Go to navigation
It is currently Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:38 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 8:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:59 am
Posts: 8058
dr.watson wrote:
Email from Crypt just now...

Dear Parents,

I understand that some parents, whose child is ranked towards our 600 cut off point, are concerned about how low that ranking may appear, and are perhaps thinking that their child is unlikely to be offered an actual place at The Crypt School in March, when the Local Authority confirms secondary school placements with parents.

May I make two observations for you, which I hope will help you to understand the rankings a little more:

1. Most importantly, you cannot compare your child’s ranking at The Crypt School with the ranking of another single sex grammar school: you are not comparing like with like. This year, we had over 1600 children share their scores with us, which is our cohort, and includes both boys and girls. Single sex grammar schools will have a much smaller cohort; hence, it is likely that your child’s ranking at a single sex school will be higher than it is for The Crypt;

2. The Governors and I had to make a decision regarding how many of the 1600 children who shared their results with us, should achieve our qualifying standard, to enable us to: fill our 150 places, maintain the academic standard of entry into Year 7, and reasonably judge how many of that top 600 would choose another of the 6 grammar schools over The Crypt for their child’s secondary education.


Of course, we can only recommend to parents to put schools on the Common Application Form in their absolute order of preference; however, please don’t think your son or daughter has a ‘safer’ ranking at another school than Crypt, and that it would therefore be better to put another school as your first preference. Historically, any student who has gained a qualifying standard, and put The Crypt first on the preference form were offered a place.

Well now this is interesting isn't it? As I suspected, Crypt have absolutely no idea what is going to happen and are now worried they have frightened parents off with their low rankings, so are trying to claw back anyone they might have sent running for the hills.

It was inevitable, I am not saying they had a choice but they are risking a bit of a dog's breakfast if they aren't careful. I would however take issue with the last line (bolded by me) which is a red herring and a bit naughty as well. The order on the CAF, as they admittedly state in the first line of that paragraph, should be the genuine desired order of schools. Putting Crypt first on the CAF should be limited to those who wish their child to go there above all other schools. If you put Crypt first but actually prefer Pates but aren't sure your child will actually get a place at Pates, still you must put Pates first (assuming your child has a qualifying score) or you will get Crypt instead. If you put Pates second and your child would have qualified but you put Crypt above it, you will get Crypt. Beware!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:20 pm
Posts: 487
Crypt may be just trying to reassure some parents who unfortunately still don't understand the CAF preferences allocations system. Putting a higher rank at another Grammar as your first choice (because you think it will put you in a better position of gaining a grammar school place), you may get that school even if you don't "really" want to go there.

Unfortunately (and quite rightly) they still have to emphasise "we can only recommend to parents to put schools on the Common Application Form in their absolute order of preference".

As for quoting "Historically, any student who has gained a qualifying standard, and put The Crypt first on the preference form were offered a place" they are just stating a fact (naught as it may be :!: )

Perhaps Primary Schools need to introduce a lesson on How To Fill In A CAF every year for parents :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:59 am
Posts: 8058
Yeah, I read it as a panic email based on a fear that all the top scorers will go elsewhere and all those with a lower rank won't think they are in with a chance so no one will end up applying! Unfortunately for them this is the first year of a new scheme to attract girls so they genuinely have no idea how it will pan (sic) out. Next year they will have something to quote so that people will get a feel for where they stand.

I have had PMs from people in the lower ranks for Crypt asking me (flattered chaps, but really I have no idea) if their son will get a place. I agree that people need to learn to fill out the CAF, and am not sure that Crypt's email makes that task any clearer for those who might prefer a long shot at another school but would accept Crypt quite happily. (If you are in this position, put the other school first, provided your child has a qualifying score, and then Crypt second - or even third if your preference is 1.Pates 2. STR 3. Crypt. In other words, as everyone here says, put them in the true order of preference).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 3:51 pm
Posts: 42
Perhaps Primary Schools need to introduce a lesson on How To Fill In A CAF every year for parents :lol:
[quote]cazien

Trouble is that, based on some posts by parents, some primary schools need a lesson too!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Privacy Policy | Refund Policy | Disclaimer | Copyright © 2004 – 2021