Daughter kicked out of 6th form **Title edited by MNHQ**

I hate threads like this where the op gives half s garbled story and then buggers off

What grade did she actually get? Is she being "kicked out" or just asked fivhsnge this one subject? Was she doing 3 or 4 a levels? Those are just some of the questions.

The summer of their 19th birthday so they have three academic years. My son has done it.

Kids are funded for 6th form until their 19th birthday

DCs 6th form college is massive (and quite aggressive about kicking kids off courses / over to other colleges)
but of course colleges are allowed to remove kids for academic reasons schools are not

@cantkeepawayforever I agree with your comment and it's difficult for schools. My partner is head of sixth form where they are dropping a levels due to performance and lack of teachers to teach them. The btecs are more popular but they are changing this year.
Actually most of his students decide whether to continue and they have lots of children fully funded on year 14.

wannabe
Start them again in year 12 - Find them courses to suit
3 years of 6th form only gets funded for the youngest in the year group
and if the school does not have the courses to transfer the kids to, and the other providers are full, then what ?

The reality is that the 99% stellar grades were always a lie
its about time schools admitted it

I suspect that this is a situation where schools' 'custom and practice' has not quite kept up with the change to AS / A-levels, and where perhaps it has not been fully documented as 'admission criteria'.

So in the days where virtually everyone did AS as a prelude to A-level, there was a clear 'break point' where the school could set a minimum performance in AS to proceed to A-level, and that would be OK because the student still walked away with something.

Now, many schools aren't doing ASs, so the school is effectively getting rid of a pupil halfway through a course with nothing to show for it, and it is not clear what the school SHOULD set as the entrance criteria into Year 13, because these would have to be clear and unambiguous.

So one way schools would have been able to regularise the situation is y setting admission criteria for Y12, and then separate ones for Y13 based on AS results. That would AFAIK be legal. However, with schools no longer routinely doing ASs, setting clear and unambiguous admission / progression criteria for Y13 becomes much more difficult.

It is being pointed out (we have a duty of care) that it is kinder to either
Start them again in year 12
Find them courses to suit
Not set them up to fail and waste another year. As is an indictator of what is going to happen. Not an inclusion.

wannabe
They aren't being excluded though.
They are being forced to leave the school before the end of their course.
What technical term would you use for that situation ?

They aren't being excluded though.
And it's ok saying 'you have to get them through' but sometimes it's just not possible.

Quoted in the Grauniad ....
The Department for Education said it could not comment specifically on St Olave’s because of legal proceedings but a spokesperson said: “Our regulations make clear that schools are not allowed to remove pupils from a sixth form because of academic attainment once they are enrolled. Excluding pupils temporarily or permanently for non-disciplinary reasons is unlawful.”

prh
The DfE does not appear to agree with your interpretation.
6th form courses are now a two year linear block
exclusion for lack of academic progress is not permitted

wannabe
If the school accepts them onto the course it has to get them through
simple really

I feel like I am missing something. If a student does not get the grades at as to progress to a level then they would be asked to adjust their course or repeat the year. If not they leave and go to college/ do an apprenticeship. Something better suited for someone who gets a U.
And why is it the schools fault? There is a huge jump from gcse's to a- level. Some people are not suited to that level of education. We have always done this- all schools I have worked out have basic requirements year to year.
It's always someone else's fault.

But I am talking about moving from year 12 into 13 prh so you are being obtuse... no idea why

That did not appear to be what you were saying. Apologies if I misunderstood.

However, the point is that there is nothing in the Admissions Code or law to prevent schools having entry criteria for Y13. Many have long required minimum grades at AS before proceeding to A2 - and yes, I know a number of schools that have stopped pupils going into Y13 or forced them to drop subjects when they didn't do well enough at AS. They are therefore working on the basis that both Y12 and Y13 are years of entry. Provided the entry criteria for Y13 are reasonable and are applied equally to internal and external applicants I do not see any reason to believe that the courts would rule this practise unlawful.

I know.

It is giving me a whole new level of schadenfreude to see that school going through this. Presumably , up to this point, they have laboured under the old fashioned notion that if a student fails(by whatever definition they have applied!) it is the child's fault entirely and he should rapidly vacate the premises.

It has really opened my eyes to a new world!

Piggy
If these "departures" become correctly classified as exclusions, then after the 5th day, the excluding school is responsible for finding alternate provision for the pupil
www.gov.uk/school-discipline-exclusions/exclusions
at which stage the head of Olaves might have to learn about the world outside his gates

And I would add , those who are getting Us aren't usually in my school coming from a base of an A or A* in the subject.

Indeed.

there is a difference though between that and being told to leave with a pass. Schools try extremely hard to make this a mutual consent thing precisely because of the exclusion rules!
Generally, at my place, if a student got a U in one subject only, they would be made to drop that one -a d would usually replace it with an AS (this has become increasingly problematical post reform) If they got 2 or more Us, generally they leave : but that is invariably for the best and is their decision. In the case of the Grammar school, I don't think anyone thought that was for the benefit of the boys concerned!

titchy
normal and illegal
they can ask you to change courses
but not to leave
if they do not offer the course they want you to go on, that is their problem
and TBH if kids have gone from A/A* at GCSE to E/U in a year, the problem is with the school not the kids
schools have been able to hide this for years
no longer

Every single sixth form I know of requires students to get certain grades at the end of year 12 in order to progress into year 13. It's explained very clearly at enrolment into year 12. If you get 3 x U at AS there is no point continuing to year 13 and you will be asked to leave. That's normal everywhere surely?

But I am talking about moving from year 12 into 13 prh so you are being obtuse... no idea why.

You were the one that first raised compulsory school leaving age, which is exactly why schools can set entry requirements for year 12. However, school with lower ability profiles are expected to provide courses which suit their intake spread in sixth form.

And instead of telling me something is rubbish can you explain why I am wrong that year 12 into 13 has never been a normal, natural leaving point?

A levels are two year courses (in fact now more so than they have been of late ) . Students who pursue one year post 16 courses may well leave after year 12, but those doing any two year courses expect to pursue a two year course with the same provider.

Anyhoo, this has derailed the thread nicely!

prh
Admission into year 12 is indeed a clear break point
nobody is arguing with that
but transfer from 12 to 13 is not .....
which is what the current case is about

^ this is correct.... you would be surprised the amount of students I teach that fail their gcse's and expect to stay on. If you can't pass the gcse's you won't pass the a-levels!

Year 12 to 13 has never been a leaving point in English education, other than by choice

Rubbish. And I know exactly what I am talking about.

If you are a pupil in Y11 at a school with a sixth form you do NOT have any automatic right to proceed to Y12 at that school. The school is entitled under the Admissions Code to set entry requirements for Y12. I have never come across a school that does not do so. If you fail to meet those entry requirements you will not be admitted to Y12. That is not an illegal exclusion. And if you fail to meet the entry requirements for any other school in the area with a sixth form you won't be able to proceed to Y12. It is not necessarily the pupil's choice whether or not to proceed to Y12.

No point Fighting them...best she leaves and goes to college .plenty of courses leading to uni at local colleges...all students will of been told the grades they needed to continue the second yr...plenty of my daughters friends left A levels to continue a different course at college

prh , are you in education at all? Because that view is just nonsense!

Student choose a range of options at 16+ , one of which may be to stay at school. They will find the sixth form provider, with guidance form many sources, which best suits their ability and needs.

To argue tye are being excluded when many school only take students up to 16 is plainly ridiculous.

Year 12 to 13 has never been a leaving point in English education, other than by choice.

I suspect they would actually have got round it be saying they assisted the students to stay in education by finding alternative options for them and working with neighbouring education providers.

It would have been fascinating if it had gone to court. A lot of it would hang on how explicit their policies are : lawyers would have been poring over their entry requirements and their exclusion policies.