Richmond Borough Schools Chat 5

[BayJay2]

Welcome! This is the latest in a series of threads about Richmond schools, which was first triggered by the council's publication of its Education White Paper in February 2011.

Please do join in the chat. There’s a bunch of us who’ve been following the thread for a long time, and we sometimes get a bit forensic, but new contributions are always welcome, and if it’s something that’s been covered before we can always direct you to that part of the thread.

We generally talk about local education policy, the impact of national policy, the performance of the borough’s schools, and admissions-related issues. We began by talking about Secondaries, but tend to talk a lot about primaries too, so the title of the thread has evolved this time to take that into account.

If you have a few hours to spare and want to catch up on 2 years of local education history, then below are the links to the old threads. We have to keep starting new threads because each only hold 1000 posts. The first two threads run in parallel, as one was started on the national Mumsnet site, and another on the local one:

1a) New Secondaries for Richmond Borough?: Mumsnet Secondary Education (Feb 2011 – Nov 2011)
1b) New Secondary schools for Richmond!: Mumsnet Local (Feb 2011 – Nov 2011)

1. New Secondary Schools for Richmond 2: Mumsnet Local (Nov 2011 – May 2012)

1. New Secondary Schools for Richmond 3: Mumsnet Local (May 2012 – Nov 2012)

1. New Secondary Schools for Richmond 4: Mumsnet Local (Nov 2012 – Oct 2013)

1. This thread: Richmond Borough Schools Chat 5: Mumsnet Local (Oct 2013 - ????)

Finally, to find out how to add links, as well as smilies and emphasis, see these Mumsnet guidelines.

Thanks Heathclif and Mum, you are always so well informed and helpful in these matters! Still a bit confused on why KGS and St Catherine's results vary so much if both do IGCSE exams, maybe because of the 2 sets you mention? My youngest will have to take the new GCSEs so will be yet another learning curve when the time comes!

Twix45 not all English iGCSEs were discounted - only Cambridge. Cambridge had introduced a compulsory speaking and listening component, ironically to align itself with the GCSE just before it changed - so it was wrong footed. But it's possible that KGS followed Edexel iGCSE English instead.

It says on the Cambridge website:

'UK independent schools can offer either the Cambridge IGCSE or the Cambridge International Level 1/Level 2 Certificate version of the syllabus. ... From 2013 only the Cambridge International Level 1/Level 2 Certificates will be included in the UK government’s school performance tables and count towards the English Baccalaureate.'

BUT it also goes on to say:

'We have revised the syllabus for first examination in June 2015. The changes we have made involve bringing together our international and UK syllabuses under a single syllabus code (0520) and simplifying the assessment structure.'

KGS has a low entry rate for languages so perhaps some of these were unaccredited exams too.

Other changes to look out for: some BTEC 'equivalents' will be discounted from 2014 and/or will only count as one qualification, not two as previously the case. RPA gained 62% 5 A-C GCSEs including Eng and Maths but excluding equivalents this would be 49%. By contrast for the other converter academies there is little or no different between these figures. BTECs may, of course, be suitable for some pupils as they allow more assessment by course work.

Thanks for the helpful description of how the English and Maths GCSE courses will change from 2015 Heathclif (and departed KGS headmistress!) I am confused as to whether those starting GCSEs in 2015 (including my dd) will still be taking the old sort of GCSEs in everything other than maths and English? i.e. will they still be doing coursework that counts to the final result in 2015-17 or has the Gove-erment already done away with all coursework so that they will be doing all exams in 2017 in every subject? Or won't that happen until they have changed the syllabus for other subjects a year or so later? And if Labour get in in May 2015 will the changes still be going ahead?

Just looked up attainment by residence in Table A3 - Pupil residency and school location. The data includes pupils at state schools both in and out of borough, and is a reflection of both opportunities and prior attainment. Compare Ebacc attainment for resident pupils of the following:

Richmond - 50.7%
Kingston - 38.3%
Sutton - 34.2%
Hounslow - 31.6%
Hammersmith and Fulham - 25.5%

...

Worthing 14.6%
Oldham 13.9%
King's Lynn 11%
Isle of Wight 10.1%

LProsser a timeline is given on the Ofqual site. Very confusing though!

And would recommend this blog about the use of equivalents in the GCSE figures, and the emergence of what he calls a new 'two-tier self-selective system of secondary post-moderns and neogrammars'.

Thanks mum in London - very confusing but I understand it to be saying that GCSEs involving coursework assessments have now finished and it's all exams from now on although the teaching of the new toughies only starts for English and maths in 2015 and in some other subjects, including history, geography and science in 2016? One of my friends who has a son in year 11 says he did some work that was meant to be coursework that counted towards the GCSE (presumably in year 10) but that now he's been told it doesn't count - presumably because he is the first year of all exams. This Ofqual site refers to changes to history and geography exams being introduced this year, but also to the new GCSEs in those subjects starting in 2016, so I assume this year's changes are an interim measure to beef up coverage of the approved view of World War I and learn the principal rivers of the British Isles or something!

LProsser: 'This Ofqual site ' - link missing?

A history teacher tells me:

New syllabus in 2013 and again in 2016. all around. I don't understand the point about One of my friends who has a son in year 11 says he did some work that was meant to be coursework that counted towards the GCSE (presumably in year 10) but that now he's been told it doesn't count - presumably because he is the first year of all exams. Doesn't make sense.

Sorry Chris I meant the Ofqual site that mum in London posted the link to in the message two above.

On the other point I think the abolition of coursework happened so rapidly that students at the beginning of their 2 year GCSE courses in 2012 did some work that now won't be counted because they will be assessed through exams only in 2014.

Going back a little, Watford describes itself as non selective, but I read it selects 25% on academic ability and 10% on musical ability. How do they get away with that, and is it something that other new schools, of whatever flavour are likely to do?

NotallSnootie 'How do they get away with that, and is it something that other new schools, of whatever flavour are likely to do?'

They get away with that under old rules, but no new selection (new schools or proportion) has been allowed since 1997.

There are a few dozen partially selective schools in this position - background and list of similar schools here.

Not only does Watford Grammar School select 25% through an eleven plus exam plus 10% on musical ability, its 'community places' gives priority to siblings of pupils attending either the girls' OR the boys' school, unlike superselectives such as Tiffin. Consequently they have 2% low attainers and 75% high attainers.

Their Ebacc score is 0% so they must do iGCSEs, apparently in languages and science. But the boys' school gets 82% Ebacc. Three other schools in Watford with minuscule top sets do rather less well so provision is polarised, with the only truly comprehensive school (ability-wise) being a Catholic school. Watford schools area average was 23%.

The nearest partially selective schools to us are in Wandsworth - Graveney, Burntwood and Ernest Bevin - but most of Richmond's full comprehensive schools still beat the pants off theirs, both in terms of Ebacc scores and average point scores.

Richmonds fully (and full) comprehensive schools, I mean...

"They get away with that under old rules, but no new selection ... has been allowed since 1997"

Actually, some types of selection are still allowed. (See section 1.17 onwards in the Admissions Code).

Muminlondon is right that academic selection is only allowed in a small number of existing schools (section 1.18 - 1.23) and Watford presumably falls into that category. However, any school can select 10% of its pupils by aptitude in music and several other practical subjects (section 1.24). They have to do it on aptitude rather than ability though (section 1.32), so, for example, children who have had extra-curricular music lessons can't be advantaged over those who haven't. Aptitude can be very difficult to test fairly, so its not very common.

Academic selection by banding is also allowed (section 1.25).

There's an example of an art aptitude test (for Holland Park School) at the bottom of this form.

And here's an example of a music aptitude test.

And of course sixth forms can have academic entry criteria (section 2.6).

One school that selects 10% on music aptitude is the West London Free School. It has been criticised for this as it is seen as a covert method of selection. It must have been reported to the schools adjudicator which partially upheld a complaint on the grounds that it must publish results of aptitude tests before pupils consider applying so they don't 'waste' a preference.

Credit to Turing House for not going down this route.

Cheam High School has a tennis aptitude test. With half the average number of previously low attainers and disadvantaged, despite being in a grammar school area, this ensures it can attract lots of nice middle class children (from Surrey, if possible) who, aged eleven, have been able to afford tennis lessons.

That school also prioritises siblings of tennis champs rather than the other way round, thus ensuring as many from such families as it can.

Mum, yes, I'd have thought tennis aptitude would be difficult to assess when comparing children who have had training with those who haven't. There can't be many tennis professionals who only started playing at 11 to act as role models. However, state schools with this sort of entrance policy should be seeking to challenge the status quo on that.

Trouble is, I didn't see anything in that policy to encourage people without previous training to apply, and the description of the test itself wasn't detailed enough to make it clear what they're looking for (e.g. general agility and speed, hand-eye coordination, etc).

Someone would need to complain to the Schools Adjudicator if they wanted to raise it as an issue.

To be fair though, if the school does lots of outreach to local primaries to nurture talent from an earlier age, and encourage children with aptitude to apply, then that makes it a lot more palatable. Not sure if that happens.

I was trying to find out more on the numbers of schools with aptitude tests - this research in 2006 suggests it was 157, but more academies and free schools may have adopted such tests since then. It suggests:

- Opting for selection by aptitude does not make an unpopular school more popular but may increase the popularity of already oversubscribed schools, and give them more means to 'cherry pick' the 'easier to educate children'.

This would be true for schools that already have a location advantage, like Cheam. But also when aptitude tests are used on top of other selective criteria - partial selection by ability and further rewards for siblings, like the Herts schools, or faith criteria.

There's more about the Cheam High School tennis scholarship here. It looks like the bar is pretty high for entry, and the scheme is attracting applicants from across the country and even abroad, so they're creating something quite special. It's small numbers though; just 50 current students out of 2000.

It doesn't sound to me like something they've created just to push their exam results up.

Not directly to push exam results up but to give it a middle class USP. The demographic, ability-wise, is ordinary when compared with other comprehensive schools, although with only half the usual number of lower attainers, but is very good compared with secondary moderns (see e.g Kingston schools).

It keeps its level of 'disadvantaged' down to 12% - one-third that of the Carshalton schools. Children from working class families in those areas are less likely even to have picked up a racquet let alone have had lessons, access to courts, and be motivated to apply on that basis.

And how can you justify the sibling rule in connection with those children?