Schools

[Della]

Moved from the vent your content thread so we don't spoil that thread:

(02-03-2010 10:27 AM)commonasmuck Wrote:  my youngest son getting in to Costello

(02-03-2010 10:31 AM)Chester Wrote:  Mine not ending up in Richard Aldworth!

(02-03-2010 03:45 PM)commonasmuck Wrote:  didn't think aldworth was that bad.
i'm glad mine didn't end up in Everest. couldn't face sending another one there

(02-03-2010 04:16 PM)Chester Wrote:  At the risk of being booted off in to a new thread.......

And at an even greater risk of Della informing us that GCSEs don't tell the full picture......

Percentage of kids getting 5 x A*-C grades including maths and English:

Everest 30%
Harriet Costello 51%
Richard Aldworth 39%

Hants average (excluding independents) 55%
England Average 49%

(02-03-2010 04:39 PM)commonasmuck Wrote:  all i can say is that i'm just so happy i don't have to send him to Everest. if that was the only place that would have taken him. the poor little bugger would have had to be home schooled and looking at my posts he wouldn't have done very well

(02-03-2010 11:40 PM)Della Wrote:  Depends what you mean Chester.

A school should be measures on value added. For some schools, it is a miracle that anyone gets a GCSE given the standard of pupils that they take in, for others 100% with the magic 5 GCSEs is a disgrace. Context is everything.

If you mean GCSEs don't tell the full picture as schools now offer vocational qualifications, well personally I am not impressed with vocational qualifications. I have an NVQ and it is a joke. It seems to be the fashion to collect these 'work related' qualification that, in my opinion, are far too easy and about amassing shed loads of evidence (i.e. putting hours into perfecting a huge folder of pretty printouts) than any academic ability or even any ability to do the job.

Anyway, I think Costello and Aldworth are both good and I would happily have sent my kids to either. Everest, Cranboure, Fort Hill and Robert May are the ones I would avoid like the plague, plus I am not too keen on Brighton Hill but see how it goes.

(03-03-2010 09:13 AM)Chester Wrote:  

(02-03-2010 11:40 PM)Della Wrote:  A school should be measures on value added. For some schools, it is a miracle that anyone gets a GCSE given the standard of pupils that they take in, for others 100% with the magic 5 GCSEs is a disgrace. Context is everything.

If you mean GCSEs don't tell the full picture as schools now offer vocational qualifications, well personally I am not impressed with vocational qualifications. I have an NVQ and it is a joke. It seems to be the fashion to collect these 'work related' qualification that, in my opinion, are far too easy and about amassing shed loads of evidence (i.e. putting hours into perfecting a huge folder of pretty printouts) than any academic ability or even any ability to do the job.

Anyway, I think Costello and Aldworth are both good and I would happily have sent my kids to either. Everest, Cranboure, Fort Hill and Robert May are the ones I would avoid like the plague, plus I am not too keen on Brighton Hill but see how it goes.

Robert May - 66%, Cranborne - 44%, Fort Hill - 44% and Brighton Hill - 59%. So I agree about Cranbourne and Fort Hill but I'd be more than happy with Robert May - you will no doubt give your reasons.

Value added is all very well if a pupil struggled at primary level. But if your child is above average ability then I'd concentrate on the schools that offered the highest likelihood of achiveing good GCSEs and lots of them. Happiness in education is important but let's not overlook the whole point of it.

I agree with your views on NVQs - after a bit of exposure to them I've always seen them as a qualification in photocopying!

(04-03-2010 01:16 AM)Della Wrote:  Suspiciously high exclusion rates.

Hypothetically, if a school were to exclude all pupils that are unlikely to get 5 GCSEs, the school can report 100%. Robert May and Fort Hill have disproportionately high exclusion rates and weak reasons. Exclusion should be a last resort when all other avenues of support have been exhausted and even then should, so far as possible, avoid pupils missing public exams.

(04-03-2010 10:17 AM)Chester Wrote:  

(04-03-2010 01:16 AM)Della Wrote:  Suspiciously high exclusion rates.

Hypothetically, if a school were to exclude all pupils that are unlikely to get 5 GCSEs, the school can report 100%. Robert May and Fort Hill have disproportionately high exclusion rates and weak reasons. Exclusion should be a last resort when all other avenues of support have been exhausted and even then should, so far as possible, avoid pupils missing public exams.

There have to be grounds for exclusion and the process is monitored by Ofstead. Not being able to pass an exam would not constitute a good enough reason - there would have to be something else.

Besides if excluding more kids means results improve then it only proves that the idiots who deserve to be thrown out are the ones that drag everyone else's education down. Let's concentrate on the achievers for once.

If a school had a reputation for high exclusion rates I'd put that down as a positive thing when I was looking. The only people who would be alarmed at that are ones who's kids are more likely to get excluded.

---

You are right about the grounds for exclusion and that pupils cannot be excluded for not being able to pass exams. The trouble is that different schools interpret the rules differently and some do not seem to even try to stick to the rules.

The rules say that pupils should be permanently excluded as a last resort when all avenues of external help have been exhausted. To take this literally, if a pupil is extremely violent and regularly injures other pupils and staff, the school should look at employing a support worker to accompany the child at all times for the safety of others, consider teaching the pupil separately within the school, liaise with the health service so that the child is seen by mental health professionals and also liaise with the GP re the possibility of using medical sedatives to make the child safe at school. Only when all this has been tried and tested should a pupil be permanently excluded.

I have heard of pupils being excluded for uniform offences (which should never happen) and for trivial things. One example was 'theft' - the pupil removed a drawing pin from a wall display and fiddled with it. He was offered no opportunity to return it but excluded for theft.

Excluded pupils tend to end up in schools like Everest with below average GCSE results. Schools like Robert May tend to exclude low achievers. What I would like to see is a system of fair swap - if you exclude a pupil, their place goes to the next excluded pupil in the county. Unlike the voluntary system of managed moves, that would deter so-called 'good' schools from using exclusions to boost their league table status. Every child need to be taught somewhere.

[seamatt]

I’d agree with Chester, it’s the poorly behaved kids in class that affect the schools grades and other children’s potential. It is a minority but that minority has a huge impact on learning, sacrifice the few for the many and if it means more exclusions then so be it, another problem is that parents don’t support schools policies, if the school’s policy is to wear the correct uniform then you should ensure that your child goes to school wearing it, no excuses!!

[shell]

(07-03-2010 11:54 AM)seamatt Wrote:  another problem is that parents don’t support schools policies

Exactly! Too many parents don't teach their kids to follow rules, and have respect for the teachers - then they moan that the teachers can't control the kids.

Makes me wonder how they expect the kids to get on in life. Rules and procedures are in place in every aspect of daily life like it or not. Once they get out into the big wide world as adults, they need to know how to conform (within reason of course).

[Della]

(07-03-2010 11:54 AM)seamatt Wrote:  another problem is that parents don’t support schools policies, if the school’s policy is to wear the correct uniform then you should ensure that your child goes to school wearing it, no excuses!!

OK so what education does Hampshire County Council provide if you don't want your child to wear a uniform? Or if you think that the 'blazer and tie' uniform is inappropriate and sends out the wrong message for the manual profession that you hope your child will aspire to?

Schools take a lot of control over what kids wear and even what they eat off their own parents. How can we expect parents to take responsibility for their children if they are not allowed to be in control of what their kids do?

If home education was funded by HCC instead of by parents, I would have more sympathy.

[commonasmuck]

(07-03-2010 11:54 AM)seamatt Wrote:  if the school’s policy is to wear the correct uniform then you should ensure that your child goes to school wearing it, no excuses!!

how old are your children seamatt?
its easy getting younger children to wear the right stuff but not so easy when you have a 15-16 year old who thinks they know everything and no matter what you or the school says they are right. and lets face it kids are sneaky. i've lost count the times the school sent my son home coz he "forgot" his tie.

[Chester]

(08-03-2010 01:42 AM)Della Wrote:  

(07-03-2010 11:54 AM)seamatt Wrote:  another problem is that parents don’t support schools policies, if the school’s policy is to wear the correct uniform then you should ensure that your child goes to school wearing it, no excuses!!

OK so what education does Hampshire County Council provide if you don't want your child to wear a uniform? Or if you think that the 'blazer and tie' uniform is inappropriate and sends out the wrong message for the manual profession that you hope your child will aspire to?

Schools take a lot of control over what kids wear and even what they eat off their own parents. How can we expect parents to take responsibility for their children if they are not allowed to be in control of what their kids do?

If home education was funded by HCC instead of by parents, I would have more sympathy.

If you don't agree with the policy don't apply to the school. There are plenty of places elsewhere.

The only control over what kids eat (actually don't eat) and wear is in school hours. Seems fair to me.

---

(08-03-2010 08:31 AM)commonasmuck Wrote:  

(07-03-2010 11:54 AM)seamatt Wrote:  if the school’s policy is to wear the correct uniform then you should ensure that your child goes to school wearing it, no excuses!!

how old are your children seamatt?
its easy getting younger children to wear the right stuff but not so easy when you have a 15-16 year old who thinks they know everything and no matter what you or the school says they are right. and lets face it kids are sneaky. i've lost count the times the school sent my son home coz he "forgot" his tie.

Who buys his clothes? Who has the power therefore to chose?

[commonasmuck]

[/quote]
how old are your children seamatt?
its easy getting younger children to wear the right stuff but not so easy when you have a 15-16 year old who thinks they know everything and no matter what you or the school says they are right. and lets face it kids are sneaky. i've lost count the times the school sent my son home coz he "forgot" his tie.
[/quote]

Who buys his clothes? Who has the power therefore to chose?
[/quote]

would have loved to see you try that with my oldest son lol

[Chester]

Never been a problem for me. My kids are reliant on me for food (OK, I wouldn't starve them!), pocket money, laundry, etc. Withold anything they want and they'll do what they are told.

[seamatt]

(08-03-2010 08:31 AM)commonasmuck Wrote:  

(07-03-2010 11:54 AM)seamatt Wrote:  if the school’s policy is to wear the correct uniform then you should ensure that your child goes to school wearing it, no excuses!!

how old are your children seamatt?
its easy getting younger children to wear the right stuff but not so easy when you have a 15-16 year old who thinks they know everything and no matter what you or the school says they are right. and lets face it kids are sneaky. i've lost count the times the school sent my son home coz he "forgot" his tie.

they're a couple of years off that yet but between me and the school I'm a quite confident I will get them to wear the correct uniform, as chester says' there are ways and means...

Quote:I have heard of pupils being excluded for uniform offences (which should never happen) and for trivial things. One example was 'theft' - the pupil removed a drawing pin from a wall display and fiddled with it. He was offered no opportunity to return it but excluded for theft

but to go back to the original post hear say evidence is very unreliable, a school would find it very difficult if not impossible to exclude a child based on uniform. The example of theft, again what else had gone on before and during this incident? It is very easy to criticise a school when you are not seeing the whole picture..

Quote:Schools like Robert May tend to exclude low achievers

That is open to interpretation, are they excluding them because they are low achievers or for another reason and just happen to be low achievers, I suspect the latter because the two normally go together. If my kids education is being disrupted but non-compliant kids then I want something done about it, I would be very happy to support a school that excludes temporarily or permanently (whether internally or not) based on behaviour - it is time kids and parents take responsibility for their actions...

[Della]

OK maybe I didn't make myself very clear. I am suspicious that some schools permanently exclude reasonably well-behaved low achievers for minor infringements of the rules that the exclusion rules clearly state should be dealt with by other means and that these schools do not exclude high achievers for the same offence.

This leaves some schools keeping all the low achievers and others pushing them out the door to become someone else's problem.

(08-03-2010 10:03 AM)Chester Wrote:  If you don't agree with the policy don't apply to the school. There are plenty of places elsewhere.

OK hypothetically, suppose I didn't want my child to wear any uniform, where is this mythical place "elsewhere" that I can apply to? On a more realistic note, I have standards of modesty and have brought my kids up accordingly. I didn't want to send my boys to a school where they would see girl's thighs i.e. the school uniform was that all girls must wear trousers or skirts below the knee. Any idea where that mythical school is Chester?

(07-03-2010 11:54 AM)seamatt Wrote:  if the school’s policy is to wear the correct uniform then you should ensure that your child goes to school wearing it, no excuses!!

(08-03-2010 10:03 AM)Chester Wrote:  Who buys his clothes? Who has the power therefore to chose?

(08-03-2010 01:49 PM)Chester Wrote:  Never been a problem for me. My kids are reliant on me for food (OK, I wouldn't starve them!), pocket money, laundry, etc. Withold anything they want and they'll do what they are told.

If you think that you can force a child to do anything, you are mistaken. At any age from a newborn baby to an adult, if someone is determined not to do something, they won't do it. The idea that you would take the approach of forcing them, having power over them and getting them to do what they are told just seems to be building trouble for the future to me. I bet your kids are not teenagers yet.