Allocation day 2019 discussion board

[fiacore]

The SGGS waiting list score is different to the AGS one so that makes it look less like a mistake.

Does this mean that as a cohort, the girls 11+ results were lower this year? I thought there were more children sitting the 11+, presumably split with a "normal" boy/girl ratio, so I'm struggling to see any other reason for the drop.
(I'm not aware of any reason for people to not put SGGS down if they thought they could get in, its an excellent school.)

We didn’t put it as didn’t think our daughter would have a chance based on historical data. Kicking myself now.

I think this it. Everyone I know who got under 220 applied to Alcester instead of SGGS, thus pushing their score up slightly, and pushing down the SGGS score. This is the irony of the system, it works purely on supply and demand, and 'prices' the schools accordingly!

That's true, but sadly the fact that people think they have to try and second guess the outcome is not supposed to happen but the system is over-complicated and there's too much misinformation out there. If you don't think your score is high enough for your preferred school you should still put that school first because doing so has no impact on your likelihood of getting your second preference (lower-AQS) school.

The really odd thing here is that the AQS for AGS hasn't gone up so, since the scores are normalised, it rather implies there were just fewer girls applying overall. Strange, I wonder why?

[kenyancowgirl]

Not a friend someone on the other thread but they are in southern priority area and Pupil Premium so should have been offered...I have asked if they did the proof of address....

[FriedEggs]

Not a friend someone on the other thread but they are in southern priority area and Pupil Premium so should have been offered...I have asked if they did the proof of address....

Yes, PP children in priority area need a score of 205. I do think the hoops you have to jump through to apply and prove address are likely to discriminate. Only 4 places allocated to LAC/PP this year is unimpressive.

[purplelilacs]

Reading back through some of the older threads where people were discussing issues even receiving the requests for proof of address let alone confirmations that it had been received and was in order; I can't help thinking that is going to have played a part.

Although I guess if that was the case you would expect it have impacted the AQS at all schools and it only seems to be SGGS that's out of kilter with what we might have thought it would be.

Really odd though.

[fiacore]

Reading back through some of the older threads where people were discussing issues even receiving the requests for proof of address let alone confirmations that it had been received and was in order; I can't help thinking that is going to have played a part.

Yes, indeed. The proof of address dance is utterly absurd and undoubtedly discriminates against people who have non-standard family circumstances or are less confident managing bureaucracy.

I cannot see why there can't just be a simple rule that says you can apply to a school based on the address of any property on which any parent or legal guardian of the child is liable to pay council tax. I think where the child actually currently lives, or is going to live, should be irrelevant. If you have a local council tax liability, you should get to access the local service. Maybe you have to put in some conditions about rented properties but that surely isn't beyond the wit of man.

Sure there might be some folk out there who will buy a second home just to game the system, but frankly if they're prepared to go to those lengths so be it. I suspect there wouldn't be - I'd have thought anyone with that degree of spare wealth is probably sending their kids private anyway or they'd just move to the second property in sufficient time.

[Pinky Moth]

Reading back through some of the older threads where people were discussing issues even receiving the requests for proof of address let alone confirmations that it had been received and was in order; I can't help thinking that is going to have played a part.

Although I guess if that was the case you would expect it have impacted the AQS at all schools and it only seems to be SGGS that's out of kilter with what we might have thought it would be.

Really odd though.

Perhaps the relocation of Kings to a new campus in Warwick has presented an attractive alternative to some who might otherwise have gone down the grammar school route? No data to support this notion, it is just a thought.

[Mumofgirls]

Is it possible to be on two grammar school waiting lists at the same time?

[kenyancowgirl]

Reading back through some of the older threads where people were discussing issues even receiving the requests for proof of address let alone confirmations that it had been received and was in order; I can't help thinking that is going to have played a part.

Sure there might be some folk out there who will buy a second home just to game the system, but frankly if they're prepared to go to those lengths so be it. I suspect there wouldn't be - I'd have thought anyone with that degree of spare wealth is probably sending their kids private anyway or they'd just move to the second property in sufficient time.

Really? So be it? So address fraud is OK in your eyes if people are prepared to buy a home? And - no - people with wealth to buy a home or rent a home for the exact period of time to get on a school list, often are NOT the sort of people who will pay to go private - but will game the system so that nothing else changes in their world, except their child gets a school place, fraudulently ahead of a child who should have got it and did NOTHING wrong.

Address fraud to gain a school place - or any other fraud to gain a school place is completely wrong, dishonest and should be stamped out. Yes the proof of address is a little clunky but far better that than fraud.

[Chantry_001]

Perhaps the relocation of Kings to a new campus in Warwick has presented an attractive alternative to some who might otherwise have gone down the grammar school route? No data to support this notion, it is just a thought.[/quote]

Hi, not sure it has made much of a difference, the move in campus is not much more than half a mile down the road and it is actually further away from the train station for those who travelled there by train.
Kings has taken its full allocation of Y7 as it did last year. We have friends who applied to Kings and Shottery and have chosen Shottery.

Might be wrong though, Shottery does not seem the easiest choice logistically for some...

[fiacore]

Reading back through some of the older threads where people were discussing issues even receiving the requests for proof of address let alone confirmations that it had been received and was in order; I can't help thinking that is going to have played a part.

Sure there might be some folk out there who will buy a second home just to game the system, but frankly if they're prepared to go to those lengths so be it. I suspect there wouldn't be - I'd have thought anyone with that degree of spare wealth is probably sending their kids private anyway or they'd just move to the second property in sufficient time.

Really? So be it? So address fraud is OK in your eyes if people are prepared to buy a home? And - no - people with wealth to buy a home or rent a home for the exact period of time to get on a school list, often are NOT the sort of people who will pay to go private - but will game the system so that nothing else changes in their world, except their child gets a school place, fraudulently ahead of a child who should have got it and did NOTHING wrong.

Address fraud to gain a school place - or any other fraud to gain a school place is completely wrong, dishonest and should be stamped out. Yes the proof of address is a little clunky but far better that than fraud.

But it seems to me that it isn't stamped out, if folk are really prepared to go to those lengths. Buy a second house, move to it in time (change your doctor/open a bank account etc, all the stuff they need to do), apply for the school, get in, move back to the old house and sell the second one.

That's the point, the proof of address system doesn't stop that, but it does result in people getting confused and failing to get places due to administrative failure. Or indeed, why on earth shouldn't the child of separated/divorced parents be allowed to apply to a school at either of their parent's addresses?

Oh, and by the way, accepting that some people will do unfair things no matter what you do is NOT the same as thinking those things are OK.