CLSG offer withdrawals

[hbsseal]

I do not see them as good points even for school.

Job offers would be better analogy than holidays or flat screen TVs. It is always sensible for both sides involved that those joining an institution do so after as much careful thought and consideration as possible. In this case arguments seem to that City prefers to take in #120-160 on 13th Feb rather than 5th March. How is that better?

City was definitely our first preference but that does not mean we will do a nonsensical sprint before gathering one final bit of information through attendance at offer holders' morning at all schools we have offers from. We are talking about 5-7 years of schooling for a child after all not a week or two of holiday or plasma TV.

[Choco]

I agree that it might be better not to call it an offer, but that a candidate has qualified to reserve a place on a first come first served basis.

I don't think I ignore the children and their parents. I actually think the parents who want to be able to hold multiple offers for 3 weeks want too much - something that is detrimental to not just City but other schools too, although to a lesser extent.

By paying and being prepared to pay, already parents have more choice than state school parents. This gives them access to a wider range of schools. However, I don't think paying means people can delay their decision making in a way which is detrimental to schools - people don't seem to understand the problems all the London schools face due to multiple application and offer holding. And I know they have no sympathy, becaue they feel they are being fleeced for fees anyway and this is the time when the families get to decide at last, after all the stress of exams and waiting.....so if their waiting 3 weeks until the offer deadline means that a school might not fill their places, or a school has to go to WL and go far down to find people who will fill the seats, or if due to uncertainty a school over offers and ends up with a bulge class - to be honest, when it's the schools they have declined, most parents couldn't actually give a toss at that point. If they understand these implications, which many have never thought about, they simply no longer care, because they have moved on.

Parents do need time to choose schools. They need time to choose where to apply to - that's why Open Days and Working Open Mornings and chances to ask questions exist. The trouble is that because people apply to too many schools they often don't get a proper feel for all of them because to do so would be so time consuming. They effectively delay seriously thinking about it until after offers. This is where things are going wrong. If people applied to sensible numbers of schools they could fully get a feel and make close to final decisions. Yes they might need a few caveats and different decisions faced on things like scholarships being offered - but this is absolutely not beyond the wit of most parents to do. Most can absolutely have a pretty good idea by offers day. They will know which ones they basically don't want and which are their top one or two. If they have further questions they should think of them and ask them before the offers. And then they need to decide and commit. It seems there is a strange phenomenon with school places - many really do know the answer, but find it hard to let go of great places, either state or private - we know somepeople hold more than once place until September because they just want to 'keep their options open' - well I think the time for that needs to be limited because it affects schools and other families too - it's only when people accept and decline that any movement on WLs can happen.

I don't think Citys approach devastates children anywhere near the way it annoys parents. When children have more than one offer, as we see on this thread, their thinking is flexible and they quickly accept wherever their parents and the offers themselves decide they will go. When they are dead set on a place, they make it very clear and that makes the parents take more note of the terms and timescale. There really won't be many who wanted it as first choice and were dead set on it who missed out in reality. People who are dead set are careful to read terms and conditions and to get their sharp elbows out to make sure they get what they want. Those who are more laid back are in all liklihood not so interested and will accept elsewhere. Those people still get annoyed though....becauee they feel it was their right to hold multiple offers if that is what they want to do - they paid their £100 so now they can do what they like.

Why should schools run a system which worked when people applied to 2 schools but doesn't work when many of their applicants are applying to 5 or 6? The timescales parents once had, simply don't work for some schools now. The schools don't adopt these new controversial methods in order to annoy people, but for a purpose - the best future for their school. Isn't that future and the families who really want the school and will take an offer quickly the right thing to focus on and prioritise, rather than lots of parents who are hedging their bets but don't actually want the school?

[Choco]

City needs to do away with its offer holders morning or re-name it, to make clearer that in liklihood all places will be filled by that point.
I would say that questions need asking before offers day and not delayed until offer holders mornings. It is clear to all now, that waiting until those events simply removes some of the options.
I guess it is a choice for parents - they can decide to sprint madly for the school they want, or they can decide they won't do that but will wait for an event when they can ask their extra question and the make a final choice. They can do that, but the risk is the place in one of those schools has already gone. Seems an odd approach to me if someone has actually decided already.
Why not ask the last question before offers day or at the start of offers day, so a chance of a reply is there? People can always think of more questions they would like to ask, or things they'd like just one more look at....but in the end, a tight or uncertain deadline should focus the mind to make that choice, and if it doesn't, you do face the risk of losing out.
Yes it's a big choice about a 7 year commitment and childs education. That's why people do spend a couple of years researching and looking before they apply. It absolutely isn't that there is no chance to gather all the information you need and make lots of visits and email the school incessantly with all ones queries before the offers come out.

There are lots of things that are effectively first come first served. People who really want them make sure they know all the info needed to decide if they want to buy before the sale starts and are there and ready to buy. I guess anyone who isn't prepared to camp overnight for a Wimbledon Centre Court ticket simply won't get one of the tickets available through that route. No-one has to camp, but if you don't you probably won't get one. Same here - the system is as it is - it's first come first served and anyone who doesn't want to engage in that, risks losing out.

I am sorry for the families for whom City was the first choice, especially if they don't have other good options.

Sorry to say this, but it reminds me of families I have known who would have qualified for great school places on Church attendance grounds, or pupil premium grounds.....but who never got the places, because they failed to understand the deadlines or the paperwork necessary to apply. i have heard people say that they just thought the school would automatically request a Church reference from anyone applying, or that the deadline was just advisory and being a couple of days late wouldn't matter, or that they just hadn't read the paperwork carefully.

With City, some people have missed out because they didn't read the paperwork carefully and think about the implications - most people who read it carelessly, did so because they really planned to accept somewhere else anyway. Others might have missed out because they did understand but decided they would not be rushed in their decision making and wanted to go to other offer holders events or spend longer thinking - fine, as long as the risk of losing out is also accepted.

[ToadMum]

I'm sure it will turn out to be just a case of failing to read the paperwork properly, but is there the slightest chance that some people were presented at the outset with literature that spelt out with no possibility of misunderstanding that an offer of a place was more in the line of an invitation to treat, but others weren't? This isn't the only internet forum on which parents are stating that the eventual situation was not explained in the information previously received from the school.

I still don't understand why the school risks having to accept the e.g. 700th ranked girl if they just employed a system of a small over-offer and a waiting list confirmed in the post-interview letter, though? Why would they 'wait list' someone who turned out to be undesirable on closer inspection, rather than tell them outright that they had been unsuccessful? Again, it one of the little freedoms that the sector enjoys - their poor state cousins have no alternative but to allow anyone who meets the criteria, but isn't ranked highly enough to get a place immediately, to be on their waiting lists. Not to mention ranked in a way that the world and its wife must be able see by looking at the Admissions authority's website.

[Choco]

Anyway, think I might be done with this thread.

I guess I am looking at the whole issue not just as a parent, but seeing it from a school perspective too. Prospective parents needs and desires have to be balanced against the schools, and sometimes circumstances means systems that worked in the past and created a good balance, don't work so well anymore.

I am genuinely sorry for anyone,who for whatever reason, wanted City above all other schools and who missed out this week. I really hope that the children get a place at a school that everyone feels happy with, whether that is City in a few weeks from WL or from somewhere else. I know everyone on here wants a great education for their kids and I hope that the upset and the annoyance caused this week is short lived in the wider scheme of things.

Last year I read about this and also thought City was wrong. I thought about it a lot as both a parent and in terms of exactly why they were doing it, because it seemed so odd, and in the end, I felt I did understand and that on balance it was the right thing for that particular school in their circumstances to do. I appreciate that most voices in this thread think it is an awful practice, so it will be interesting to see what happens next. I've explained and defended enough. Best of luck to all the children at all of their schools.

[Guest55]

From every point of view this school's actions are poor - they have no compassion at all for a family that genuinely wanted to accept the offer but was prevented by sudden illness, or worse, from actng swiftly.

I hope people avoid even applying to this school in future ... if this is the way they behave before your child us on roll then goodness knows what priority they give to pastoral care when they are 'captured'.

[Sla212]

Quite honestly there is little or no difference between the "offer holder days" and the Open Mornings & school tours that any sensible & prospective pupil has already been on....if you don't already know what you need to know by then I'm not sure when you will know.

We received an offer on the Friday & attended the offer holder morning the following Tuesday last year....I knew people who had already turned down places by then & I was aware that 75% places has been accepted. By Friday (ie, a week after offer day) a friend on the waiting list was offered a place.

I know people several people last year with several offers who didn't attend offer holder days - people know what their decision is, they've been thinking about it & all the
permutations for weeks/months/years. Everyone had made their decision before March 5.

City might say you have until March 6....so do all the indies, but in reality you don't....I suspect that nearly they were pretty much full & had gone to their waiting list by March 5 (the closing date last year). Things just happened quicker at City, exactly as they did last year.

Every year if you want the school & you get an offer, respond immediately....and go to the school if that's what they want....I really don't see why people think that's such an outrageous request.

Like all London schools City will always be oversubscribed - and to be honest, the only people who really know what it's like, pastorally and otherwise, are the children & their parents who are currently at the school. This won't put anyone off applying.

[mb74]

I have said this before but we are so pleased that we received a rejection from City rather than to have to go through the horrible situation of some of the poor parents on this forum.

For us, the most informative part of the whole process, was how interviews were conducted. City were cold, hostile at interview and clearly very arrogant in their approach to offers. I’m sorry Choco, your arguments just simply do not hold true to me. I’m not clear whether you are a current parent or what your specific interest in defending their practice is but I find many of your analogies far-fetched. How do you know that you speak for the schools motives? I genuinely ask this because I’m confused by how vehemently you defend them.

Our daughters is a multiple offer holder from three schools. As far as I am concerned we should be allowed to make a throughly thought out and considered choice. From these offers, we were offered academic scholarships from two schools. We were not so arrogant as to assume that our daughter would receive these and did not factor this situation in to our first choice months and years ahead as you state we should have done. The difference in fees and travel between the “cheapest” and the most expensive is £6000 PER YEAR. Are we expected to be so rich or single minded that we would ignore this amount of money and sprint as fast as we can to the Barbican?

City did not make the situation regarding offers clear at any of their open days. They did not tell parents that they must not book a half-term holiday and must present themselves in person with a deposit on day 1. They never answered the phone or responded to email so there was no opportunity to ask any of those extra questions you say parents should have asked. I’m afraid that many of your arguments just do not reflect the reality of how City have conducted themselves.

[mad?]

City did not make the situation regarding offers clear at any of their open days. They did not tell parents that they must not book a half-term holiday and must present themselves in person with a deposit on day 1. They never answered the phone or responded to email so there was no opportunity to ask any of those extra questions you say parents should have asked. I’m afraid that many of your arguments just do not reflect the reality of how City have conducted themselves.

And this is it. Ultimately CLGS can do what they want, from inappropriate interviews through underground prep facilities, incompetent mails to exploding offers the school can do what it wants, and parents can decide whether they would want their DDs in that environment. I just feel sorry for this year's applicant and their parents who have been caught out by not being sufficiently nutty/'privileged' to have known what was going on. I do think it is a lucky escape. But, live by the sword die by the sword, if 'we' were interested in fairness 'we' would not be here, let alone applying to grammar or private schools

[Bibliovore]

I think certain posters are rather harsh on those whose offers exploded. I don’t think for one moment most of them were feckless and I do think they did NOT have adequate information at the right times about how the deadline worked. I also think CLSG’s actions are self-defeating. Why?

CLSG have over the last few years replaced a deadline which everyone could be sure about (6th March or thereabouts) with one no-one could be sure about – because it varies depending on when sufficient applicants accepted firmly. In one sense, those who support CLSG’s actions must that anyone who wasn’t there at 9am ON THE DOT on the Monday was taking a risk, because no-one could have been sure that all the other candidates would not also be doing the 1000-metre dash to the Admissions Office. Those who turned up even at 9.15 were being thoroughly irresponsible with their DD’s future, because it MIGHT have been too late. Who could tell?

CLSG’s system is working so well it seems, that next year, unless they change it there WILL be a rush at opening time. How undignified will that be? How will families show that extra bit of “commitment” to get to the front of the queue? It’s all very well comparing this to camping out overnight for a Wimbledon Centre Court ticket, but frankly I find the thought undignified and unnecessary.

Why unnecessary? If you think about it what CLSG have done it is to offer to their entire waiting list straight up in a bid to get as many firm offers, in any way possible, as soon as possible. If one of their biggest fears is (as we are being told) is having to accept low-ranked candidates after 6th March because those higher up have gone elsewhere, then they are in effect already doing this by the lovely system they have pioneered. If another of their fears is a bulge class, then all they had to do was to offer slightly above, stick to the 6th March acceptance deadline and have the confidence that they’d get enough acceptances, with a slight chance of going a fair way down the waiting list (which is what they are now doing anyway).

Furthermore, with the “exploding offer” system, far from getting those most committed to City, they end up with some families who have been panicked or railroaded into a possibly premature decision. The logic of CLSG’s position that some of those families would have gone elsewhere without the “explosions” (else why not offer slightly over their PAN and be confident about matters) The exploding offer is a perverse incentive to take CLSG over another school, whose deadline is later and so will push some (“less committed”) families their way.

Additionally, you can be pretty sure that some families who have the money have been bounced into paying the £1,500 acceptance deposit to secure a place whilst they think. Maybe some do that every year (some places did come up off the waiting list last year, which I guess must indicate that). But you can be sure more will do that this year. Those families then have little incentive to give the place up until 6th March and might in fact not bother until the Easter holidays when an extra penalty of a term’s fees kick in. Having, as they might see it, been forced into paying that extra deposit (if they then choose another school) they might not be in a rush to let CLSG know. So City runs a high risk of having a higher than normal number of people pull out even later than 6th March. So they might have to scrape around for candidates even lower down the rankings (even those who didn’t actually make the waiting list at all). I’m sure that’s not what they intended, but it’s what they risk.

So I think CLSG’s actions are unprofessional, uncaring and actually might even be counter-productive in trying to achieve the effect they were aiming for.