Random allocation....yer right!

[saltod]

We applied, along with 400 other hopefuls, for a place at an outstanding secondary school for our ds1. 150 places went to 86 siblings, 30 to choristers and specialist music places, 5 or so to looked after children and the rest to random allocation. When results came out many who had 'connections' with the school got the final places. Two years later applying for ds2 the same has happened again. The school chose the remaining places via their random allocation computer, no involvement from the LEA! The idea that cherry picking and someone having a word in the right ear have been suggested but without proof what can be done. It makes me mad, my lovely boys missed out again because we don't have the right connections!

Thinking of changing my name to sour grapes :) but I enjoyed the rant!

Ooh now I've seen very similar - but random bit strangely works out about 50/50 gender split despite them saying absolutely random in valid applications. Technical term applicable - random my arse!!!

I'm guessing this school could be in the north west of england.
Assuming it is, the other really interesting feature is that all the random allocations were first preference pupils. Now if it truely is random and includes all pupils who applied (2nd and 3rd preferences) then on average you should have some such pupils in the random allocation.

As a foundation school it is for them to use their own random allocation system but as you so rightly say, how random is it?

I've seen many miraculously finding their religion about two years before applications are due in, helping out, altar serving, joining the pta, volunteering to be a catercist, then when their kids are successful they vanish into thin air again.

Yes North West England. I'm hugely suspicious.

Are you psychic admission?

I feel like making a complaint to somebody, but who?

The school I'm thinking of just needs Baptism certificate, so easy to sneak into category. But i just can't believe random allocation - after care, medical/social, choristers, music, siblings - would be such an even gender split. And they get WAY WAY WAY above average results, so unless they're running some genetic mutation facility - still v suspicious!!!

I have no idea which school we are talking about and I live in the North West! I'll have to do some research. Or perhaps someone will PM me and enlighten me.

You can refer them to the Schools Adjudicator on the basis that their random allocation isn't truly random.

If all the places went to people who made the school their first preference it raises concerns. It does not prove anything, though. It can, of course, happen that a genuinely random system occasionally chooses only people who named the school as first choice. The chances of that happening become higher if most of those applying name it as first choice.

Again, if the pupils applying are split 50/50 on gender you would expect a random allocation to result in around a 50/50 split more often than not, so I don't necessarily find that suspicious. It would be suspicious, however, if the applications were consistently dominated by one sex but the random allocation always came out 50/50.

The most suspicious thing I can see mentioned is the allegation that people with connections with the school have a better chance of getting a place. Again, that can happen in a random system and without knowing the numbers involved it is impossible to say how likely it is.

So I don't know if there is enough to say they are definitely cheating but I would hope the Adjudicator would take a proper look.

Last year 2 cousins got in via R A, their dads were former pupils!

It does sound odd, but do you know that the percentage of accepted pupils with connections to the school was significantly higher than the percentage of rejected pupils with connections to the school? What I'm getting at - and I have no clue what school we're talking about either - is that in some communities, especially those with a fairly static population, just about everyone near a school has some sort of connection to it - parent attended, grandparent attended, auntie is a governor, parent works there or whatever.

I can see no basis at all from the OP for complaining for all the reasons prh47bridge says: "connected with the school" is just a little too vague. How many applicants whose parents had also gone to the school did not get in (just because 2 did, did not mean its fiddled). Down in London some people say Kingsdale fixes their random allocation (but that is simply word-of-mouth playground gossip). The Admissions code (prh47bridge will know more) says that the allocation needs to be independently supervised. Checking that that was the case is a good starting point ...

With regard to the gender split they may well have two pools, one male and one female and then randomise within them. Clinical trials are done like this to make sure that test groups are comparable (more complex than just gender obviously) and they are still considered random.

Assuming I have the right school, the Local Authority prospectus for parents says that for the September Y7 2011 intake, there were 345 first preference, 236 second and 105 third. The 150 places were allocated to 141 1st, 8 2nd and 1 3rd preference applicants.

From the OP figures, 19 places were allocated using random allocation - not a large number.

It is not the only school in the area which used random allocation - I would ask the school for details of how the allocation was done, in particular was it carried out by somone independent from the school.

I make it 29 using random allocation with 121 places going to siblings, looked after children and specialist musical places. If we assume that all the 121 named this school as the first choice, there would have been 224 first preferences, 236 second and 105 third in the random allocation. Unless the LA has broken the rules the school would not know which was which - the LA is specifically prohibited from telling the school whether a particular candidate has named them as first, second or third choice.

Random allocation using those figures could come up with anything. We expect it to look random but it doesn't necessarily. If it came out in line with the proportions of candidates you would get 12 first preferences, 12 second preferences and 5 third preferences. However, some of those who named the school as second or third preference would also get a place at one of their higher preference schools, which would skew the actual outcome towards the first preferences. So it looks like the outcome was 20 first preferences, 8 second and 1 third.

OhDearConfused is correct that the random allocation must be independently supervised. They can do the allocation themselves but someone else must supervise it to ensure it is genuinely random.

If the school is engineering a 50/50 gender split as nooka says it should say so in their admission criteria. If it doesn't say that it should be genuinely random. However, as long as the applications are split roughly 50/50 between the sexes you would expect the random allocation to split similarly most years. My calculations suggest around a 35% chance of an exactly even split and a much higher chance of a roughly even split.

All of this is why I don't like random allocation. It has the advantage of stopping house prices near the school being forced up as parents try to move close but it often leaves people suspicious that the allocation isn't truly random.

A big deal has been made about how DCs who didnt have the school as their 1st choice didn't get in.

May be in an alternative universe the admissions people are going - I know we aren't their first choice but lets piss them off and allocate a place to them :o

I asked about the process. Apparently all those within that category are allocated a number on a spreadsheet, and then the lucky-dippers are just randomly selected. Done by school but supervised by LEA - with no weighting for gender or anything else.

Have to admit I couldn't quite get my head round how the preference thing worked alongside this - if someone was picked out that was offered a higher pref, did they pick again.

They also said that after 1 March, if someone turned down the offer then the random allocation was done again - rather than having a numbered waiting list.

Now I normally love a good spreadsheet, but this one isn't my friend.

What should happen with the initial allocations is that all the applicants are put in a random order and the LA then sorts out who gets an offer. And yes, they have to do a random selection again whenever a vacancy arises for any reason. That is mandated by the Admissions Code.

Totally confusing!
Going to sellotape my 5yr olds hands to our piano, so he gets in on a music place!! My ds1 missed out by 2%! :(

For the benefit of those confused by the process, this is what should happen...

The school gets a list of applicants from the LA. The LA should not tell the school whether or not they were a child's first preference, nor should they tell the school anything about the other preferences.

The school sorts the applicants into categories according to their admission criteria. They then put the applicants within each category into a random order. When they have done that they can return a sorted list of applicants to the LA. Note that they have to sort all the applicants. They don't just choose the first 150.

The first 150 on the sorted list have places at the school. However, some of them will have named the school as second or third choice and will also have a place at a higher choice. They will only be offered the place at their highest choice so they are removed from this school's list and their place goes to the next person on the list.

Eventually the LA will have a list of 150 applicants who have places at this school and do not have places at any of their higher preferences. Those are the people who will receive offers.

If any places become available after the offers are made they are not allowed to use the original random order to decide who gets the place. They have to repeat the process with those on the waiting list.

What is the purpose of the school insisting that each applicant completes a separate application form, seen only by the school, as well as the LEA one?

I still don't know which school we are talking about so I don't know what is on their form. However, any school that is its own admission authority is entitled to ask parents to complete a supplementary form. This cannot ask for information they are not allowed to use in determining admissions. So it cannot, for example, ask parents whether they named this school as first choice. All parents applying for places at the school should complete this form regardless of whether it is their first choice or their last choice.

If someone would care to enlighten me as to the identity of the school I'll take a look at their supplementary form and may be able to comment further.

There are actually two supplementary forms. One relates to the faith requirements in the admission criteria, the other is a more general form. The general form is just a re-run of the information on the LA form but has the option for the parent to put down any other information that they wish the school to know!

Thanks to Salskey and Admission who have both identified the school for me. Their supplementary forms look ok to me.

With random allocation is there a need for a supplementary form? Do the school really need to know anything else about the child/family if their application only applies to this category? I would be happier if the LEA were solely in charge of RA places, this would keep the process transparent, above board and guarantee an equal opportunity for all those applying!