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...

any parent can ask any school any time how many pupils leave in y12. it would make more sense than coming online to whine about data not being given to them
Or these schools could just be up front in their material about kicking kids out between y12 and 13.
You're placing the onus on parents and students to ask the questions rather than on the schools to justify why they accidently remove students who might damage their headline figures.
Throughout your posts it sounds like you may have a child who js on the 'right' side of the divide and so are absolutely determined to argue that getting rid of students is the right thing to do and then defend the schools who give misleading information to parents. I don't understand why else you'd be determined to defend schools doing this.

I agree with othet posters, A levels aren't for everyone. It makes sense to have an entry requirement for 6th form. (I wish we would ask for a B in my subject at GCSE to study it to a level). It is logical for some students to go onto different post 16 options. Equally, if a child does y12 and gets Us and Es then it's worth a chat about whether A levels are best because that is in the interest of the student who only gets one shot at free level 3 education

What's not ok is deciding that students are good enough yo study a course with you and then deciding that a grade C isn't good enough so kicking them out part way through their a levels, leaving them to find another college that does the same board/options or resit y12 elsewhere and put them a year behind. that is not in the student interest. That is 6th forms being more bothered about their % and bragging rights than the students in their care

I agree with you to a point masie. The problem is the more data we give out that people don't always understand the story behind, the bigger stick we have to be beaten with.
Think about what already happens with pass rates, VA and success percentages.
I started by HOY of Year 12 with 140 students this year, I'm rolling to Year 13 with 108. I only had conversations with 6 students to tell them that they unfortunately couldn't continue into yr 13 - they had all gained 3 U grades or 2 U and an E profile. The remaining students have chosen (without pressure from me or the rest of the 6th form team) that A-levels are not for them. The vast majority have gone onto apprenticeships or enrolled onto a variety of BTEC courses.
I don't mind publishing this information, but if we're honest how much would people look at the back story or would they just look at the rollover statistic; the percentage 'cull'
I think this thread very clearly demonstrates how such information would be received by the wider public and yet again schools would be ripped up for toilet paper.

YourDaughterHasATattoo
Your 6th form sounds like mine. I have no issue with reasonable discussions about what is best for students.

I don't even think that y12-13 retention should automatically be published.

What I do think is that schools who cull students for getting Cs (because it would mess their figures) should be honest in their material and in their open nights etc that normal procedure in their 6th form is to get rid of non-A-B students. At least then parents know the figures they are looking at are x% A/A in a heavily culled cohort so it's not like for like comparisons with other 6th forms. But those 6th forms won't do that because it makes them look crap.

Placea like yours and mine probably look like 'worse' 6th forms than some of these places but we don't go around kicking kids out for ruining our figures.

If y12-y13 retention statistics were routinely published then surely schools would take fewer risks on their y12 entry. Forget A-B in your continuing subjects, now you need A-B in everything and A* in your continuing subjects. And a clean mental and physical health profile. And happily married parents.

For some of these schools, they are so selective in the first place - at 11 and after GCSEs - that you have to wonder what is going on with pupils getting low grades. I know that personal circumstances can scupper a pupil and would expect some empathy and the opportunity to retake year 12 if necessary. But I find it difficult to imagine that applies to that many pupils. It also shouldn't be a surprise when a pupil gets a D - regular assessment should take care of that.

MrsHathaway
See I agree with taking fewer risks but don't agree with B in everything e.g. someone having a C in science makes no difference to their ability to be great in mine. Equally, some of my former C grade English students were A/B maths/scienve students.

Maybe something where a B in English is required to do any essay based subject and a B in Maths is required for any STEM subjects & then individual subject requirements as appropriate.

I think the issue with Cs at GCSE is that unless you're an 11-18 school it's tough ti know if a student is a hardworking C student, a bright student who has had a bad day or a lazy student who was dragged kicking and screaming over the C/D borderline. First 2 C students would probably do alright at A level if they work hard, the final group don't have the right attitude to do well at A level.

I think you're right mrs hathaway. Academies would become more selective at gcse.

maisie u think we are the "better sixth forms" 😁 Completely agree that the op school is bonkers and unfair 😔

I know I keepnbanging on about this, but I won't apologise! We really need to come away from this desire to have all students on A-levels. By all means have high entrance requirements for A-level courses, but schools have to get on board with giving more impartial advice on the other options available to their students post 16. As I've already said there are only 4 universities in the U.K that don't accept BTECs and diplomas. Post 18 apprenticeships, sponsored degrees etc are amazing! I'm guiding my own kids in that direction rather than the more "traditional"routes. I can't say it often enough, grades give you choices, not qualifications (at this life stage anyway!)

YourDaughterHasATattoo
Yup. I think that 6th forms that help students get ready for THEIR next step in life are better than 6th forms who conveniently cull anyone who might destroy next year's number for a recruitment poster.

I get that offering a wider range of vocational courses isn't possible at every small 6th form attached to a school, but that's why it's important to give good CIAG advice in y11 so students can make informed decisions about courses and providers.

Completely agree tiggy. As my previous posts state, I'm against the op's school's thinking. It's wrong morally and we'll see about legally too.
My posts are in response to many of the other posts which are stating that it's common for schools to "kick kids out" willy nilly at the end of Yr 12 just to massage their own stats. This is wrong and misguided and wholly unfair to the majority to schools.

I think what yourdaughter as talking about is the fact that people are saying it's normal to kick students out of a course half way theough because it won't look good. And it reads like some actively support it (probanly because they/their DC would be on the 'right' side of the divide)

Some posters started going on like schools removing students part way through was no different to entry requirements (when it clearly is).

There's a local comp that are absolute buggers for this. Both my niece and nephew went there and both were chucked out at the end of year 12. I couldn't understand why there were even allowed into the sixth form in the first place as they both gained a pretty dismal set of GCSEs, some C's with a B or 2 and a few Ds and Es. I tried to tell my sister both times they'd be better going to college, but she was adament that they were A level material! School was happy enough to have them in year 12, but they were both sent home on the first day back in year 13. I can only think they wanted "unsuitable" pupils in the lower sixth to get the grants/funding, but didn't want them messing up their results. So it definitely happens in comps too!

I can only think they wanted "unsuitable" pupils in the lower sixth to get the grants/funding, but didn't want them messing up their results
6th forms who lose students have to pay back money for students who don't complete so it's not in their interests to get rid. Don't know the details but it's certainly causing some colleges who routinely take on unsuitable apllicants some serious issues.

I agree with you that they didn't sound like A level material and probably would have been better going down a different route. That's why there's something to be said for expecting all A level students to have Cs and above with Bs preferbly in their choaen subjects.

Someone with straight As is a lower "risk" than someone with great English/History/languages and good-but-not-amazing science/Maths. And if it's all based on statistics and risk and projections, rather than individual fulfilment and happiness, then that's the route for an institution to take. Which is what happens when individual schools are allowed to control their intake rather than a LA or region being able to offer individuals the courses most suited to their interests, needs and abilities; and when statistics and league tables matter more than individuals and their longterm wellbeing.

At which point I declare an interest: I did very well academically out of a system that carefully and ruthlessly selected by attainment in entrance exams and interviews, and public exam results. Socially, though, fuck. If I'd been allowed to do my blip subject, I might have learned how to work hard, rather than continuing to coast through subjects I found easy but unstimulating and end up with no vocation and no motivation. But what does that matter, when school got a lovely front page in the local paper of a booby teenager with an Oxbridge offer and her arms in the air?

are the teachers on this thread saying that kids who only get a C at gcse should not be permitted to do a-level because they won't even get a C?

(very) long time since I was in that space but it doesn't feel right - gcse choices are effectively made before kid has invested much thought in what they really want to do or even before they begin to understand the breadth of the subject and their interest in it.
I can see that choice of a level will often be a follow through - but surely there has to be the opportunity for the child to try for something they actually want to do?
(if it's just what the parents want then I agree it's bordering on abuse)

otherwise if it's just a matter of the kids being permitted to do what they are good at - what's the role of a teacher? (my best subjects at gcse were eng lit/Lang but I wanted to do science - which in those days constrained me to maths/physics/chemistry - I'd have enjoyed doing lit as well but that wasn't an option - if she gets there I'll argue for my daughter to do what she wants to do.)

GCSE year 2000. School 'suggested' (forced) the weaker students to take only vocational courses in childcare and cookery and they were not permitted to take GCSEs. They probably thought they were doing them some sort of kindness - "you'll only reproduce anyway, dearies" - and it kept those league-table points in tip-top shape.

n Year 12 they are by no means failing if they got some C grades at AS and could well go on to get decent grades at A-C at A Level. By no stretch of the imagination are such pupils in the "inherently unsuitable for A Level studies" category

THIS - this is what the OP is about.

I don't think anyone thinks anyone, regardless of ability, should be able to take A-Levels. They are demanding so prior knowledge and aptitude is important.

I do think there is an issue with pupils who are doing reasonably well and who are on course to get a reasonable grade being told to leave at the end of Y12.

Some people seem to be under the impression that that means others think no one should be 'kicked off'.

Oh - and schools do advertise their A-Level rights. It is technically correct to say that 95% of pupils who took their A-Levels got an A if you look at the results of the number of pupils who physically sat their A-levels.

And that's the eye catching headline.

It's disingenious to suggest parents should ask about retention rates, success rates etc - because parents don't know to ask. It's what Sir Humphrey would suggest if he was challenged about this. In fact, it's the kind of manipulation he'd be proud of.

I think it's an acceptable approach for a school to take if there is a high level of selection to get a place ( so there's evidence that the student has ability), transparency regarding the policy from the get go and the school are offering proper resources to assist the students to achieve.

If y12-y13 retention statistics were routinely published then surely schools would take fewer risks on their y12 entry. Forget A-B in your continuing subjects, now you need A-B in everything and A in your continuing subjects. And a clean mental and physical health profile. And happily married parents.*

they are routinely published, and all of these things are taken into consideration.

One of the biggest single indicators of educational outcomes is the percentage of parents evenings parents attend,

I have even known this data to be utilised in the decision to offer a place in sixthform or not.

Of course, grossly unfair on children without parents, but a lot of selection is unfair in the sense that not everyone has the same opportunities.

I've also known a girl turned down for sixthform place because she had cancer. I accepted her myself, and was prepared to take the hit on my retention data, but then I am old enough with enough of the mortgage paid off to be able to take those chances, other staff are not.

but I know this school, and it is a brilliant school.

It is the type of school that will ignore low percentage attendance of parents at previous parents evenings, and give intelligent pupils an opportunity, even with supportive parents.

They take huge risks here, because unsupportive parents is the biggest disadvantage an intelligent pupil can possibly have.

I don't know the details of this case in particular through inside knowledge, but I do know the sixth form. It is a sixth form of just under 400, the lowest scoring 16 students have been asked to leave, I believe, from what I read. Much lower percent than the surrounding schools.

*that should say even with unsupportive parents"

they are routinely published, and all of these things are taken into consideration

Where?

I have had a good look at my local school's 6th form prospectus, website and the DFE school statistics and there is nothing on this.

So if it's routinely published, it's published in such a way that people who don't know to look for it don't know to look for it and can't easily see it.

Still, as Sir Humphrey would say, it is routinely published.

It is a sixth form of just under 400, the lowest scoring 16 students have been asked to leave

These lowest scoring students seem to have been on course to get reasonable grades.

But they were told to leave.

Post 18 apprenticeships, sponsored degrees etc are amazing! yes they are, and the competition to get on the is absolutely cut throat. This is selection at its height - they only take the creme de la creme in the first place, so of course those graduates do well.

It seems odd to recommend these in a thread complaining about lack of opportunities for the less elite students!