Camden Secondary School Admissions distances 2019

[BHStowel]

@BananaDaiquiri
@JC4PMPLZ
@Zinnia

Camden’s website has been recently revamped and it’s now almost impossible to find information on it. Most of this information was available. I only have information about Parliament Hill and Acland Burghley. I will add what I know about Camden School for girls too, although that is readily available on their website already.

Please add other distances you have found out from Camden Admissions. Having all the information available here n one place will hopefully save the Camden admissions team some time and help local parents. I’m sure eventually Camden will sort out it’s website too!

Acland Burghley-miles

2019 0.71
2018 0.99
2017 2.66
2016 all applicants accepted
2015 all applicants accepted
2014 all applicants accepted
2013 1.44
2012 1.09
2011 0.72
2010 0.86
2009 0.76
2008 0.72

Daren't find out where we are on list. I know it will be in 100s. Feeling miserable because it seems like most others are satisfied with what they have. Hoping something will crop up. Send any chunks of light!

Chinks will do!

I caved and called the admissions office. Second round offers have gone out, and DD has gone a few places back up the waiting list as a result (having only gone down since offer day). Still in (low) 100s though so not exactly holding my breath!

It is grim! I really wonder which one you are holding out for! Nosey I know!

Don't worry not the same as yours!

How often do you ask wait list position everyone. My council sounds annoyed when I call and ask

Keep your phones on you! I got all my DCs (reception) waiting list places via phone. I’m sure you’d get a letter too but Camden definitely did phone first.

I am really not expecting that call until September if ever!

To answer your question dee73 I swore to myself I wouldn't bother Camden more than fortnightly but so far I've totally failed to hold to that and have ended up speaking to them once a week . Not particularly proud of that as they have enough on their plates already.

I think council admissions teams are just really busy at this time of year so if they sound annoyed it's probably because yours is the nth call they've had that day from a stressed-out parent. And let's not forget they're working on primary admissions at the same time, those offers will go out in a couple of weeks, and then they'll have a load more parents to deal with as well. They must be heartily sick of the lot of us!

I'm interested in the comments earlier in this thread about how representative the banding at CSG actually is. Although they do state on their website that there is no point in taking the test unless you live within the existing catchment, they don't actually prevent people taking the exam who do live well out of the catchment. Some of the prep schools like Sarum Hall, encourage all the girls there to take the CSG exam as practise because it's before the 11plus exams of the independents. None of them have any intention of taking a place there and mostly aren't in the catchment anyway. I'm not quite sure how this sways things but assuming that as they've been prepped these girls will do better in the test and the fact that they live further away is what will make the catchment for band A a bit wider? Perhaps they should put a distance criteria on those taking the exam, unless they are also going for a music place, for which you can be out of catchment.

Hi Timtim,

That makes sense. I’ve always thought that but never seen it written down with names of private schools added. The band A children are from selective private schools and have also been heavily tutored for the 11+.

Why Would CSG do anything that could possibly bring them a less stella cohort though? I can’t see anything in it for them. They were asked to get rid of sibling link, at least between 6th form to the lower school but refused.

They could get rid of the banding test completely. Other comprehensives seem to manage to get a comprehensive intake without it.

It suits CSG and it suits some parents to have a school full of higher achieving children most of whom aren’t hungry and living in overcrowded conditions.

Was the banding test not originally introduced to mitigate against everyone moving (or indeed "moving") close to the school for a place? The inherent selectivity of putting up barriers to entry has always bothered me though. Perhaps the way to go would be to introduce a formal catchment area, and then after LAC, SEN, siblings just allocate by lottery. Boy would that be unpopular though! (and obviously still not a perfect system)

DD has been offered a place from the A band waiting list already, only a month after national offers day. We're about 50% out of the last distance offered and judging by her place on the waiting list, around a third of the A band must have declined places for her to be offered.

So not only is the A band bigger than the other three (by quite a way - two and a half times bigger than C), it's also much more likely to move down the waiting list.

The two girls I know who were in the A band last year both got either full marks in SATs or two marks off. My dd is also pretty high achieving (state school but got into selective privates, mostly with scholarships etc).

It might not be the intentional, but the bands definitely pull in some high achieving girls who wouldn't get in otherwise.

Sorry crossed posts with you Zinnia.

I think having the banding test registration well before the CAF deadline definitely creates a barrier. Schools in Islington with fair banding
a) do the test only after the CAF deadline (i.e. if you put the school anywhere on your form, you're called up)
and
b) base the bands on national averages rather than those who take the test.

watching this with interest because DD is going to CSG in September. I do agree about banding tests etc being a barrier to entry but I honestly thought it just seemed like a reasonable attempt to stop the madness of people just moving to / renting (and driving up house prices) in certain areas in order to get places at schools with a good reputation. Saying that, I wasn't aware that some schools using banding tests do it after the CAF deadline - that does sound fairer. Which schools do that, Huffthemagicdragon?

Also, anecdotally, DD came out in band A but would be the first to admit that she isn't generally good in tests. She didn't perform well in the only other selective test she did and wasn't heavily tutored. So, I get the impression the test is a bit arbitrary and not like other tests for grammars/private schools and am challenging the notion that band A is chock-full of very well-prepped, stratospherically high achievers IYSWIM!

I don't know how banding prevents people from renting/moving? I think the fact that Camden are chasing up dodgy addresses is the key there.

Ha re. band A. I didn't want to imply that my daughter is a genius (she isn't by a long chalk). However, the fact is that your daughter was tutored (I presume by the fact that you mention that she wasn't heavily tutored) and she's of a background that would do another selective test which means she's unlikely to be average.

Cannot for the life of me work out the justification logic of having the test before the CAF deadline! St Marylebone (which obviously shares a chunk of applicants with CSG, especially on the music side) tests after the forms are submitted as well, had always assumed CSG did the same.

@Huffthemagicdragon Of course you're right, the banding test doesn't remove the risk of driving up prices in the area, but it does dramatically reduce the area affected (in theory at least). You are bang on about Camden cracking down on fraudulent applications making the most difference.

The de facto selection is clear as day when you look at the latest crop of GSCE results though - a big fat zero low prior attainers, 33 middle and 66 high. FSM is 17.4%. Compared with 25.7% at Acland Burghley and 22.9% at Parli, for example. (LSU is even lower at 15% but faith entry is of course another form of selection in its own way).

huff I assumed that banding reduced the possibility that people would spend whatever it takes to get an address in the catchment because of the risk that they would fall into one of the smallest bands and miss out on a place anyway. But maybe, I’m being naive, perhaps it just means they go all out to get closer?!

The banding pre CAF doesn’t make sense. Didn’t look at any other schools with banding so assumed that was how it was done. But thinking about it, there’s no reason why it can’t happen afterwards, and that would be fairer.

Re the bands, I agree that we are in many ways your classic middle class, school worriers and DD is not average per se, and there will I’m sure be plenty of us at CSG. And yes, she had a handful tutoring sessions over the summer holidays last year when I/we developed a last-min panic interest in grammars but then stopped when we decided against all that, and we didn’t apply to any private schools. But the suggestion upthread seemed to be that there were lots of heavily tutored kids in bands B & C, and that therefore band A were off the scale. If my lovely but chaotic DD is anything to go by, that is a very long way from being the case. And that notion also doesn’t seem quite fair to the school who, as far as I can tell, do a good job of bringing kids of all ability on in order to get the results they get.

Having said all that, I do see that additional hoops are not ideal, and I had to do a mental climbdown when I looked at the right bit of the link posted upthread. Can I just check I’ve understood correctly: does that mean that of the 2017/18 cohort, not a single one had less than a level 4 at KS2 SATS? And 66% had a 5 or above?! That does seem extraordinary.

Also can someone clarify the FSM figure, when I clicked on the pupil population tab I got 36% (so 10% higher than the national average), am I looking at the wrong data?

Re: the FSM figure, I was using the Get Information About Schools data - think the difference is that is a snapshot of current figures at the Spring census last term, whereas the pupil population figure was children eligible for FSM at any time in the last 6 years.

Re. the last GCSE cohort, they would have gone into Y7 in 2013, which was before Camden started really enforcing the anti-fraud regulations so all 4 bands had ridiculously tiny catchments.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/camden-school-for-girls

This is the report from the Schools Adjudicator explains why CSG has its banding test prior to the application deadline. It was decided it was unfair that parents didn’t know which band their child was in when hey applied to the school.

I’m pretty miffed that any child over a mile away could get a place there although I’m pleased for the individuals of course! It just means a lot of untutored local girls won’t get a place. Does it matter if there are other good state school options? I think it would be fairer to drop the sibling link and drop the banding test and musical aptitude and ability tests too. it’s not going to happen.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/camden-school-for-girls

Maybe I'm being dense but why would parents need to know what their child's band is in order to make a decision on the CAF? Theoretically you shouldn't necessarily know which band is most opportune for entry as it should vary every year. And in London you get six choices anyway so you've nothing to lose but putting a punt on a school as one of them.

I don't think the sibling link should be dropped across the school as it's fairly standard, however it should definitely be dropped for sixth former. The sixth form is enormous with a very wide distance and I can't for the live of me see why a year 13 would need his/her younger sister to go to the same school as him/her in y7. I know boys who've gone through private schools who've gone to CSG in sixth form and voila, their little sister is in. Probably a case to argue that sibling places shouldn't be given to those who've got an aptitude place either.

There's no reason not to do the banding test afterwards as I know the. more chaotic families at my kids' primary (v high FSM) didn't know about registering in early September. And if it's true that swathes of girls from private preps are doing it then of course it's going to skew the bands. Not to say that girls at private schools are smarter than those at states, but I'm guessing they are well prepared and have enough food and a quiet place to work.

Not dense Huff, it’s just the law. This is the relavant bit from the Schools Adjudicator about the Admissions Code.

I do wonder if the change had unintended consequences? Band D tended to be the farthest band before the change.

part 6. In addition the Code covers all forms of selection in paragraphs 1.31 to 1.33. Paragraph 1.32 states that “….. Admission authorities must; ….c) take all reasonable steps to inform parents of the outcome of selection tests before the closing date for secondary applications on 31 October so as to allow parents time to make an informed choice of school –while making clear that this does not equate to a guarantee of a selective place.” Currently, the school administers the tests for banding purposes after the closing date for secondary applications and the arrangements for 2015 say that those invited to take the tests will attend on either Wednesday 3 December 2014 or Saturday 6 December 2014. The school does not meet the requirement set out in paragraph 1.32 of the Code as it does not attempt to tell parents the results of the tests prior to the closing date for making an application. It is therefore necessary for the school to administer the tests within a timeframe which allows parents to be informed of the outcome of the tests before the closing date for applications

That seems like a strange interpretation of the code (though I don't doubt all this was properly debated and considered in the adjudication). Makes sense when the test is selective, ie the child only gets a place if they pass, but the whole purpose of the banding test is not to be selective. It's not a pass/fail and should make no difference as to the likelihood of a girl's getting a place as in theory the band distances should be different every year.

The exception should be the music places, which should obviously be assessed in advance for exactly the reason the code outlines.

And if this has been enforced on CSG why has it not been on all the other schools which use the banding system?

I think It’s because banding isA form of selection? If it wasn’t for the banding children would gain entry on the distance they live from the school which would give a different demographic? Am I clutching at straws?

Although I do seem to remember I thought it was a good idea when it came in. I think that was because back in those days the bands didn’t change that much in relation to each other? Was that the time when the D band always went the furthest? So if you’re daughter did really badly and lived near you had a better chance of her getting a place than being mediocre or brilliant? We live really close and I remember thinking DD would only get in if she flunked ( I know you can’t flunk!)

As for why the rule hadn’t been enforced in other schools, well, I imagine it’s because the Schools Adjudicator hasn’t been told! They only look at admissions details if someone brings them to their attention.

If anyone cares enough they can write to the school anytime during the admissions consultation period and ask for the school to consider amending their rules. I think it would be reasonable for the sibling link between 6th formers and the main school to be removed for example. That would give a few more local girls a chance of a local school. The consultation period happens once a year. If you miss the current one you can ask for the governors to consider your amendments for the next year.

Anyhooo I’m not sure if the B and C band have moved at all! I will find out more after Easter though for sure.

Does anyone know if AB has moved much? I’ve a friend whose child goes to Secondary next year and AB would always have been their school of choice and a certainty. They wouldn’t have got a place on offer day this year so I wondered how far waiting lists had moved.

revmedia Things won’t change without a conserved effort by parents to contact CSG and ask them to amend their admissions policy.

The parents who are most likely to do such a thing are the very parents who would benefit least by the change.

I think I’m with others in thinking I don’t really want myself or my child to be part of the fight. Thank god for AB and PH.