to think this is a great way of getting top A-Level success rates - I can't believe other schools haven't cottoned on

[orlantina]

Simply don't let the pupils in Y12 who aren't going to get As not do year 13.

Then you are looking good for a high success rate and can market yourself as a great school.

www.theguardian.com/education/2017/aug/29/grammar-school-unlawfully-threw-out-students-who-failed-to-get-top-grades

Unbelievable the school did this...

Happens in most schools, I'd say. Kid isn't doing well at GCSE, withdraw them so you don't ruin your A*-C/progress 8 rate. If a kid didn't turn up on the day, rather than risk a U, the exam officer would withdraw them from the whole exam, wiped any record.

For A level, schools await the AS result then get kids to either re-sit the year so the original grade is over-ridden (and there's no record of it) or the kid can't carry onto A level. Not sure how that's going to work with the new A level curriculae.

Most schools also give teachers impossible targets and the teachers absolutely kill themselves trying to achieve them. The onus is very much more on the children with the new GCSE, although obviously teachers still need to work as many extra hours as possible to facilitate the best results.

I don't like it, personally. At my school, everyone is entered for GCSEs they have chosen, even if they're going to get an E. No child should be left behind to artificially inflate the pass rate.

Makes you wonder how these 'chosen few' would manage in a great state comprehensive with a level playing field

the vast majority of oxbridge students were state educated

This is news to you ?

My local bog standard FE college has always done this. They have been a bit scuppered more recently though with the switch to 2yr examinations and many AS levels scrapped. Personally, I think my ds may end up wasting 2 years instead of one but there you go.

the vast majority of oxbridge students were state educated

That's another thread - 60% came from State schools. Yet 93% of pupils go to State schools.

Just to add that the grammar school I went to back in 2000 booted people that weren't expected to receive sufficiently high grades at A Level, and fairly close to the exam date IIRC.

1DAD this is the issue. The admin staff are desperate to get as many students in as possible and so are placing them on the wrong courses without the required entrance grades. We don't set these grades to be snobbish - vast experience tells us that a C at GCSE is a D at A-level. Knowing what most post-18 courses require (and they are tougher than us) it is a massive disservice to that young person to allow them to take a course that they won't get anything out of.

Happens in most schools, I'd say

Well you should say less, because you have no idea what you are talking about.

Kid isn't doing well at GCSE, withdraw them so you don't ruin your A-C/progress 8 rate*

The most common reason for kids being withdrawn is parents begging for them to be allowed to drop subjects. This does not in any way improve results statistics or progress 8 rate.

If a kid didn't turn up on the day, rather than risk a U, the exam officer would withdraw them from the whole exam, wiped any record.

can't be done, and isn't done,

For A level, schools await the AS result then get kids to either re-sit the year so the original grade is over-ridden (and there's no record of it)

again, can't be done, all exams are recorded, and have to be put on UCAS applications

Schools can't normally offer places to resit the year anyway, as they won't normally get the funding,

or the kid can't carry onto A level. Not sure how that's going to work with the new A level curriculae.

Its working fine, with schools setting their own internal exams to use to predict grades with, instead of external AS exams.

the vast majority of oxbridge students were state educated
Just over half. Then factor in that some of that 60% will be from grammars (who seem to do well at getting rid of kids who might damage their headline figures).

I come back to my point. How many of these chosen few would be shining stars in a great state comprehensive with a level playing field?
People love selection and get defensive when their kids get the right side of the cull.

Yet 93% of pupils go to State schools. and what percentage of them do you believe have any interest in applying to Oxbridge? its very low

My school - a very, very posh Home Counties state school with a stellar reputation and incredible A level results - achieved this back in the late 2000s in part by forcing anyone who got less than a C as AS level to drop the course I was a straight A student but nothing makes you more enraged at educational elitism than comforting a sobbing fellow 17 year old who has 'failed' one of their subjects (by not getting a C ) and now won't be able to attend their chosen university. But hey, the school looked good in league tables, so who cares?

To offer a different perspective: the previous head at my school had a policy of "keep them on to A2 regardless", largely because the school needed the money.

When the predictably shite results happened, the sixth form got roasted by parents because "we" hadn't magicked the grades out of thin air.

Es at A1unless there are very unusual circumstances, or very specific potentially solvable issues (like Rufus) almost certainly mean failure at A2.

and what percentage of them do you believe have any interest in applying to Oxbridge

With due respect, that's another thread. Albeit an interesting one.

I come back to my point. How many of these chosen few would be shining stars in a great state comprehensive with a level playing field?

The school is a tool. Which school you go to counts very little in determining likely outcomes.

The main indicators of educational outcomes are

1. inate intelligence
2. attitude and work ethic
3. Parental support.
4. stable home life.

in that order.

These are the things that determine how effectively you use the tools you are provided with, including school.

A strict school can help someone without 3 and 4 to develop 2, ( as this school certainly does) but really, there is no "chosen few" as far as schooling goes, the "chosen few" are the ones with 1,2,3 and 4

A strict school can help someone without 3 and 4 to develop 2, ( as this school certainly does

Does it? Surely losing that many pupils at the end of Y12 shows that something they are doing is not working.

Now - if they had mentioned at the start of Y12 that pupils who don't hit a particular target at the end will not be able to get into Y13 - that's one way to motivate pupils to work.

It seems these pupils had no idea that not hitting this high target would mean they would be kicked out.

Poverty of aspiration on the part not just of parents/ kids but schools too is why loads of kids don't apply for Oxbridge.

I spent most of my secondary school career (5 years at pretty shitty comp, 2 years at all girls non selective but academically much higher achieving school) with everyone telling me why I shouldn't apply to Cambridge, why i should moderate my expectations, and so on. None of my teachers had been or even applied. The impression I got was rather that I was aiming above my station...

My uni friends came from various top public schools. The assumption there was that everyone would apply if not to Oxbridge then to Durham, or a Russell Group uni.

I sat my a-levels at a top FE college in 2000, and their scam was to put under-performing students on a performance improvement plan with the ultimate sanction being they would have to pay their own exam entrance fees

Self-paying students then sat in a different exam hall with home-educated students, self-taught etc etc who just wanted an invigilated space to do the paper
Ergo, they weren't counted in the college's results

In terms of my uni friends, most acknowledged that they had been taught by their fee paying school to pass exams. Not to learn History, or Geography, but to pass an exam. They knew everything they needed to get the best possible grades and not one piece of additional info. It was why, certainly in my college, those getting Firsts and Exhibitions were almost all state (non selective) or home schooled...

I'm really glad this is being challenged. It's an utterly ruthless practice which demonstrates how little these schools actually care about their pupils, and gives an extremely misleading picture of the quality of education they provide. I hope the challenge succeeds.

Here (not grammar), we do not have the big drop out of pupils in the top sixth form state establishments mainly because as their reputation gets bigger so does the intake of previously independent educated pupils. The one that is advertised as having the strongest links to the Russell's group is now mainly filled by three of the closest independents whose parents can get a very similar education but now without costs. The entry requirements are set but the reality is pupils needs much more than stated as the competition is so high. There will be few without straight As at GCSE so pupils in very close catchment are being moved way before they even get to year 12.

Several pupils at my local London state comprehensive have been refused entry to year13, I think it's widespread.
The effect on the pupils is devastating, they've been given their results and immediately told to go home and not come back, no consultation meeting with parents, no discussion, just out!
I'm glad it's being challenged.

Private schools have been doing this for years @ GCSE, either expulsion, forced out or not entered for exams.

As someone posted upthread, its only an issue now because its a certain type of person's child that has been affected.

It if had been someone else's child they wouldn't have cared.

This has been around for years. My daughter left (private) school two years ago and even I knew all schools were not created equal and some schools were highly selective as no more than a way to skew their results.

I don't think it's right, there must be a better way to do this, it's fine to teach kids of differing abilities separately as benefits the kids. It's not ok to chuck em out simply so you can hot house the best.

I think to make it transparent schools should show how many started gcse, how many sat rhem,, how many of those went on to as level and how many of those into a level and their grades. That linear visibility will show a lot that is hidden now.

I looked into this a while ago. I don't think legally it is justifiable - looked at he admissions code and selection at phase transfers was (usual caveats) but you can't really argue 12 to 13 is a phase transfer. Exclusions as per the article. It's a good cover for poor teaching and helps results I think. Glad it's being challenged.