City of London Girls withdrawing offers

[Leo12345]

Hello! I was surprised to receive an email today from City of London Girls that their offer to DD is now withdrawn. I opened their original email with the offer and read that indeed this is their policy: first-comes-first-gets.
We are much more prone to go to LEH or if not Kingston Grammar, and now I bless this decision as I learnt something about City of London Girls character and aptitude towards its pupil.

My question is: do other schools (in particular LEH and Kingston Grammar) practice such policy?

We would accept the offer in LEH today then, though we are waiting for the tour in there.

I am sorry for the people genuinely caught out by all of this. Whilst I don't think the vast majority who had offers explode would have chosen City in the end, some would have done. I can see for those, it leaves a very nasty taste and for some, a sense that that the situation just wasn't spelled out clearly enough and far enough in advance, so that people knew they needed to be around.

Some people know well in advance that CIty offers explode. They knew what happened last year and this year could be worse - either through reading threads like this from last year, or from Prep Heads warning, or perhaps very careful reading of small print and checking with the school. Information was available, but I agree that the school has a duty to make it more obvious and more frequent, especially as it an approach most schools don't use.

In principle, the approach itself, I personally think is okay and I personally think it is understandable in Citys circumstances. However, it must be crystal clear to people - if it is crystal clear, then you know that if you go on holiday or delay, you might lose out.

Why wasn't it made clearer? I guess City don't want people to be put off applying in the basis that they use this approach - they want a big field of students to choose from. They probably would say it was made clear. In the end there is an onus on the school to make it absolutely crystal clear, but also on parents to be fully aware of the situation. Were the school at fault in its info provision - it probably could have been clearer earlier on. What about parents - perhaps some needed to make more efforts to be fully aware of the systems in place and implications - but the school did need to provide the information first.

I hope those who absolutely wanted City as top choice and who missed out either get places from the WL (and some places will become available from that route) or have somewhere to go that they are happy with and their DD can feel excited about. Of course, I hope it for all of the families, but know that for many City was never their top choice anyway.

I wonder if the board of governors is supportive of this approach or is it purely an SLT decision? I suppose they would at least be aware. If I were a Chair I would be having a very tough discussion at the next meeting, but I guess they don't care.

City is not a special geographic case despite what parents say.

Channing is not a special case either and they draw their pupils from North London only I'd imagine.

It's just entitled behaviour and as consumers we can vote with our feet or not.

I am sorry for all girls impacted by City admission treatment, I could see us to be in the same position next year. I wish other schools will learn from City and consider it as very bad practice and not consider to do similar thing. Similar to other working professionals we might just be able to afford the fee, the state schools result is an important factor to decide. We (and I believe many other “average” Londoners) could only make the decision when we know what it is on the table: fees vs nonfee, if fees then other factors came in, a second visit might be needed, asking family, friends, researching. £1500 is alot to waste (and I’dike to treat my acceptance with respect ) and we shouldnt be bullied to do so. Its a great school, give offer holders time to fully think through and consider all aspects with confidence. For us, the journey to school will be 50 mins door to door which I would still consider for my daughter however I would apply ONLY if the school has made effort in changing their admission policy and/or make it more reasonable and fairer. Above all, schools are places we send our children to, we’d like them to learn before academic/extra curr any thing else to treat others with fairness, kind and respect(and not in a chaos/business manner). This hasnt been what City treated some of their offer holder children the last couple of years.

Failure to respond to a child's email is unforgivable and just adds insult to injury. Invisible, your daughter deserves better.

invisible I am so angry on your behalf. Your dd sounds amazing. I hope you have other alternatives, any school would be lucky to have your daughter.

soya and any other existing parents - I would be interested to hear your view on CLSG ignoring emails from both parents and girls.

There has been so much about this now in the media, have CLSG made any sort of statement?

Followed this for a while. The camping out next year won't be the only issue. There will surely be people sending a deposit cheque before the places get allocated.

"but parental annoyance at the seeming arrogance of a school denying them what they think is their right to have lots of time to choose."

It is their right.

Read the ISC rule linked earlier in the thread. Offers stay open until the first Monday in March.

This is quite a dramatic way for CLSG to quit that body (because given the ridiculousness of this system, they surely cannot ignore the flagrant breach of independent school standards and allow continued membership)

Just think - you get all your offers in Friday, whilst your DD is in school so you wait until she is home to talk about it, and that takes you last the end of the working day. So you decide to mull it over and check your decision is right, and respond on Monday morning. And you're too late. This really stinks.

And nothing that has been said on the thread puts CLSG into a special, unique situation.

And the idea that this somehow improved the cohort? Correlation is not causation. Other schools have been reporting rising exam marks too. It's a normal fluctuation, not the result of this policy. I think the word used above 'transactional' is a good choice for the underlying ethos. I get that parents with DDs in the school don't like to hear criticism. But any school that can do this, in breach of ISC policy, would really give me pause.

Invisible - I am sorry to hear about your DD missing out on a place and not replying to your DD. The school knows that the admissions department this year has not matched up to the efficiency of the past and I would imagine that the email is caught up somewhere. No one is going to defend not replying to a child.

Admissions department opinions aside, and it cannot be reasonable for anyone to expect current parents to somehow fix this, from the PM's alone that I have received, it would appear that some postings on this thread have meant that some parents (who necessarily have not posted on this thread) but genuinely want a place/have reserved a place at the school are concerned about what is being posted about the school ethos, parents and children who attend. As a current parent, I do not need to speculate on these matters as I have actual experience. It would be bizarre of me to comment on the 'type' of parents/girls etc at NLC for example. I don't know what they are like as my child does not attend that school. An anecdote passed about a neighbour's daughter (or whatever) does not make it fact.

For those who don't know, the school was founded on charitable principles and maintains them very strongly. It is certainly not a 'dog eat dog' environment nor a place for girls (or Parents) with 'sharp elbows'. There is a huge emphasis on collaboration- both between the girls and parents and the school. That is why is is so frustrating to see that there are some parents reserving places at a school they consider to be 'grimy'. If that is your genuine opinion, why block another child taking a place? Places are awarded on a first come, first served basis (as we are all aware) and to potentially block a child whose family financial circumstances are marginal is not something I would consider to be celebrated to somehow 'teach the school a lesson'.

For those who are asking 'why is City so special' I would say that one of the factors Is the fact that over 25% of girls receive financial assistance to enable them to attend. This ranges from full awards downwards and a great deal of effort is made in every respect to ensure that those well off feel comfortable. It is definitely not a 'monied' environment and for some of us, yes, there may be other Indie schools nearer in terms of miles (but not necessarily nearer in terms of an actual commute) but tons of families where everyone has a world class dressage pony and a ski chalet in Switzerland is not real life. Even if you can afford those things. The financial assistance for a lot of girls is thanks to legacies and funding from the livery companies that help to make up the city of London corporation. There is a huge amount of work which takes place by the school and the corporation behind the scenes to provide this Assistance. In doing so, There is a huge diversity in the girls both in terms of economic background and location. All of whom have earned their place at the school.

So please, feel free to attack the admissions process. But unless you are a parent at the school (and your experience is vastly different to every CLSG parent who has posted on this thread), not the girls, parents or charitable ethos of it. Mumsnet is at its finest when truly helpful information is shared to help parents make informed decisions.

As others have done, if you would like a query addressed as to what is like to have a child at the school, please do feel free to PM me. I do wish all girls the very best with whatever school they choose to attend.

• those less well off feel comfortable.

"I would say that one of the factors Is the fact that over 25% of girls receive financial assistance to enable them to attend."

So not particularly high - if your point of comparison is GDST, the Dulwich foundation, Emanuel, St Paul's and probably others.

And how the school wants to appear to prospective parents is important. I can see you don't want to admit, even to yourself, that your school is showing a lack of integrity in its admissions (to the extent of flouting ISC rules), nor that that in itself points to what the school is like.

After all, if you'd done what you did this year, you wouldn't have got a place. Still happy with the school knowing that you're not really the sort of committed first choice parent that this system is meant to find?

That was my takeaway from the offer day - that this admissions process has not matched the ethos of the school and that they themselves don't think it has.

That's why the furious defence of this outcome has been a bit odd. Nobody thinks it's ok including City. Fair enough I'm extrapolating here from one conversation at CLSG but it was with a senior teacher who was clearly genuine in her view.

Anyway I think this is more a PR problem for City now. Their communications are not matching up to their ethos or their stated process. They have made themselves stand out this year and not in a good way. All the other schools are gleefully pointing out that they are soooooo much nicer and kinder....

I do think it's a super school and I would love DD to go there. But it seems she won't because her heart is set somewhere else so that's probably the end of the story for us. I think the task for City now is to get someone in charge of this process who can improve the communications and work out how to avoid this next year.

Interestingly, of the I think six girls at our state school who got offers, only one is going there. Three exploded much to the surprise of those concerned, and two will go elsewhere. I don't conclude anything from that other than to say there will still be some movement in the Waiting List.

Prada, doesn't your third para effectively acknowledge that selection has shifted slightly from being those girls who performed best in the exam and at interview, to those girls who performed well AND who have parents that are quickest of the mark/most able to risk forfeiting £1500.

And that change will, to some extent, change both the make-up of the parent body and on the ethos of the school.

Needmoresleep

I understand what you are saying and why. But I still maintain that the 9 hour explosion (as opposed to the 13+ days last year) has been largely fuelled by FOMO for a significant number of parents as opposed to deposits being made by parents who actually want their child to attend. I can only speak from experience of my own DD's class, it would appear that most of the class deposited in those 13 days, and all turned up in September. I do not think that will be the case in September 2018.

Carltonscroop - I am not familiar with the stats of other schools. I have attended more than one head teachers address at open days and city was certainly one of the few to mention family economic circumstances so openly. I do also know that City is one of the few schools that operates a taster day for exclusively Y6 girls from state primary.

Prada - the frustrating thing is that the things you describe are to a large extent what appealed to us about the school in the first place. I am perfectly prepared to accept that the experience in the school reflects that - it was what I saw (perhaps superficially) in two open days and during the process. The admissions process is not just unfortunate though, it is at odds with that ethos and spirit. It isn't just one email that was lost in the system - I have written 2 others alerting them to the fact that she had been in touch and that it might be courteous to reply. That fault may lie with admissions but is not accidental.

DD will no doubt settle happily enough at South Hampstead (which she liked), but has been left with rather a harsh life lesson, which I wish she had not had to experience.

Well, if we can extrapolate from @backingvocals post (6 offers, 3 forfeited £1.5k places, 3 further waiting list places declined), City might actually find itself under-rolled this year as well as everything else. The law of unintended consequences in full effect.

TheInvisibleHand

I don't know SHHS at all but I'm sure your DD will have a wonderful time there. I totally sympathise with you about this year's admissions experience as detailed by you and others. Not much use I know, but I can only reiterate that it is the complete opposite experience to my own last year. Part of the attraction was the absolute efficiency of admissions and its clarity. It is clear that is missing this year.

In principle, the approach itself, I personally think is okay and I personally think it is understandable in Citys circumstances.

ChocolateWombat,

I can understand why you support City's desire to limit the number of accepted places. I may or may not agree with that City needs this so much more than other schools, but I can understand it.

I cannot understand, however, your defense of the approach. It is, prima facie, a broken system. If there is any possibility that the number of (even temporarily) desired places exceeds the number of places available, the equilibrium solution devolves into a queue forming up at 10:00 on the Friday before half-term, lasting until 09:00 on the following Monday. I'm not even going to go into the possible distributional effects against those of more limited means, or the potential effects on the types of girls selected. I'm merely pointing out that this system is unstable.

That is why is is so frustrating to see that there are some parents reserving places at a school they consider to be 'grimy'. If that is your genuine opinion, why block another child taking a place?

Pradaqueen,

Does your frustration extend to those parents who are hoping to get a place at a good state school next week?

expat96 - I am not sure what response you are expecting by your question. Do I wish every child in the country had unfettered access to excellent education? Of course I do. The fact is, whatever flavour government has been in place, this has not been achieved. I am however, genuinely mystified by posters opining that the school is some sort of dirt-ridden lord-of-the-flies hellhole whilst simultaneously placing a £1500 deposit so they can decide if they want to send their child to it. It is not, and has not, ever claimed to be a school with rolling fields, wood-pannelled libraries and limitless parking for umpteen cars at parents evening. If that is seriously the comparison for some parents, my point is, maybe their selection criteria is not the same as others. Enthusiastic Teaching is important to me, not whether or not my non-sporty child has 10 acres to do cross country in.

Prada
Absolutely no one has said what you’ve suggested. At all.

expat96 - if your question is pointed to am I frustrated by those hoping to take up a grammar school or equivalent place? No. But Grammar schools are a different proposition based soley upon postcode and academic ability. So not open to everyone. In my own DD's situation, I chose City over a Grammar school. Mainly because a) the local Grammar school would not have provided the music opportunities available to her at City b) we are fortunate in our circumstances to be able to afford private education c) the commute to any Grammar would've been longer than the journey to city.

Whilst I am not expecting a medal for not taking up a grammar school place, just so we are clear, where we live there are no secondary schools rated at 'good' or above if you discount Grammar schools 10+ miles away. So Unless we are prepared to become religious to gain access to a school by what is essentially in my opinion deception, (I do have a religion as does my DD but we are not practising) we are not overrun with choice unless we consider independent education.

Can I ask why City is getting such a kicking over this when plenty of other schools operate the same practice (Highgate, Channing)? And those schools don't have the same space restrictions as City?

Because offering at a level where it takes 9 hours for offers to explode is a whole other order of insanity. That and how they managed communications. I think Channing took about a week. But point taken, not better, we just happened to fall foul of City!

Not sure Highgate is doing this? Certainly not "plenty". Yes, Channing has got off lightly - maybe because Channing doesn't make a big deal of its "ethos"?