City of London Girls withdrawing offers

Expat, it is possible the person who told me read it on the forum you are talking about and miscommunicated the story to me - it is not something she would have direct knowledge of. It came up in the context of a discussion on use of exploding offers by north London schools!

I did hear (third hand) that last year [NLCS] had to use the waiting list extensively and even contacted some girls they had not interviewed.

There were reports on a different forum last year that NLCS went all the way through their waiting list and ended up making offers to girls whom they had interviewed but had not placed on the list. This is the first I’ve heard that they had to reach even further than that.

I heard from a friend yesterday that highgate did explode this year.
A typical list of schools to apply for in the case of a North London girl might be:
NLCS
CLSG
Highgate
SHHS
Channing

Of these, 3 have allegedly used exploding offers this year. NLCS are probably in a different position in that like SPGS the can probably assume a high acceptance rate and be cautious in the number of offers they make, although I did hear (third hand) that last year they had to use the waiting list extensively and even contacted some girls they had not interviewed. SHHS is interesting. They are obviously cautious in their offers without the ability to be confident that they will be first choice for most. I think they have in the past topped up after the normal process.

Needmoresleep, Channings offer exploded Thursday during half term week and they used exploding offers the previous year too. I believe Highgate was the original school to use this practice some 3-4 years ago, although I don't know if they did the same this year.

Wombat, I dont agree that it is really "You clearlydo think it is awful", but that it is unacceptable given the greatest impact is ion 10 year old children.

If polled I suspect many parents and teachers would say the trickiest years for girls are Yrs 6-8. All those friendship issues, all that insecurity, all those hormones. City must know this.

What has happened to Highgate and Channing this year? I can see how any action by City would lead to Channing, and to a lesser extent Highgate, having to follow suit, especially the first year City left the consortium. As in if City explode you run to Channing clutching your cheque and forms. Have either exploded this year? Or having learned from previous years has their approach to offers been more conservative?

ChocolateWombat,

I agree with you that any independent school should be able to choose its own admissions policy as long as the policy is crystal clear, though others have a fair point that the one they have chosen appears to contravene the spirit, if not the precise letter of the ISA. However, it is for the ISA to decide whether they wish to stop cooperating with the school, not us parents.

I do not agree with you that the CLSG is that special compared with other central London schools but, again, my opinion is neither here nor there.

Where we disagree is whether the exact mechanism they have been using for the last three years was ever acceptable. I feel it was not because its "successful" operation depended specifically on a significant number of parents not being crystal clear on its full implications.

Many of us predict that, if they keep the same mechanism for next year, the places will be allocated in order of a queue which may well be full before 09:00 on the Monday. Why do we predict this? Because more of next year's parents will have been informed of the full implications of the mechanism, whether from the newspapers, from their primary schools issuing more warnings or from warnings from the large number of parents who were disappointed this year. The reason it took fully 1.5 days to clear this year (rather than 0) was that a very significant number of parents were not crystal clear on the implications. If all parents had been crystal clear on the issue, our prediction for next year would have been realized this year.

So I assert that the mechanism that CLSG has operated for the last few years was always flawed and that they have been relying on most parents being uninformed or unable to think through its implications, i.e., they required that most parents not be crystal clear on the issue. If the school changes mechanisms, it will be because they have realized they can no longer mask the flaws by relying on most parents being unclear on the consequences.

Others schools, apart from channing and highgate, two schools with a very significant overlap in catchment with CLSG. Something is clearly broken in the system, at least in north London, and although I do not condone the approach taken by CLSG, the fact that it is also going on in other schools with a north London Intake must suggest that there are unusual factors in play.

"I think any school can choose it's own admissions policy - it should be made crystal clear - which this wasn't, but if they choose something different to others, it is up to them. It maybe that they choose something different to others."

As long as it leaves ISA. CLSG is currenly in breach of its members code of practice.

Other schools are choosing not to make such a breach, and are running perefctly competent admissions within the agreed sector rules. And they get the numbers right. There is absolutely no reason (other than disinclination) for a school to abandon a system that works.

You are right that I changed my mind. I mentioned this upthread.
During and after last year I thought about it a lot. I thought about it in terms of City being a such a space restricted building and site which I think does make it different to even most London schools. I also thought about it in terms of who was applying,mfrofrom where and how many had it as top choice. Many of these girls travel in and past other girls and co-ed schools, which have more space flexibility and for many, City isn't first choice, but one of several back-ups in this age of multiple applications, which I also thought about more. Basically I thought about it more from a school viewpoint and I decided I understood why they did it and for them it made sense.

However, the lack of really clear communication from the start isn't acceptable. People need to know a year in advance if being around over half term is necessary. If they are told, then they can decide they don't want to be put under pressure to choose so not apply, or they can decide to apply and push themselves to decide if City is their top choice or not. I don't think all the schools need to follow the same system, as long as the approach is clear.

I know my view is a minority on this thread, although others support things about City too. I think I am now looking at it from a school perspective as well as, as a parent. I would be annoyed if I'd missed a place because the info wasn't clear. If the info had been clear about D first come first served, and I then missed a place, I'd be annoyed but would kick myself too. I'd like to think I wouldn't just see it in terms of myself.

As I said before I think some of the righteous indignation is over done....notice I say some and not all. Of course people who didn't know and missed out have a right to be angry. But many others mention time and time again that City wasn't probably their top choice and this helped them to decide on somewhere else.....it is exactly these people that City has decided they can't afford to wait on....most say no in the end. And those people feel outraged about a system to benefit the school and it's future, rather than them, the people who paid to apply, but didn't want to accept.

Sometimes we do change our views when we think about things further....sometimes we don't. I still think the system can't last and another one will be in place for next year......I suspect it might be another unconventional one. And we will see if we all agree about that one.

Last year it was poorly handled as well so I don’t buy that the school was just taken by surprise. If anything they should have learnt from last year experience.

ChocolateWombat - may I ask why you feel that you know so clearly what City is thinking and their reasons? And why has your opinion on their offer system changed so dramatically since last year? See below what your thoughts on this practice were on last year thread:
“I think it is an unreasonable practice. People should be given the chance to hear if they have received a state school offer. They should make fewer offers to start with and should be able to make some kind of judgement about what is appropriate based on previous year's experiences of take-up of offers.
I haven't heard of this before and hope it doesn't become more widespread. If it does, people who can afford to lose a term of fees will accept and later decline their place....but not everyone can afford to do this, and they may well lose some excellent candidates. An offer should be an offer until acceptance day. If the only emails sent saying they were near their limit were yesterday and today, that wasn't enough time for anyone to gather more information and it would be very possible to miss all of those messages and miss out. I can see why they do it, but don't think it is necessary to fill their places and do think it is unreasonable.“

I'm afraid CLSG has most likely just been taken by surprise this year and not handled it efficiently. I'm sure they will have a different system next year. There is another (junior) school far from CLSG that for many years had always had a 'first come first served' system that usually took a few weeks to fill the places, all very relaxed. Then suddenly one year they were faced with a stampede of parents waving cheques on day one and some people missed out because all the places were taken within an hour or so. Parents were furious, school management was mortified and they immediately changed the allocation system to make sure this couldn't happen again.

I think any school can choose it's own admissions policy - it should be made crystal clear - which this wasn't, but if they choose something different to others, it is up to them. It maybe that they choose something different to others.
You may think other schools are in a similar position and so City shouldn't do what they have done. Regardless of if they are in the same position or not geographically, each school can decide what to do - they should make it clear, but simply one admissions system being different to another or most doesn't make it wrong in absolute terms.
I have simply tried to explain some of what Citys thinking is in this - some of the reasons behind it and why their situation is more complicated than most schools. Their thinking may also be about getting an advantage that they know other schools don't have, in terms of not needing to use the WL so much. Again, it's a different choice, but as long as it's clear, I think it is okay.

Parents should be able to apply for schools in full knowledge of the admissions process. If they aren't in full receipt if info this is wrong. However, if the info is clear, any system can be used and it is up to parents to decide if they want to apply or not.

People might not like the approach CIty decides to use next year. They can then decide if that will mean they don't want to apply or to go ahead anyway. I suspect they will have plenty apply next year too - suggesting their behaviour hasn't been abhorrent enough to make people decide it is a shocking place to be avoided at all costs.

I agree that the communication hasn't been acceptable. However, I don't think the system in itself if communicated clearly is abhorrent. It might not be workable again for next year, but as a principle and approach, for a year or 2 if communicated clearly could be fine, if different to what others do. You clearlydo think it is awful.. We just have to differ on that. It's one of the good things about MN, that we can express different views and agree to differ.

Wombat I had not noticed much green around Queens College, Portland Place, Francis Holland SS, Queensgate, More House etc. Many of these are now oversubscribed and will also be fall-back for many. Predicting numbers to offer must be tough so I don’t see why City is so special.

I have never been to Channing, but if Highgate sometimes use exploding offers, it would by your argument be absolutely inexcusable.

Offers are given before state school offers day, because this simply makes people more likely to take the place.

Schools know that if people have a couple of weeks to be pleased about getting an offer (lots of sucking up in the offer letters about how well DC has done to get a place against the competition) then they feel more positive about it. If they attend one of the offer holders days, some will become even more positive or swayed in dithering between state and independent because the day will showcase the shiny facilities and be a big marketing exercise. Of course some people will still be keentnobhave the free option, but for those who are really undecided, having the offer earlier gives the independent school a better chance of selling itself and tipping them in that direction. Notice independents never offer after state schools.
Some people like to think they are being kind and giving people lots of time to choose - well they are recognising a right to choose by having the deadline set after national offers day (if they do set it then - lots actually set it in offers day or before) and they are accepting that some will go for the state option, but their choice not to offer at the same time, does mean people know have longer to think about the positives of the independent. Essentially, the main reason is to benefit the schools.

And yes, lots of schools go to WL before the deadline. If they see they aren't likely to fill from first round of allocations they will start to do this because they fear the loss of good candidates to other schools. The schools who do this often have some flexibility over numbers - if some WL people take places and then there is a sudden bigger surge than expected of first round offer people accepting right at the deadline, they can run a bulge class. Some schools like City would find this very difficult - people don't seem to beer stand the space restrictions and being at absolute capacity issues - it is very different to being on a green site with lots of acres, or a town based school which has more space - many of Citys competitors simply do have more space and so more capacity to deal with suddenly having extra numbers. No-one would look to building classrooms in an underground carpark otherwise...but even this will take several years to be on line.

Perhaps it would help people to think about the motives for the actions of schools in their admissions processes to think of them more as a firm recruiting staff. What is a firm interested in if setting up - getting the best staff they can and making sure they have enough staff to fill every role so they can operate. And of course, they don't wantbtonfind they have hired more than they need. Will some people who apply be disappointed? Yes, some won't get an interview and others will get an interview and be rejected. Some might even apply and be told they have been successful but once it comes to paperwork, the business says regretfully they aren't actually recruiting now. Sometimes they even use exploding offers. I know it's not the same thing and I know that we are talking about children here with school offers - all I'm saying is that this idea that the schools are in it to be as lovely as possible to the hundreds who apply, simply isn't their main or sole purpose - they are looking to the future of the school, and sometimes that means some decisions which won't make everyone happy to achieve that. I'm not condoning unkindness or the poor communication that City has shown, nor not making policies clear and transparent, but I think I'm just saying that many people seem to struggle to see any of the process from a school point of view and only from the viewpoint of their individual situation. The decisions which are made are simply more complex than people often realise.

Do I think they've got it wrong this year? In terms of publicity, it seems yes, although I doubt applications will be down next year. In terms of clarity of communication - yes, because they didn't make it clear enough far enough in advance how they would offer - saying the process for acceptance will be made clear in an offer letter received the day before half term doesn't give people time enough to realise they needed to be around or the urgency of the decision this year. If they had made it clearer, earlier this year it would have probably been okay. Some people might have been disappointed, but they always are when things are first come first served. Can it work again another year - probably not because people will be camping out to get the places and that's not appropriate.
Perhaps they will return to the traditional system, but I suspect not. Bwhatbi do hope is that it is all through the through carefully and communicated to people at every open day from now on and in every piece of paperwork going out, so there are no doubts.

If I was applying to any school for next year, I would be checking in writing with all of them exactly what their policy is on making offers and deadlines etc. It seems you can't be too careful.

"Why are the offers given out before state school allocation day?"

So that people have a chance to mull them over, attend offer holders day etc, and get their thinking straight.

Acceptance deadline - if you follow ISA rules - has to be after state offers date. Most schools follow this practice because it is good for the actual children in the middle of this, that parents get to choose between offers in a stable, predictable system that all schools (except three) use, and use successfully.

@Needmoresleep thank you. That is helpful and will think about it if that is how things pan out. Things obviously go that way in the state sector (I know someone who did that twice, in one case moving a child when a place came up after a term). It is as much about turning emotionally on a sixpence at that point as the finances.

Creates a demand though. No one knows what they’ve got so create a sense of urgency by dangling this sure bet in front of anxious parents’ noses. I can’t see any other reason.

Why are the offers given out before state school allocation day? Surely if they waited until the same day a lot of the problems would be solved because everyone would have all their offers and there would be less need to hedge bets just in case the state school did/didn't come through?
It would be helpful whatever system they used, surely?

Invisible, when we were looking at girl's schools for DD we were surprised to be shown round one by a former prep school class mate of DS'. We thought she had gone to a nice well respected GDST, not the more selective and academic school we were viewing.

It turned out that the place had only come up three weeks before the start of term, after she had bought school uniform for the other school. She had also received a non academic scholarship. (She talked a bit about it on the tour and the implications in terms of school representation.) If you were offered a late place, it might be worth asking if City could help you. After all they will be sitting on a terms fees and deposit from the family who have dropped out. And given the chaos, may be very happy to pass it on to ensure the place is filled by a good pupil.

Needmoresleep Sat 24-Feb-18 11:36:39 has got it exactly right. Use the "normal" system of moderate over-offering (guided by bottom-up forecasts of probability of acceptance if offered) and use very proactive management of and communication with both offer-holders and people on the waiting list.

It is not simply a choice of system or even the number of offers, it is also just as importantly about how it is executed!

Many London independents already do this very well - and often go to their WL before deadline day, because they already have a good number of responses in early, so great visibility several days before the deadline. This way they face a negligible risk of overfilling, they enable parents to see all of their offers including state before deciding, and they fill up their spaces by first accepting the top performers and secondly by still-keen WL-holders.

When my DD1 had two WLs four years ago, both of those registrars were excellent at this! We stayed in touch, communicated our keenness and willingness to accept immediately, and received an offer from the WL before the common deadline day (I think the offer arrived ca 3 March, with the same ca 5 March deadline that all the original offerholders had, and we accepted the next day).

This approach also enabled us to avoid wasting a deposit at another school (we also received two offers) whilst accepting our preferred school - much appreciated.

On working with other schools, I meant via the industry body, and to benefit/protect the 10year old applicants. Not collusion for the schools' own gain. There is a lot of knowledge and experience out there, and all London schools are grappling with the same problems. It is almost easier for schools towards the top of the pecking order. One executive relocation might free up a place at SPGS, which frees up a place at City, which frees up a place at a GDST which frees up a place at one of the less academic consortium schools, which then frees up a place at a "fall back". If City have a problem, Portland Place, to name one urban fall back surely has the same problem but in spades, especially if they are trying to keep a reasonable boy/girl ratio.

With regard to CLSG trying to secure the top candidates - I'm not convinced there is a huge amount of difference between the top and bottom of those offered places. There will be some truly outstanding girls who will be offered scholarships (probably from multiple schools), after that the differences are small surely?

I know the numbers are bigger and the competition fiercer, but Oliver Blonde, the old Head at Henrietta Barnett, said that any of the top 300 girls who made it through to Round 2 (after an initial number of over 2,000 sitting) would do fine at the school. The difference between the scores of the second round test is negligible.

On the collision/collaboration point - the private schools are competing businesses , so there will be legal limits to what is allowed, so they do compete. (There is form here, several years ago a number of private schools were investigated and forced to stop exchanging information on their intended fees - because this kept prices up). The current admissions code is permissible because it ultimately benefits applicants - if it were just for the benefit of the schools it would not be allowed. If you read the ISA code, the first thing it says is that it has been designed to comply with competiton law. It is likely that a state school style allocation system that didn't allow you to choose between competing offers would go too far and would not be allowed.

You are right that they won't want people camping out. Something will have to be done to prevent that possibility

I'll take this as your agreement that the current mechanism will not be acceptable for next year. But if the mechanism is fundamentally flawed, then it is a fundamentally bad system not just for next year, but for this year and for the past two years as well. It may have worked, after a fashion, in the past. But just because the early investors in a Ponzi scheme come out alright doesn't make such a scheme a good one even in the beginning.

Actually, with only 75 places to fill, hitting the phone can be very useful for managing the list.