Allocation day 2019 discussion board
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
-
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2018 2:23 pm
Re: Allocation day 2019 discussion board
AndyV wrote:Worcestershire (Within priority circle) emailed at 1.03 last night, place offered & accepted at KES on 252.
SGGS AQS sounds like a typo, looks like they may have copied AGS into the SGGS box? I can't see why it would have gone down.
Congratulations to your son, Andy. We have just heard and our son has KES also with 254 (we are in Warwick). It is good to finally hear for certain! Wish Warwickshire was a bit more efficient as your LA seems to be.
Last edited by Chantry_001 on Fri Mar 01, 2019 11:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2018 1:44 pm
Re: Allocation day 2019 discussion board
Yes it does seem odd it’s so much lower than previous years.AndyV wrote:Worcestershire (Within priority circle) emailed at 1.03 last night, place offered & accepted at KES on 252.
SGGS AQS sounds like a typo, looks like they may have copied AGS into the SGGS box? I can't see why it would have gone down.
Re: Allocation day 2019 discussion board
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.)
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.)
-
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2018 1:44 pm
Re: Allocation day 2019 discussion board
We didn’t put it as didn’t think our daughter would have a chance based on historical data. Kicking myself now.AndyV wrote: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.)
-
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 3:56 pm
Re: Allocation day 2019 discussion board
Failures to provide evidence on time?AndyV wrote:(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.)
Re: Allocation day 2019 discussion board
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!Mumofgirls wrote:We didn’t put it as didn’t think our daughter would have a chance based on historical data. Kicking myself now.AndyV wrote: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.)
-
- Posts: 6738
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 8:59 pm
Re: Allocation day 2019 discussion board
It has happened in the past with AGS a few years ago when suddenly co-ed became the favoured option and they shot up unexpectedly one year.
215 does seem low for SGGS though - huge difference to KES (which hasn't gone up as badly as I expected!)
215 does seem low for SGGS though - huge difference to KES (which hasn't gone up as badly as I expected!)
-
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2018 1:44 pm
Re: Allocation day 2019 discussion board
This is our first child going through this and I find the whole system so confusing! Hopefully I can get her on both waiting lists to give her a better chance.FriedEggs wrote: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!Mumofgirls wrote:We didn’t put it as didn’t think our daughter would have a chance based on historical data. Kicking myself now.AndyV wrote: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.)
-
- Posts: 6738
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 8:59 pm
Re: Allocation day 2019 discussion board
Someone has said they are 216 pp and got refused for SGGS so I am not convinced....
Re: Allocation day 2019 discussion board
The back of the letter adds more detail for SGGS:kenyancowgirl wrote:Someone has said they are 216 pp and got refused for SGGS so I am not convinced....
So the lowest score offered was 214 (on distance?). Was your friend outside the priority area?Category 3
Children in the priority area who achieve the Automatic Qualifying Score or above 108 offers 215 min score
Category 4
Children living outside of the priority area who achieve the Automatic Qualifying Score or above 7 offers 216 min score
Category 5
Children who score below Automatic Qualifying Score but above minimum waiting list score
1 offer 214 min score