SUTTON GRAMMAR SCHOOL RESULTS - from the 1st of March

[Stroller]

Going back to your year 7 options example - maybe one of the parents was kept under false impressions by their DC?

Oh, the "options" in this case were school A's waiting list (and coincidentally, where the child went eventually) vs school B (story concocted by the other parent much later for no apparent reason and presented as if it had been an option from day 1).

Some might lie to the child about waiting list prospects as a way of softening the blow and delaying the need to come to terms with an unwanted outcome.

[PurpleDuck]

Oh well, I will just have to accept that I will never know whether that Sutton waiting list comment was true or not... But even if it wasn't, maybe they will now have a fighting chance if Sutton Grammar is short of boys.

[Dadcool]

Hi,
My DS could not clear the second stage test of Sutton.
But we have received letter from Sutton school informing that school is in a position to offer DS opportunity to join waiting list.

Letter also explains why this situation has arisen i.e. offering waiting list to children who have not cleared second stage exam. One of the statement from the letter
" In hindsight we set our second stage pass mark too high."

I have opted to join waiting list but DS has already got offered place into other grammar school and we have accepted the same so will not be waiting with bated breath for the outcome.

[pooziepuzzle]

I also have a friend whose DS missed Sutton stage 2 pass mark by 1 point. They have received a letter from Sutton asking if they want to go on their waiting list.

[mumsdarling2]

These schools have been doing this for ages. Should they not have a reasonable estimate regarding the number of children they need to pass in order to fill their spaces? Why this chaos and confusion?

[computer]

Sutton under offering could all come from the initial confusion created by Wallington County. The letter sent out by Wallington in Sept was confusing. A lot of parents that I met, felt that their DS received a concrete offer from Wallington especially since there was no stage 2 exam for Wallington. These parents then decided to pull out of Sutton stage 2 and just take Wilson's stage 2 exam for the sake of it.


Both heads (Sutton and Wilson's) sent out another letter to try and rectify this confusion. IMHO, I think that the damage had already been done.

[pooziepuzzle]

Ha! I honestly don't think you can blame WCGS for the situation at Sutton. I had friends receive both those letters. The situation was very clear. Boys passing WCGS first stage could not honestly expect a firm offer due to the numbers who passed.

[Ladymuck]

There are obviously a number of potential factors at play - children sitting more tests further away from home, children taking the grammar tests as mocks for independents, children being entered for multiple exams in multiple regions. It is harder for grammars to estimate how many of the candidates sitting and passing have it as first preference. I wonder whether the boys schools would be tempted to go for a joint second round as the girls have? The testing process is very expensive if it still doesn't give you a result which allows you to fill the school.

[loopylou]

That's been happening for years too.
Wallington have been criticised in years gone by for congratulating boys on reaching a good score and telling their parents that to secure a place they need to name Wallington as first choice.

Which is true in a way: if parents want Wallington above all other schools then they should name them first. If they named Tiffins first but wanted Wallington, and if their son did well on the Tiffins test too, they wouldn't get Wallington they'd get Tiffins.

However it doesn't give parents the full story which is: if they are pleased to have Wallington as a reserve option after another grammar school they like better - or live closer to - there is no risk at all in naming Wallington as their second or third choice. If their boy has passed Wallington with a high enough score to qualify for a place, naming it further down their list will not prevent their son being offered a place if he misses out on his first or second choice. Schools cannot give priority to those people who name them as first choice. Some are concerned that the Wallington letters sent out each year imply naming a school first gives some sort of priority for a place which doesn't actually exist and that parents who don't understand equal preference may be swayed by that.

As for waiting lists. Some schools have a one-shot policy. That is to say that a child can take their exam only once between Year 7 and sixth form. If they pass the test but aren't offered a place due to over-subscription, they can be added to the waiting list.
Other schools allow a child who did not even pass the test to remain on a continued interest list in case future place become available - or are added in Year 9.
A child who failed the 11+ can be added to a list to take the exam again at a later date. So in that respect they are on a list and waiting but they aren't waiting for an offer, they are waiting for another chance to sit the entrance exam and get a place that way.

[PurpleDuck]

Ha! I honestly don't think you can blame WCGS for the situation at Sutton. I had friends receive both those letters. The situation was very clear. Boys passing WCGS first stage could not honestly expect a firm offer due to the numbers who passed.

When we received a letter from Wallington, my initial reaction was 'Great, at least we have one school sorted,' and that's what I told my DS. Given the wording, I was under a strong impression that it was as close to a firm offer as it could get. Wallington's letter did not disclose the number of boys who passed but instead put a lot of emphasis on advising parents to choose Wallington as their first option.

It was only after the joint email from heads of Sutton Grammar and Wilsons's that I realised that Wallington's congratulatory email had been sent to over 700 boys, while the school only had 135 places, which brought me back to Earth rather swiftly. I am really glad they decided to send out that clarification. I remember a couple of parents in our school saying they were happy with Wallington so would probably pull out from Sage 2 - luckily, they didn't.

Some are concerned that the Wallington letters sent out each year imply naming a school first gives some sort of priority for a place which doesn't actually exist and that parents who don't understand equal preference may be swayed by that.

I had though that I knew how the system of 'equal preference' worked, but even for me the wording of the letter made me wonder whether I had got my facts right, so I ended up seeking clarification of this particular issue. Wallington's handling of the 1st stage results announcement was most definitely misleading, to say the least.

The only good thing that came out of it was that it gave my DS a big boost of confidence before Stage 2 tests, as I didn't tell him that Wallington's letter turned out to be largely meaningless in terms of his chances of getting a place there.