Apologies to Cambridge matmos.(347 Posts)
I just loved being number 1000. Such power!
Totally the schools were crap I'm not denying it and the stats backed this up but she was adamant that it was the worst LA because thats what she'd been told by someone else. May be this was not a good example but I hear incorrect statements about both sectors all the time. A friend taught at a local boys independent day school often discussed on MN "we have the best results A level results in the in the UK" she would frequently say. They're good but not the best! Another friend was telling me how wonderful the results were at her DS's state school we beat St X (well known independent) this year no they didn't not according to government league tables. One badly behaved out of control child doesn't mean all are. A friend was delighting in telling me a story about a local school where a teachers was attacked (15 yrs ago) at work the next day I met a charming boy from the same school he description of it was far removed from my friends description of out of control yobs running around corridors disrupting every lesson.
seeker - that does not surprise me since you obviously see yourself in a different way.
You know, one day you might surprise me and go - hmm BS is right. If the position was ever reversed I would do exactly what I'm criticizing other parents for doing.
What do you think seeker? Do you think that day will ever come?
I think you have some sort of issues you need to address with yourself, BS. Youre coming across as increasingly unhinged, to be honest.
If I respected your opinion on issues or people then that would hurt, Nit. But since I don't .....
The fact remains. If seeker's DD was being bullied at her GS I can't see her moving her DD to a Sec Mod. So why is she criticizing parents for doing what she would do if it was her DD.
In the same way, why is she criticizing parents for deserting SM for GSs when that is what she herself is doing?
If you think that it is unhinged of me to point out the double standards of a poster then that marks you as a person whose opinion isn't worthy of serious consideration.
As with TOSN I too am getting sick of the repeated personal attacks on seeker by totally. And i said that afee days ago too and in the fridt thread.
Seeker and happy were having a perfectly resonaabe sensible discussion there whichi've been sitting here following and then, bam!, in comes totally with another accusation twisted from something seeker hasn't actually said.
" a few". And "first". Sorry for iPad typing.....
In what, sense, totally? But the answer is yes, I mean what I say. I was following the conversation and then you changed the direction to take it persaonl again.
Totally I have to say Im beginning to agree with TOSN and others you know I'd let the seeker bashing thing go you beginning to look like a cross between Ronaldo/Peternas and a few others; not a good look. As I said to my ageing father the other day who was complaining vociferously about my ageing mother despite being separated for 25 years "dad its time to move on".
Quite. When it gets to the point that you're imagining a scenario where a child you don't know is bullied, and imagining what someone's response to that would be, and then getting angry about what you've imagined.... I think you must know at some level that you lost the plot a while back.
You're being boring, you're being obsessive, you don't seem to actually understand anything, you try to derail every single thread into you imagining things you think someone else thinks or has said, and it is frankly very tiresome for everyone else.
& on the back of all that nastiness, I've decided I need a month away from mumsnet! I haven't yet decided if I will come back, but the route some take to make their point has become obsessive & downright offensive.
To those of you that enjoy a good discussion, I wish all the best. To those who continually seek to derail threads, I have nothing more to say! Mumsnet is not what it once was.
Beck - seeker outlined a scenario where a parent is so prejudiced against the state system that she, faced with bullying, will move her DC to the same type of school.
I pointed out to seeker that she would probably do the same so why the criticism?
And that is me trying to derail the thread?? Hence my are you for real question.
Incidentally the last few days have been spent with pugs making some rather weird observations and getting hammered for it. The good ship HMS Interesting Discussion hit the rocks days ago.
As for me being 'angry' with the views being posted here, get over yourselves. Some of you ladies think that you moving to a more expensive catchment is not you buying a better education. Some think that you sending your DCs to a predominantly white MC comp is you providing your DCs with a more diversified education.
You aren't exactly showing yourselves to be people with serious and considered opinions. So excuse me for not attaching too much importance to your opinion of me.
Where were you? Talking out of your .... but let's not go there
With pugs leaving, this thread is going to be the same recycled stuff so bye ladies. No doubt seeker will find me on another thread and accuse me of running away from her biting and witty repost.
I have an idea.
Why dont you do what you think is best for your DC based on your personal circumstances whether that be using private, using grammar (but having to stay where you are location wise for personal reasons) or whether you would like co-ed, single sex, schools that choose by ability etc.
I wont force my views on you and you will do the same.
There are good and not so good in everything but we try and make the best decisions we can.
Some on here think the only view is THEIR view. And very cross they get too if you dont come around to their way of thinking.
I am very happy with private education and the choice I have made. I have experience of the state system myself. I have friends and relatives in the state system - of course I do. My DM is a retired teacher from the state primary with 40 yrs experience of teaching.
Now this is really really weird- and I don't know why I am posting again. But are you saying that I shouldn't even discuss education- even theoretically-because of the views I hold? That happygardening and others and I can't have what I thought was a perfectly civil discussion about different sorts of schools in the country without it being me "forcing my views" on people who aren't even taking part in the conversation? Really?
I've read both of these threads and contributed a little to the start of the first one.
Reading the early pages of this thread and pugs comments on projected outcomes at GCSE being based on KS1 or Early Years data - I think she might have been referring to Fisher Family Trust data. I don't know if this if just local to my area or nationally, but certainly it is a tool based on demographics and early results to predict what a child should score at KS2, KS3 and GCSE.
My sister who is a COG at a terrible inner-city school was distraught to see this FFT data about her sons, and that based on their relatively poor performance at KS1, the fact she is a single parent and non-university educated and lives in a C/D area - they were predicted to get D's at GCSE.
Happily for her, they have both achieved 10 A-C GCSE's, one has 3 A Levels and a 2:1 degree and the other is on-target for 3 A grade A Levels this summer.
Was it this FFT data that pugs was referring to? Because it actually does exist and if a school does better than predicted, it can affect what the LEA expect from them the following year - hence some background talk among parents about keeping children down.
Sorry - it's Fischer
I think all schools used FFT data, but in my experience as a school governor, it's used to predict where there is likely to be more need for intervention, and the minimum that can be expected of a child- it should be a baseline, not a cap, if you see what I mean.
The fact remains that while obviously, not all poor children do badly at school, poverty remains the single most reliable indicator of academic under achievement. And identifying early the children who are statistically most likely to underachieve is the first step in doing something about it. Being poor doesn't necessarily mean being disadvantaged, but it often does. As does low academic achievement in the parents, poor housing and so on. There are always people, like your sister, who tick a lot of boxes but not the underachievement box. But I think it generally, if used properly is a force for good, rather than not.
Is FFT data used to work out Value Added scores in school league tables?
If not, what is that VA score based on?
Value added is based on SATs scores- 100 is "expected progress" and points are added or taken away depending in how well children do.
Join the discussion
Please login first.