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...

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

the ignorance on this thread is quite breath taking.

You get three years free sixth form education.

if you are on the wrong course, it is VITAL to be steered away after the first year, NOT to be allowed to whittle away your time and opportunities flogging a dead horse.

What don't you get?

I can only think they wanted "unsuitable" pupils in the lower sixth to get the grants/funding,

or maybe because they were prepared to give them an opportunity, but they blew it...

if you are on the wrong course, it is VITAL to be steered away after the first year, NOT to be allowed to whittle away your time and opportunities flogging a dead horse

People get that.

But the question is - when does a course become the WRONG course?

And this particular school seems to think that pupils who aren't on target to do REALLY well are on the wrong course.

or maybe because they were prepared to give them an opportunity, but they blew it

Again - how are you defining 'blew it'?

Getting a D or less is probably 'blowing it'.

Is getting a C blowing it? Or a B?

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?

you are unlikely to be allowed onto an A level course with only a C in that subject, it is nowhere near high enough.

This mess could be sorted out if the schools in question were forced to make their year 12 drop-out rate as public as their exam results. It would be a kind of negative value added score.

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.

You obvioulsy have never watched the total heartbreak and slow grinding destruction of children NOT CAPABLE of GCSE being forced through GCSE courses.

It is devastating to the child.,

But far better for the school league tables to do that, than to offer more vocational courses

so where you get the idea that vocational courses are offered to "keep the league table points in tip-top shape" I have no idea.

The exact opposite is true.

This thread has just shown all over again how little some parents bother to take and interest in, or understand the education system their children are going through.

Absolutely but can anyone define flogging a dead horse as falling short of 3B's at AS Level

THIS - this is the OP - but for some reason, this is being ignored.

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.

again, I don't think you have any comprehension of the sheer volume of statistics schools hold, thousands of pages, you don't want it all, just ask for what you do want.

Out of interest, I just checked through a few schools local to me, all but one had retention rates easily visible on the website, and the all, without exception, had retention and success rates prominent in their ofsted reports which are all available on their school websites, so it is all there.

This thread has just shown all over again how little some parents bother to take and interest in, or understand the education system their children are going through

Are you going to answer or even discuss the ACTUAL OP - which is basically this?

Absolutely but can anyone define flogging a dead horse as falling short of 3B's at AS Level

Absolutely, there's no point continuing to Year 13 if you're looking at facing 3U's at the end of it. But if you're on track for 3 grades in the A-C range, then you're not wasting anyone's time. You are in fact not on the wrong course at all and are probably on the right course for your abilities

again, I don't think you have any comprehension of the sheer volume of statistics schools hold, thousands of pages, you don't want it all, just ask for what you do want

Should I tell you know that I have had many interviews for data manager in schools, and have extensive experience using SIMS and SISRA?

all but one had retention rates easily visible on the website, and the all, without exception, had retention and success rates prominent in their ofsted reports which are all available on their school websites, so it is all there

Not on my local schools one and not on their OFSTED report either.

Meanwhile, back to the OP

From the Guardian today

www.theguardian.com/education/2017/aug/30/mps-attack-ejection-of-underperforming-sixth-formers

Lawyers acting for two St Olave’s families have issued judicial review proceedings after it emerged that about 16 pupils were told their places for year 13 – the last year of school – had been withdrawn after they failed to get the required three Bs either at AS level or in internal exams.

St Olave's teacher: 'Weak students are treated as collateral damage'

The Guardian also revealed that other students had been told they would be allowed to continue on a discretionary basis and were asked to sign a contract warning that if they did not get a minimum B grade in their mocks the school reserved the right not to enter them for their A-level exams

Education experts say a number of other schools – including other high-achieving grammars – are employing similar tactics to ensure the best possible results, but it is thought to be the first time the issue been challenged in court

the ignorance on this thread is quite breath taking.
Really?! I think most people are talking a lot of sense.
You get three years free sixth form education.
Yes. Which is great when students have GENUINELY ended up on the wrong post 16 pathway.
It is also what some insitutions abuse because they know if they kick a child out at 17 another college will take them. Sod whether the A level specs match up, sod if if means resitting y12 when they already have a C. Sod the impact of a resit year on the child's CV.
if you are on the wrong course, it is VITAL to be steered away after the first year, NOT to be allowed to whittle away your time and opportunities flogging a dead horse.
Not getting 3 Bs at AS isn't flogging a dead horse but then you know that which is why you insist on grouping C grade studenys in with those who should never have done A levels because it suits your argument.

What don't you get?
Most of what you say if I'm honest.
Like many posters, I have ALREADY said that whe students have genuinely made the wrong choice then choosing another route is perfectly reasonable.

What we have an issue with is schools deciding that a C grade isn't good enough for the SCHOOL so pushing a child out.

This thread has just shown all over again how little some parents bother to take and interest in, or understand the education system their children are going through
No. It shows that many parents and teachers want what is best for STUDENTS rather than what is best for a school (and the chosen few who they deem decent instrumenta to achieve their lovely shiny %).

It also shows that some schools want an easy life and bragging rights and a minority of parents are so damn snobby that they couldn't stand their precious little gifted so and so to mix with C grade students.

but I know this school, and it is a brilliant school
And there is the root of your massive defence of a school putting its results before students. Very predictable.
I'm sure it is a brilliant school if you're a teacher who wants some easy a* for your CV or you're a parent who happens to have a kid on the right side of the divide.

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!

copperbeech that's not what I meant. There are a huge range of options available post 18. Yes sponsored degrees and degree apprenticeships are competitive and require high grades, but not all of them do. I personally know of two students who have been offered courses at very attractive companies with two E grades at the end of Yr 13. They haven't even begun Yr 13 yet so I imagine there will be a few more by the end of the year!
The very competitive "alternative providers" like Goldman Sachs and JLR also don't look at A-levels alone. Again they look at the range of qualifications available post 16 and choose top students from them. A student who would have struggled to complete maths, biology and physics at A-level and gain the high grade (A and A) required at these or Russell group unis, could gain DDD on an applied science BTEC and be snapped up by competitive providers.

I was trying to point out that A-level intelligence is not the only intelligence. Some kids are crap when it comes to exams, others are crap at continuous assessment, some are crap juggling too many different subjects, some struggle with the intensity of just one. Doesn't make them
Worse or better people, employees etc., just means they need to take a different route.

I'm really sorry op that this is nothing about your thread!

That should be three D*, I'm not sure what I did there!

frankenstein it's not just about kids being able to pick subjects they're good at. They need to have some kind of affinity with what they are going to study otherwise they will struggle to succeed (by that I mean a D grade or above really). If you want to take History A-level at my school you don't need. B at GCSE ( but if you took it this is what you are expected to get in order to continue), if you didn't select it at GCSE you will need at least a B in English. If you can't write/analyse etc for toffee you'll struggle at A-level. We expect to teach and help develop kids skills, but we honestly can't work miracles. Not with 25 kids in a class, with the content we have to teach etc.

I'm really sorry op that this is nothing about your thread

That's ok. I'm still wondering if anyone defending this school is going to explain why :

a) Less then 3B's is seen as failing at A-Levels by this school

b)Why it's acceptable that pupils who are predicted to get less than 3B's but who carry on doing A-levels at this school should have to sign a contract saying that they won't take the exams at the school if the school asks them not to - despite having spent 2 yrs studying for them at the school.

I think those are 2 clear points that need to addressed about this school.

I'm possibly confused by unfamiliarity with current (pre 9-1) gcse grades I'd remembered these as a-f with F being a fail and u unclassified. in that context C is/was average and well capable of a C or better at A.

the thread seems to be suggesting that students are more likely to drop a grade on going to A levels - whilst the expectation when I was at school was that interest and motivation was more likely to go up a grade and that was certainly reflected in my cohort.

that was over 30 years ago though - does a c now mean less than average - or is it that average students are no longer expected to do a levels?

A student who would have struggled to complete maths, biology and physics at A-level and gain the high grade (A and A) required at these or Russell group unis, could gain DDD on an applied science BTEC and be snapped up by competitive providers.*

no they couldn't , it is harder to get distinction stars at BTEC than it is to get As at A level.

because I really don't know the circumstances, orlantina.

I do know the school, and it is an excellent school,

they certainly don't take predominantly privileged pupils, they certainly offer much support and booster classes to anyone not in line for top grades.

I've taken pupils who they have asked to leave, and in my experience, I have been surprised they were kept so long in a school with such a reputation for high achievement, when theses students had not developed into high achievers in any way.

On the other hand some of my students have applied there, and done brilliantly.

My own personal knowledge extends to two current students, one with an alcoholic father, living in very sparse circumstances, on free school meals, etc, and one with a mother in prison. Both boys doing fantastic, A*s all the way, amazing support at all times.

The number of students asked to leave is low, I can't comment, any further.

Love the Head's Welcome

Our outstanding record of academic excellence consistently showing around 95% of A level results at A*/B grades, places the school amongst the nation’s top 3 Grammar Schools. Over the last 7 years over 200 students have taken up Oxbridge places, continuing the tradition of the top two leavers’ destinations for Olavians being the universities of Cambridge and Oxford.

Even in the context of St Olave's, 2016 was astonishingly successful with 40 Oxbridge offers and 27 for Medicine; this year we have 39 Oxbridge and 35 medics. We try to locate academic excellence within the broader concept of true scholarship, encouraging all of our students to become independent thinkers, engaging critically in the learning process through a vibrant approach to intellectual curiosity

I wonder why the statement "95% of A-level results being A* to B" is so prominent?

And that's true. 95% of the A-Level results are at that grade.

The tables are here:

www.saintolaves.net/uploads/ckeditor/attachments/1384/GCE_results_2015_and_2016.pdf

www.saintolaves.net/uploads/ckeditor/attachments/1385/GCSE_Results_2015_and_2016.pdf

And it's interesting looking at the actual subjects.

Interesting to note there is no obvious mention of the success rate on there. Nor the drop out rate.

I have been surprised they were kept so long in a school with such a reputation for high achievement, when theses students had not developed into high achievers in any way

Some people think that pupils who haven't achieved the high expectations that this school expects shouldn't be expected to leave midway through a course.

It certainly explains their results though. Kicking out students who aren't high achievers. That's a great way to keep those As and Bs up.

And then get them to sign a contract to say they won't take the exam. What's that about?