ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
Grammar school in special measures(59 Posts)
The new Ofsted regime is tough indeed. Will the school need a sponsor if it is a converter academy?
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
the picture in the newspiece shows a white building with a blue sign in the background which belongs to the school they share the site with. Bishop of Rochester Academy has higher than average fsm, higher than average EAL and 2 years ago, the 3rd worst results in the country. last year they excluded the eal results from the calculation and were able to demonstrate a significant improvement as result. BoRA was graded satisfactory as well.
Both schools are consistently undersubscribed because most people do not rate the area. CBS boys tend to come in on coaches from a fair way away while the BoRA kids are from the estates nearby. it's interesting how two very different schools with significantly different profiles can occupy the same space.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
P.S. He went to a public school.......
Talkinpeace. Were you dressed up in 1950s or 1960s public school wear?
I used to go. Used to being the word before "STRUCTURE DEBT SUNK ME" Own fault. You are right though about the public school/pimms drinking set of which many of the goverment belong, really being clueless as to how 90% of the population live or think.
Talking about people making money who have not got a clue. I have a friend who owns 40 houses, he does not know what "Square footage" is. he does not know the difference between council tax or corporation tax. He also has a Letting business and he just makes the prices up out of his head yet he seems to get lucky every time.
you have managed to leap headlong at the wrong end of the stick again.
Why on earth would anybody push an academically able child towards a vocational angle
in the same way that it would be daft to do the opposite.
Vocational jobs are for the non academic - of whom there are many.
I do their accounts.
I have chaps who earn upwards of £40k a year hanging off the side of buildings.
Others who are great at plumbing / electrics / carpentry : but deliver every finance type envelope to me still sealed.
I have a client who specialises in trompe l'oiel paintwork in commercial buildings - but he's thick as pigshit (I tell him to to his face and he still loves me)
And the lovely Danny - never happier than in a hole. Illiterate. On £30k a year.
Sadly, too many families who deal only in selective schools
(I've been at Goodwood today - nearly had a gutful of the over priveledged)
cannot comprehend the non academic mindset.
You need to get out more.
Really thick people think differently.
And once you get used to it, you see its uses, but segregating "bright" kids from "thick" kids from the age of 8 (prep schools) is a real factor in the UKs relative economic decline - those "in power" genuinely have no comprehension of the thought patterns of a good chunk of the country.
Although i agree wholeheartedly with what Talkinpeace is saying about the country needing all those vocational skills that she quotes. If you had a academically bright child it would take an icreadible leap of faith to encourage them to go down the vocational route.
The only time you could possible encourage a academically bright child, to go down the vocational route, would be if the company offered an aprenticeship. The aprenticeship that when completed, would give a automatic mangerial job with a world leading company.
It is because of the "APARTHEID" within the educational system, that means nobody with an academic child will consider a vocational way forward if they dont have to. People on this site debate intensely the
fairness of the 11+ system this academic/vocational way is in fact a 16+.
Over the years i have seen people with Masters degrees who are useless
and people with no qualifications who are brilliant. As i have said unless the person without academic qualifictions is lucky or starts a succesful business. The useless person with the Masters will be 3 times more succesful, than the brilliant person without qualifications. I am very sad about that, but that is the truth. That is the reason why although i agree very much with Talkinpeace about needing kids with vocational
skills i could never encourage my niece/newphew to go down the vocational route.
Academic qualifications both teach transferable skills and also act as a guarantee to others, even when the subject is seemingly unrelated to the job.
Vocational is good for other peoples Dc but not your own that is the sad fact.
13 years ago i didn"t run pubs and clubs i owned them i lived in a 400k
3 bed apartment in a city centre owned 5 bars/clubs owend a 80k porsche 911.
Today 42 living with Mum and Dad borrowing their cars and needing to borrow £625 to enrol on a open university course. I was in my own small
way entrenpreneur and made money from vocational knowledge and learning on the job. Guess what it went wrong and now look unemployable,maybe
i could work on a bar or in a resturant. I bet my cellar management skills
are worth £30 a week extra to me.
The best chance for any young person today is academic qualifications.
Sure people have made loads of money who have not got any qualifications and worked hard i know quite a few. But 90% of kids who have no higher educational degrees will be lucky to earn 20k pa in their working lives. What good is 20k pa in the U.k you cant get a mortgage or can barely afford a car. You can just about rent somewhere on that amount and pay your council tax/electricty bill.
My kids happen to be highly academic.
DD is looking towards Natural sciences at Cambridge
DS towards engineering at Stanford
I do accounts for all of the building trades I listed above, and more.
Danny the digger : he digs holes for a living. He can barely read or write. He started bunking school at 13. BUT - you want a hole dug under an old service pipe - you pay him upwards of £300 a day ....
Employability and qualifications are only inextricably linked for the unimaginative (Lords Branson and Sugar for example of the contrary view)
I am constantly learning _ I'm miles away from where I was ten years ago but have my finger in so many pies its unreal ...
I feel pretty unemployable at almost inspite of attending a top private school, having excellent A-levels, a physics degree and a masters! What has damaged my employment prospects is taking time out to bring up children. I have dreams on how I plan to make myself employable again, but I won't be using my academic qualifications.
I don't think that going down a vocational route makes someone unemployable at 40 at all. I know lots of people who are builders, nursery nurses, plumbers, gas engineers, dental nurses etc who have done well for themselves.
Being employable at 40 is a matter of nouse rather than fancy qualifications. In fact many graduates end up in jobs that have absolutely no relation to their degrees.
Talkinpeace. I agree with what you saying about vocational courses.
I am 42 when i left school i went on to vocational courses at college.
Over the years i have ran Bars Pubs/Nightclubs and have worked in Travel. At the age of 42 i am Unemployable now . So as a last resort i have signed up for an open access Module in Social Sciences with the Ou.
I agree with you but would you push your Dcs down the vocational route
less chance of a carrear washed up at 40 or so.
I am just greatful that my niece and newphew have both benefited from a grammar school education niece is at a RG uni newphew 6th form.
hopefully they will not be Unemployable at 40.
That half of the population usually don't attend grammar schools.
But soul2000 had referred to the school achieving 40% A* to C .... which will include that 50%
It goes back to the old stats about private school kids at top Unis
1/3 of all pupils will stop academic education at 16
1/3 will stop academic education at 18
the remaining third will go to higher education
the first two groups will predominantly have come from non selective state schools ....
"It is superfical damage because the pupil should have got an A but got B instead. The pupil can
still access academic courses."
Maybe the child can still access the A-level course they want to do, but they will find A-level harder because they have a poor foundation. Many subjects like Maths, Physics, modern languages need a good GCSE foundation to do well at A-level. Good writing skills are necessary to do well in subjects like history, English, geography to name a few. GCSEs are about providing a foundation rather than grades.
"It is a great failing of education policy in the last 20 years to have utterly failed to recognise that A levels and University are irrelevant to more than half of the population."
That half of the population usually don't attend grammar schools.
I thought that was what you meant.
You clearly have an incredibly narrow view of the world if you think that many of those pupils would want to or benefit from "accessing academic courses"
It is a great failing of education policy in the last 20 years to have utterly failed to recognise that A levels and University are irrelevant to more than half of the population.
Apprenticeships and on the job training is what will bring jobs back to the young people - so immigrants are not needed to fill the jobs that UK born kids are incapable of doing.
what would those people need from "academic courses"
and how would you live your life without those people?
Talkinpeace. Sorry i read you question wrong. It is superfical damage because the pupil should have got an A but got B instead. The pupil can
still access academic courses.
The reason i say it is superficial damage is because with a grade B you can still access A levels or other academic courses. The pupils who end up with Es and Ds at the school achieving 40% A* to C really are stuck
in their choices.
whereas the damage in the school achieving 40% may be permanent to their pupils
why is it "damaging" for some pupils not to get A grades at GCSE?
Due to the intense tutoring lots of kids get into grammar schools who shouldn't, so the grades will obviously drop.
There are obviously schools that require more help.
Talkinpeace. schools that are achieving say 40% A* to C in deprived areas, surely need more time and effort spent on them. Most of these pupils from Chatham Boys will still end up accessing higher education.
The damage to the boys may be superficial, whereas the damage in the school achieving 40% may be permanment to their pupils.
'Presumably the pupils from the non selective schools in grammar school areas who achieve A*, will end up at the grammar schools in the 6th form. '
The do have odds stacked against them though - in secondary moderns teachers would have to have tiny classes if they were to provide setting in all Ebacc subjects and at the same time prepare for many different exams in the same subject (GCSEs, BTECs, double science and individual sciences) to cater for the whole ability range. For which they wouldn't usually have the resources. At the grammar they would only need to concentrate on GCSE preparation for one board and would have well qualified teachers in the shortage subjects, e.g. languages and sciences.
In the example I found they had 14% high attainers but 22% of the school got A/A*s in English. That's a higher percentage than in the whole grammar school.
I'm not being in the least bit ironic.
This school has been handed the brightest kids on a plate and is not doing the best by them.
For that it deserves to get hammered.
As should the sec mod if it does NOT get good grades with the bright kids who
- were not tutored
- did not take the 11+
- arrived mid year and could not get to the grammar
If a Grammar is getting the top 20%
and as per this www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-23783094
21% of GCSEs were A* or A then they really should be getting phenomenal amounts of A*
as kids are not distracted by thick kids (the standard argument parents use in favour of grammars)
Talkinpeace. I know your comments about v v bright kids is ironic and
a bit of a mickey take. But if your Dc are in the lower band of a grammar schools intake, that most grammar school take say in the 18- 25% of middle abilty. They are unlikely to be A* kids but they probably get As and Bs.
Presumably the pupils from the non selective schools in grammar school areas who achieve A*, will end up at the grammar schools in the 6th form.
I do think ofsted have wasted time and resources in declaring this school as failing. They are obviously schools that require more urgent help. This school probably just needs a boot up its backside not a
Wow, that is true - I can see a comprehensive in that authority (still has a smaller top set than average) that got more A/A* in English last year.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.