(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.

(04-03-2010 04:00 AM)ruby_tuesday Wrote:  

(03-03-2010 01:10 AM)non-stick Wrote:  The person who told me about the world of warcraft trial - I must go to bed!!!

don't do it non-stick! My other half plays this endlessly. It drives me nuts. there's only so much "cant we have dinner earlier I need to raid tonight" I can take...