Tiffin Schools Admission Arrangements

[tiffinboys]

Tiffin Schools (Boys & Girls) have issued their Determined Admission Arrangements for 2013-14. Boths Schools have decided to ignore pleas from the local community and opted to continue with Open Selection.

Though most of the grammar schools have catchment/proximity rules, some even going to the extent of denying applications to sit for their entrance test in breach of Grenwich ruling, Tiffins would continue open selection policies. Only handful of children from Kingston & surrounding areas get places in Tiffins. Most of the places go to the children living at very very far away places, eg. Harrow, Southall, Greenford.

Grammar schools from Bromley (St. Olave & Newstead Wood), Redbridge (Woodford County & Ilford County) or Barnet/Herts (DAO & Latymer) or Slough (Langley) would not allow out-of-catchment children to even apply for admission tests. Other schools like Kent grammars would only give places to children living near to the School. Some schools have most of the places for catchment area (Nonsuch, Wallington etc.).

This year, Reading grammars (Kendrik & Reading) and Chelmsford grammars (both boys & girls) have changed their over-subscription criteria from 100% open selection to 100% catchment and 80% catchment respectively.

It is high time that children from Kingston and surrounding areas also get level playing field. Until all grammar schools are 100% open selection, it is fair that some priority is restored for these children.

We have therefore proposed that Tiffins give 80% places on the basis of proximity to the Schools (or such other Centre point in the Borough, as previously proposed by the LA) to those children who pass the entrance tests. Other 20% may be given on open selection.

This proposal complies with Greenwich/Rotherham rulings. We are aware that it would take lot of persuation for the Governors of these school to accept this proposal. We call upon all parents from Kingston & Surrounding areas t write to the Tiffin Schools in support of this proposal and copy these to your local MPs and Councillors.

@CouthyMowEatingBraiiiiinz 10 MILE! lol: if Tiffins applied that, then would encompass most of London!!!

I can understand that, but right now there are people coming from London and Redbridge to the Colchester Grammars!

lol: as Tiffins results are issued to the 'first bunch' today, and considering the ongoing controversy re: fairness of this years testing / entrance arrangements - i wonder is there someone at RBK who's job it is to 'start up the fan!!!' Would not want to be in their shoes - not for any money. Cud this sound the death knell of these schools as superselectives??? Or will it just go on, year on year ad infinitum without change. Surely after this; something has to happen.

London to Colchester; ooh err, that's a trip i wudn't wont to daily make!!! Not as a kid anyway.

*@zofanny51; 00:14"

Well it is because it simply will not happen; the schools will normalize for age-weightings only; no allowances will be made for extra tuition since Tiffins always flatly deny it makes any difference.

I'm not sure how they cannot standardardise to remove any perceived advantage. Lets say 1700 take the test first time and (not sure what the numbers are, but just bear with me) 1000 take the test second time.

If the "cut-off" for getting in is 230 this year and only 5% of the first bunch got that much, but 10% of the second bunch got that mark - it would be obvious and an immediate ground for appeal. I know I am exagerrating, but those that think 3 months extra practice actually makes a differe

Indeed, why bother revising / rehearsing / practising for any exam then??? And to think these are amongst the best schools in UK

Doesn't follow. Yes practicing makes a difference, but (and it was higher up this thread) you eventually plataeu and then further practice (as I know from my DD's piano practice) simply back-fires.....

oops. Wish there was an "edit" button. Ah well - you get the gist of what I was saying..

12 wks at 1 NVR/1VR each per day; that's 168 additional test papers!!!

Wish our DS had the benefit of this; we could have easily got up to 95+% i'm sure with an additional 3 mths to prepare.

An advantage of this magnitude will mean some weaker candidates from second tranche will now likely outperform stronger ones from the first sitting; based purely on time. It's plainly a ridiculous situation.

If you use the same test, then it's open to abuse; if different, then you cannot compare - not for entry in the same year. It is common practise for Tiffin tutors to wait at the gates or lurk around corners after the Tiffin test, in desperate hopes of gaining insights into the questions - one actually related this...

Boys who sat for the 'first test', believing it to be the only one will obviously have divulged some details, albeit unwittingly - thinking it was all done & dusted, exam season over. Either to others or else their peers.

If TS/TGS insist on testing a second tranche (why not a third or fourth as well) - for whatever reason, then places allocated should be separate & additional - over & above 140 from the 1700 who sat the test at the correct time.

Stick 'em in a field classrooms or something, as happens with the primaries.
After all, these are candidates whose parents simply couldn't be bothered to check the dates with the school, website or RBK.

It is a simple fact that 1700 were able to make it there on time - so why on earth should this second sitting now be afforded the advantage and privilege of effectively stealing places from those who genuinely want to go to Tiffin schools and put in the requisite effort?

Compared to previous years, the first tranche are now 'early sitters', so clearly at a disadvantage in terms of the time they had to prepare. Tiffin will not adjust for this - having spoken to them i know this to be the case. Parents are quite rightly furious, left feeling cheated, shortchanged.

lol: maybe RBK could build another school pronto to accomodate them all!!! Call it Tiffin Academy INXS.

@OhDearConfused... am not sure NVR/VR bears comparison with DDs piano practice; most children are forced oops, nay encouraged by their overzealous parents into music lessons; imho: not for the many would it be through choice. iPad yes; piano no.

Well constructed VR/NVR tests are resistant to a practise effect. Familiarity with the question formats helps but, once a child has got the basic idea, repetition does not necessarily improve the outcome. Research suggests that factors such as having a good night's sleep and being healthy have a much bigger impact on the outcome of such tests than repeated practise. Age is the biggest factor affecting performance in such tests. Of course, all this depends on the tests used by Kingsdale being well constructed and practise-resistant. I don't know whether or not this is the case.

Similarly, if you know the exact questions you can memorise the answers but simply knowing the general type of questions is of little use. If you talk to those who have already taken the test you are likely to get half remembered versions of questions mixed and some wrong answers. I doubt that using the same test for later applicants will lead to abuse. Some schools have done this for years without problems.

I note that some parents are talking of legal action. I doubt that will achieve anything other than wasting money, both their own and the school's. The constraints with which the school MUST comply by law are:

• they must "take all reasonable steps" to inform parents of the outcome of the tests before the closing date for applications (31st October)

• they must treat everyone who applies by 31st October equally

• they may not give priority to people who applied before the test deadline

• they may not refuse entry to a child just because they missed the test

As Kingsdale use the test result to determine priority for admissions I cannot see any way of meeting those legal constraints unless they test everyone who applies by 31st October. Some posters seem to be suggesting that Kingsdale should simply refuse entry to everyone who missed the test. They cannot do that in my view. The other grammar schools mentioned that appear to be excluding anyone who misses the tests are, in my view, on very dodgy ground and will likely be told to mend their ways.

The government decided that selective schools should give results of entrance tests before 31st October so that parents do not waste a preference on a school where their child is not of the required standard to gain entry. It was not their intention that parents who apply early should get an advantage over those who apply later as some here clearly want.

Those who missed the tests have a disadvantage in that they are applying to Kingsdale without knowing their child's test score. They may, therefore, be wasting a preference.

I understand the concern of parents who think those applying after the deadline for the first tests are getting some kind of unfair advantage. However, I am aware of extensive research into VR and NVR tests that suggests there is no advantage as long as the tests used by Kingsdale are properly constructed.

Apologies - got distracted whilst typing the above. Please replace all references to Kingsdale with Tiffins

168 additional practice papers . do they even exist?

Seriously, love Zolfany's posts , but agree with the (as usual) sage words of prh47bridge.

There really will be no advantage for later students. 3 months extra ageing will easily be capable of being standardised for.

! .

tiffinboys

While I can understand your sense of frustration that the openness of Kingston schools isn't reciprocated elsewhere, it would be regrettable for it to go the same way as others.

Birmingham consortium, Wolverhamtom-Walsall-Shropshire consortium are largely open [not that I am suggesting Londoners should go as far :-)]. Even the Langley one has really wide catchment area now, and has been a sore point for those who reside in Slough/Langley itself - not sure when they'll get it squeezed too !

While an unbiased observer can see your point, those who live across various parts of Greater London without owning (or being able to own) a property and keen to escape sink school entrapments have just a few places to look forward to - HBS, Tiffins, ~ 180 seats in Sutton ! And of course, not everyone send their DDs by coaches, for long distanes for all years of secondary education. Most relocate to Kingston/adjoining areas anyway. Not sure if this 'corrective' move (based on whether DC gets seat in Barnet or South) is sufficient to diffuse :-)

I have to agree with prh47bridge. I can't see how the schools could possibly concede that a later test date gives any advantage to those candidates. If they were to accept this argument, then they would be admitting that more practice/ tutoring time can make a material difference to a child's score. In that case, the test would be failing in its principal purpose, which is to identify natural ability. Of course, there are all kinds of reasons why these tests may not be quite as neutral as they are designed to be, but selective schools must surely argue that their tests are 'tutor-proof' or they will be opening themselves up to much more serious challenges.

And of course everyone knows that the tests are not tutor proof.

It would be funny if it were not all so outrageous.

A bit out of date as my daughter is now in Sixth Form. Many girls of her acquaintance had been tutored to get in, some by the legendary Mrs W. There were definitely some girls who were of a lower standard than others (while still able). They may have got in because of chance, but more likely because they were heavily tutored. In my opinion (at least in those days) there were a limited number of vocab questions/words in the NFER test bank, if you learnt the majority you were in with a good chance. It was considered that a mark of 85% in the practice tests would get you in.

My own daughter started practising about 3 months before the test. She wasn't tutored but did about 3 papers a week. She learnt all the question types and got one of the highest marks in the cohort. She is very clever but no genius - we just systematically learnt the question types.

Moral of the story - if you are able anyway - GOOD tutoring will give you the edge and an advantage. I think extra time will be of an advantage to some students. I have heard some heartbreaking stories of girls being tutored for years and not getting in. A fellow student of DD knows a girl who took a month off school to prepare for the tests.

Tiffin Girls' is a nice school, but there are a lot of nice schools. It is high in the tables because all the girls are clever. Not because the teachers are better or try particularly hard. In retrospect DD would have done well at any school. I think the teaching is better in my younger daughter's comp tbh.

I wish there was a ban on publishing results (except for current or prospective parents), I think league table rankings are largely to blame for the hysteria over this and other super selective schools.

I hope that the new maths and English test level the playing field a bit, and make a place at the school possible for all clever girls not just the tutored.

And of course everyone knows that the tests are not tutor proof.

Really? How? What evidence do you have for that assertion?

I repeat that there is plenty of research showing that properly constructed VR and NVR tests are resistant to practise effects. Surprisingly, even repeatedly taking the same test will not have any significant effect on the outcome. Familiarity with the types of questions helps, of course.

The problem with anecdotal evidence such as that from BeingFluffy is that no-one knows what scores would have been achieved without tutoring/practising.

I do not know if the tests used currently by Tiffins are properly constructed, of course. If they are not then tutoring may help. I have not seen the Tiffins tests nor am I qualified to judge whether or not they are properly constructed so I cannot comment on that.

The basic question is whether or not these tests measure ability. If they are not tutor proof they are failing in their basic objective. In order to measure ability they should, like IQ tests (which is essentially what they are), be resistant to tutoring and practise.

Just to add that I am always suspicious of "everyone knows" statements. Just because "everyone knows" something doesn't mean it is true. In my experience the things "everyone knows" are frequently completely untrue.

prh47bridge you are right. I have no evidence other than the anectodal evidence of almost all posters on entry to this school. We are of course a self-selecting samples - but i just don't recall reading (or if I have there are few) any poster ever saying - and my DC just went in there without practice/tutoring.

And my own personal experience. I can see an increasing improvement in the scores my DC do in practice papers (and don't accepts it simply a question of age): its a factor of practice, and I think of my explaining (no tutor here) the "question type" and strategy. Sure, a gifted child may well be able to work out strategies on the day without this prior work - but the competition is so high (and questions per hour so high) with only a few marks making the difference between top of cohort and below the 140/150 mark - that they surely must (I know I have no evidence) be a disadavantage over those who have worked them out (or had them taught to them) in advance.

As an 'outsider' to this debate (we didn't consider Tiffin entry as felt it was too anomalous an exam and DS is now very happily attending SGS), I have no axe to grind one way or the other.

I do however totally agree with those who reckon that repeated practice doesn't necessarily make perfect. I distinctly recall with DS, last Summer, that he definitely peaked and then started going backwards with his scores.

I think you have to accept that the Tiffin Schools and their Heads are a lot more experienced in these matters of exams than most parents. If they say that it won't make a difference for some of the candidates to have had an extra three months tuition you can be assured that they will have academic research to back up their claims.

Personally I think that all that extra time to prepare is probably counter-productive. Any DC who has any oomph about him/her will get to the point of saturation with practising and just want to down tools and get on with the rest of their lives and having fun (particularly in the lead up to Christmas). All those extra weeks just add to anxiety, pressure etc..... (particularly if you have discovered that you haven't passed any of the other local-ish super-selective 11+ exams).

Moreover, OhDearConfused,you are talking about your child and you cannot generalise to a wider population on the evidence of one! There may be variables particular to your child that could not be applied to others DCs....

I find this whole 'lay' challenge to the sagacity of the Schools on these matters to be rather irksome. If a child is bright enough to get in they will get in and if they're not they won't. Simple. It seems to be a peculiarly Middle-Class characteristic to never accept that the 'Authorities' might just know what they're talking about (the whole MMR fiasco being another which springs to mind).

This whole 'cult of Tiffin' which doesn't seem to extend to the other super-selectives in the area is very strange, to my mind. I just don't get it. If you look at League Tables is is generally way below Wilson's (in recent years) and the difference twixt SGS, Tiffins (Girls and Boys), Nonsuch and WCGS is negligible.

I am also pretty sure that there won't really be 1000 extra children taking the 11+ exams in November/December for The Tiffin Schools. There might be some for whom it is a last attempt at a grammar school place, having failed the 11+ exams for other super-selectives. But everyone knows that the exam for Tiffins is anomalous so it's a very long shot indeed.

gazzalw I don't disagree that it can be counterproductive and indeed there will be a peak in readiness from which either the effect of tutoring/practising and so is negligle or harmful even.

[I don't buy into the Tiffin cult either, its just - being on a line from Central London - convenient to us (for DS) which the other schools aren't!]

Gazzalw: "If a child is bright enough to get in they will get in and if they're not they won't."

I'm afraid I have to disagree with this - I know of several girls who didn't get into Tiffin but did get into the likes of St Pauls/LEH. They have achieved straight A*s at GCSE and A2 and are now at university, some at Oxbridge. You can't tell me that they weren't bright enough to be Tiffin material?

I think the difference between getting in and not is so very slight - my own daughter missed by 8 or 9 marks but that put her 80 something on the waiting list (and that was a few years ago, when I think about 1100 sat the test). There are a few at the top of the normal distribution who will always get in, but there is a huge swathe of bright kids who, on the day, could get in or not depending on slight differences in speed and a few lucky guesses.

I don't think you can say that those who made it were bright enough and those that didn't are not. It's not that cut and dried!

I have a nephew at Tiffin, clearly bright and tutored for under one year, another boy in his year was tutored from the age of 3 and was just above average at his local state school but very good at verbal and non reasoning after 7 years of practise papers, as any above average child would be. Both got in. My son went to a local fee paying selective school, there were many local boys who failed to get into Tiffin in his class, without exception they did as well if not better when it came to A levels than the boys in their year at Tiffin. That said Tiffin is a good school and should be for local children of parents who pay some of highest council taxes in country and don't get a fair choice.

That they should all tutor from the age of 3 just to stand a chance is clearly wrong, what sort of child does that produce, one that may not be up to scratch at A levels clearly. The only people wining are the tutors who at my calculations are earning around £60,000 a year from worried parents who just want the best chance for their child.

Getting into Tiffin or similar is not the end of the line, getting into a good university is whole new trial - only 8% get into the 'top 20'. - and believe me at this level the tutoring starts all over again, in fact for some poor pushed children it never stops.....

Gazzalw: "If a child is bright enough to get in they will get in and if they're not they won't."

This is definitely not true. DS1 is at Tiffin; pretty much top of his year group. DS2 just took the test and will not be joining his brother i'm afraid; but his levels are higher and he is every bit as intelligent and capable.

Please all here - STOP using the Tiffin entrance tests as if some kind of benchmark of a childs intellect/ability/aptitude/motivation/drive, or whatever... meh; it is nothing of the sort.

Tiffin Entrance test is basically just some lunacy dreamt up by the school/RBK to stress out children and poor parents alike an indicator of the childs ability (or otherwise) to gain an age weighted, non-linear, HTU value that places it within top 140 by rank order. Nothing else...

We hosted a small gathering of Tiffs last night; during apple bobbing when asked why an apple floats - they struggled, each to a one. Some of the boys present scored exceptionally high in the Tiffin Entrance Examination.

After a year or so of brilliant teaching at an outstanding school this surprises me (lol: not. So what do they learn in Physics exactly; would they even know it's a Physics Question - personally, i doubt it) - anyhow, it's not exactly genius is it?