yes there continue to be issues with access to some over-subscribed schools. I just highlighted GX in particular (and parts of Beaconsfield this year, I believe) because the county has struggled to offer some applicants any of their grammar preferences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proteus4 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- More than happy to contribute to a major article on the Bucks education system, how it works, pros and cons, winners and losers, controversies etc etc. I would just need the time for a really good run at it. ~ Proteus4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC).
- If you are creating the Education in Buckinghamshire article, there has recently been a series of letters written into the Bucks Herald about the effect of the two-tier education system on children and young people in Aylesbury. The discussion was based on facts and figures on the BCC website, though don't ask me where they were. It is based on the facts that between 69-72% of pupils at the three grammar schools in Aylesbury are bussed in from outside the town, the seocndary moderns in Aylesbury are full to bursting because the town has grown without any consideration for capacity, young people in Aylesbury have the lowest pass rate at GCSE in the whole county and only 16% of all 11-year-olds in Aylesbury last year actually passed their 11+ exam. Oh and Aylesbury has the highest fixed term exclusion rate in Buckinghamshire by quite a significant gap. All this info is on the BCC website somewhere, but as is typical with large bureaucracies you kind of have to hunt for it. -- roleplayer 09:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- More than happy to contribute to a major article on the Bucks education system, how it works, pros and cons, winners and losers, controversies etc etc. I would just need the time for a really good run at it. ~ Proteus4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC).
- Thanks for the tip-off roleplayer. There was a similar argument in the Bucks Free Press a year or two ago where one side was clearly (allegedly) interpreting Bucks stats very selectively to support their case....and was ripped apart for it. As they say: "Lies, damn lies ...." :-) Proteus4 (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Social and Community - divisive exaggeration?
[edit]I would ask anyone who knows where they are to cite statistics.gov sources and geographical sources to show whether the village was
subjected to a wave of development statement
. However a significant number of newcomers to the village came from Middlesex during that period is unreferenced-also, many years on, in retrospect, seems trivial being a loose, neighbouring county. Perhaps from London in general would be easier to verify, and implies that these are people who have 'bettered themselves' which no doubt the village has benefitted from. As for
residents jealously guard the village's independence from the Wycombe-based urban sprawl next door. Maintenance of an independent community separate from the Wycombe conurbation
is this necessary. It is not as if High Wycombe is one either cheap or an undesirable place to live in South East England. All this does is serve to drive a wedge between 'them and us' when the village is nothing more than a pleasant suburb of the nearby town. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam37 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Holmer Green. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110604210519/http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/assets/content/bcc/docs/schools/late_transfer_procedure_booklet_2008_2009.pdf to http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/assets/content/bcc/docs/schools/late_transfer_procedure_booklet_2008_2009.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Holmer Green. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012221738/http://www.wt-woods.org.uk/pennwoodbuckinghamshire to http://www.wt-woods.org.uk/PennWoodBuckinghamshire
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721205230/http://www.holmergreenparents.info/11twelveandthirteen.htm to http://www.holmergreenparents.info/11twelveandthirteen.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303171802/http://www.holmergreenparents.info/ to http://www.holmergreenparents.info/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060201230234/http://www.hgfc1908.freeserve.co.uk/ to http://www.hgfc1908.freeserve.co.uk/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303171802/http://www.holmergreenparents.info/ to http://www.holmergreenparents.info/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Holmer Green. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://archive.is/20120709072940/http://consultation.boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/whats-proposed/south-east/buckinghamshire-and-milton-keynes/ to http://consultation.boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/whats-proposed/south-east/buckinghamshire-and-milton-keynes/
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.stuartking.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/falbum/wp/album.php?album=72157603434917989%2F
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)