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.

@BellaGallica -- it was a government change, so this would have been the same across the board, applies for all grammars / state selectives (that they would have sat early this yr in order to turn around results to applicants prior to CAF submission); surely if you are in the group of candidates sitting for selectives, you should know this???

The change to the rules has been in national press, on television, radio, etc. Hardly a secret...

Moreover, it was clearly communicated by the schools as soon as their guidelines for admissions where released, as evidenced by the fact that record numbers sat the test at both TS/TGS this year (TS - 1700 candidates/TGS - 1800 candidates). Dates change yearly (certainly for TS; November, December, January, and now September), so you would have to refere to this .pdf or contact the school anyway. Certainly for TS it is still there, easily accessible on the website - i viewed it only yesterday.

What is really tough and utterly unfair is that a second sitting is even being considered, let alone implemented! This means a good many candidates who had to prepare and sit 'early' this year will undoubtedly be denied a place they rightfully have earned in 'superselective' competition against their peers; to others in a 2nd tranche who are in the privileged position of additional 10 weeks to prepare. Plus all other tests far behind them.

By the way, the second dates were clearly advertised on both TS / TGS websites subsequent to what has now become 1st tranche; on the front/landing page - i saw them (in fact you could not miss them). It is possible they were removed after parents complained (pure speculation on my part); but certainly they were up there for a good week. And besides which, if you have a child at TGS already, she would not have been in school on the September date of the original sitting, so i really don't see how you could have missed them? I find this quite remarkable.

Parents whose DCs sat 'the test' on the correct date, having submitted applications at the correct time by the closing date and in the prescribed manner are justifiably incandescent.

Many of us also have DCs at one or other of the Tiffin schools, and do not want siblings denied their opportunity to join them as a result of the RBK fiasco. If you have somewhere else DD2 would rather go, i.e. 'choice' in the matter then I'd count yourself very fortunate indeed - in Kingston we have literally no other options; nowhere to go.

Late application candidates are required to have put TS / TGS on their CAF to be eligible to sit the second test anyway; so i am wondering, are you really sure you understand the procedure? If you nominate the school on CAF then don't sit, or want DD2 to go elsewhere then you have simply wasted a place on the form? Especially so, when considering the numbers applying, you would have to place Tiffin high up (first) to stand a realistic chance of gaining admission.

...if you have 'put in a late application' and also nominated TGS on your CAF form, then i would not worry as the school will contact you about the date in due course. That's basically how it works.

you would have to place Tiffin high up (first) to stand a realistic chance of gaining admission

Rubbish. Tiffin won't know whether you have made them your first choice or your sixth choice. They are not allowed to give priority to people who make them first choice. To make sure they don't the LA is not allowed to give them this information.

You also seem to be suggesting that the school should refuse admission to anyone who missed the first test. That would be a clear breach of the Admissions Code. The school has no choice - every applicant must be allowed to sit the test regardless of when they apply.

The school has no choice - every applicant must be allowed to sit the test regardless of when they apply.

phrh47bridge, Could you explain this please? Can't the school require a timetable to be adhered to? Ie apply by a particular date to sit on a particular date. And so if it then decides to give late applicant's a further chance at applying, it is doing so voluntarily rather than because it has to? (Otherwise, late applicants for that would also have to be given a chance to sit the test.) Am I missing your point?

[Agree with your other point: yes, place on list makes absolutely no difference to chance of getting a place - only that you might be lucky and get a higher preference and so not offered Tiffin]

So how are these other schools 'considering' the application? Surely they would need evidence that the child is sufficiently clever? Which they can't do without testing? So they can't really 'consider' the application?

So how are these other schools 'considering' the application? Surely they would need evidence that the child is sufficiently clever? Which they can't do without testing? So they can't really 'consider' the application?

Just found this thread. Very interested as a local resident with a 3 year old DD. TGS is my local school - closer even than all the primaries.

I'm another who wants to back up what tiffinboy said (although I realise it was a few months ago now and the thread has moved on). There are three primaries within 5 minutes walking distance of where we live in North Kingston - two of which have expanded to three form entry in the last two years to cope with demand. And another four with in a ten minute walk. And not a single secondary. Except for TGS/TS. Where do all those primary children go when it's time to move on to secondary school?

The biggest issue in North Kingston is the lack of secondary provision for the very large number of children living there. There is still lots of local pressure for a new free school on the site next to TGS - not shelved as far as I know, but possibly not in their original form.

The reason that the lack of catchment for TGS and TS is an issue is for two reasons:

a) it limits the options of local parents. I don't think I'll put DD in for the entrance exam for TGS - the competition is too intense. She would need more tutoring than I would feel comfortable with to stand a chance. If the competition were limited by catchment, I would feel more comfortable putting her up for it as I think she would stand a better chance on her own merits. (Disclaimer - she's 3, so I have no idea yet how academic she's going to be).

b) it means that EVERY child then has to travel to school. All the ones coming into TGS from outside the local area, but then also all the ones from the local area travelling to other schools. DD will HAVE to go to a school that is at least two bus rides away - there is nothing closer.The area is already a transport bottleneck because of the frequent delays around Petersham and the proximity to the river.

Creating a catchment for TGS would only be part of the solution. A new non-faith, non-selective secondary is what is really needed. And I would gladly send my DD to that and not give TGS a second glance if it was any good.

As Tiggytape says the current Admissions Code states that the school cannot refuse admission solely because the child has missed the entrance test. They are also not allwed to refuse admission because the child applied later than other candidates.

Tiffin offers places based purely on the test score so the only way they can comply with this is to test all applicants regardless of when they apply. Even if someone misses the main admissions round completely, their child must still be tested in order to determine position on the waiting list.

Many other schools simply use the test to decide whether or not the child is of grammar school standard and do not use the score to determine priority. They can take a different approach such as looking for other evidence of whether or not the child is of the appropriate standard. But if you use the score to determine priority I think you have to test every applicant.

That is my interpretation of the current Admissions Code. It could be that the Schools Adjudicator will disagree but I would be surprised.

I'm always confused. Never more so than here. I'm sure your right, Tiggy, but then does "on demand" mean if I put the school on the CAF without even making the second test date they have to offer a test date just for my DS?

BTW: I'm not sure I buy the "unfairnes" to the first set of applicants mind you. They could all be standardised so that 3 months extra "practice" "tutoring" or whatever makes no or very little difference. Not saying tht TS are doing that, but they quite clearly could.

Ah my confusion just answered. I will write to them and ask for my DS to be tested. Looking at my calendar, I have a couple of mornings free in late February. Before offer day of course.

@phrh47bridge The school has no choice - every applicant must be allowed to sit the test regardless of when they apply. OH REALLY!!! THAT'S AN INTERESTING PERSPECTIVE... So presumably, there will be numerous other sittings of the test at TS / TGS this year, ad infinitum - until everyone who quite frankly could not be bothered to ascertain the key dates in the application process are satisfied. Let's hope their DCs are more organized, if successful. DS1 has already been denied a days education for the first; now a further days school closure is planned for the second - where does this all end? What is the point of killing yourself to get into a school - if you are hardly ever there?

There is one key date, the date of the common application form.

Position on CAF does matter - that's obvious; if you put Tiffin second, a n other school first, and the latter offers then you will not receive an offer from TS / TGS. If you really want to go to a particular school, even though the schools do not see or select based upon your preferences - you must put the high up (first). RBK Secondary Schools Admissions literature explains this, and even gives an example where appplicant takes test, puts Tiffin second on CAF, passes test, but receives offer from first place nominated school - so cannot take up Tiffin. Passing the test does not confer upon you a 'choice'.

@SkippyYourFriendEverTrue - correct; but effectively Tiffins are running old & new system in tandem this year. Not surprisingly this is not well received. Has led to much confusion and anger amongst parents. Childrens futures is unsure.

TBH they should all just move to December testing so that the common application form can be genuinely common.

The early testing system really does favour the pushy parent.

I hate to disagree with tiggy but Wilsons do NOT use the score to rank candidates. It is a straight pass/fail (108 marks is a pass according to their FAQ). Ranking is by distance only with candidates from within Sutton having priority.

They should still have some mechanism in place to allow them to determine whether children who apply too late for the test should be classed as passing or failing. If they do not and simply refuse admission, any appeal should work on the assumption that the child is of the required standard. So I am of the view that Wilsons do not have to run extra tests for latecomers.

Tiffins, on the other hand, rank purely by score - those with the highest scores get places. If they don't test an applicant they would have no way of knowing where to place them in the ranking. If they gave all late applicants a notional test score without actually testing them I think the Schools Adjudicator would say that broke the Admissions Code.

@OhDearConfused BTW: I'm not sure I buy the "unfairnes" to the first set of applicants mind you. They could all be standardised so that 3 months extra "practice" "tutoring" or whatever makes no or very little difference. Not saying tht TS are doing that, but they quite clearly could. WHAT??? This is to completely miss the point. Take TS: 1700 at first sitting. Since the school is being closed (again); one could assume a significant number at the second. Standardize / Normalize - meh, dowhatever; statistically both score sets will follow a normal Gaussian distribution. This means, that necessarily there will be increased numbers of candidates for each score value if you combine - so, with no additional places to allocate; counting down in rank order from top score to n = 140 means that many who would have been included if the process were applied after one sitting will definitely lose their school place. Only possible way this would not be so is if everyone sitting test 2 scored below those sitting test 1 - this is hardly likely. More candidates, rank order allocation of a fixed number of places; mathematically it's a no brainer. Why should any candidate who sat in accordance with the rules, and to the agreed procedure and timeline be denied a place at Tiffins by a late applicant??? How can that be fair???

...some candidates i know of for sure who sat this year; tutored 5-days/wk. Wk in / wk out. So ten additional weeks, that equates to an awful lot of papers more practice - DS1 is at TS; didn't take him long to work out the math. You cannot standardize to offset that level of tutoring; especially where one or two points / questions is the determinant between failure or success. It's simply not possible.