Richmond Borough Schools Chat 9

[ChrisSquire2]

This thread follows on from Richmond Borough Schools Chat 8 starting February 2016.
News and opinions on all the changes to schools in Richmond borough.

See also:

Richmond Borough Schools Chat 7 starting May 2015

Links to earlier threads (1-6), starting in February 2011

Large confidence interval means that the margin of error is high and that statistic (progress 8) cannot be relied on, for a very small group of children. I believe the minimum is 30 children - for a statistic to be considered robust enough.

What I also find odd is that the progress 8 measure cannot be compared year over year. A score of 0.7 only means that children progressed very well in a particular year, as compared to other children nationally who had the same starting point. Or something like that. But 0.3 in 2017 cannot be compared with 0.7 in 2016, for example. That difference doesn't mean that the school is now weaker. It just means that the students in the 2017 have progressed less well than similar students in 2017. And in 2018 that score could go to .9 or even 0, if there is a weak cohort. I guess the trick is to always be higher than .5, but TBH the more I read the less I trust this measure.

Year over year comparisons can be made on raw GCSE scores though, and I believe Teddington has been improving those scores year over year, since 2014 - so that - in my mind, is the big discrepancy between Ofsted's finding of RI and the actual GCSE results.

Also I don't understand why Teddington decided not to steer students towards Ebacc since Ebacc is one of govt's focuses. And not sure how students NOT entering Ebacc affects the overall attainment 8 figure for the school. At Tedd very few students enter Ebacc as compared to W, OP, GC...

rainbow55: The ‘confidence interval’ (CI) of an estimate of some value is the interval around the estimate within which there is a 95 % chance that the true value lies.

The interval derives from the ‘variance’ (a measure of the variation) in the sample. The smaller the sample the larger the variance as a % of the estimate - e.g. consider what answer you might get from estimating the average height of a class by just asking your dc’s friends.

The larger the variance the wider the wider the CI.

The wider the CI the less accurately you know the true value.

There are millions of web pages about this for you to look at - I can’t judge which might suit you. It is too large a topic to explain here and I can’t spare the time to try.

Just remember that most performance stats should have wide CIs attached to them because they come from small samples. So using them as accurate point scores to compare performance is wrong - self-decption. So decisions and choices that rely on them may be wrong.

Here's an example rainbows, with two smalls group of 6 children and their individual progress 8 scores.

group 1 - the average progress 8 score is 0.05. Individual progress 8 scores for each child:
-1.2
-0.8
-0.9
0.9
1
1.3

group 2. The average progress 8 is also 0.05! Individual scores:
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.3
-1.3
0.3

The 0.05 average progress score doesn't tell you ANYTHING. You cannot say that the group performance is average/mediocre. In the first group, half the children have progress well above average, but the other half have progress well below average.

In the 2nd group there is one (1) child with terrible progress dragging the group average down (in statistics he would be called an outlier and removed from the calc - not sure what the govt does with them in their formula). However, ALL other children have above average progress, in group 2.

That is why progress 8 is absolutely meaningless for small groups. It doesn't tell you anything about the group.

It's a simplistic example but it can give you an idea....

PS. There's a lot of criticism of the progress 8 measure. Here are some examples, if you have the patience to read...

teacherhead.com/2015/05/02/progress-8-looks-like-data-garbage-to-me/
www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2016/10/more-problems-with-progress-8

teacherhead.com/2016/09/30/dissecting-progress-8-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/

I think we should remember that RI is not a definition of a failing school. The definition is a school that is not yet 'good' - so, in a way, not good enough. I've a son there and I can tell that I think there are definite areas of improvement at Teddington School, regardless of the the GCSE results. The value added and Progress 8 measures give a broader picture than GCSE results so they should be welcomed. You will always finds critics of measurement - noone likes to be measured and compared, not just teachers. My feeling is that it is not firing on all cylinders and the kids are not fully stretched academically. Do I think that will have a very negative impact on my son's future life chances? Probably not although it does niggle. Others may feel differently.

Snellers are living up to their legendary disreputability I see. Reported as Spam.

@tw11 thank you so much for all your very helpful information. Just about to read those features. @PKenn you make a good point, and perhaps some children may drop a couple of a* grades at Tedd, but have more fun and a more rounded education than at other schools. I do know that some parents of Waldegrave girls feel they are driven far too hard.

I think the MAT (multi academy trust ,RWT) has now been disbanded. Waldegrave pulled out because it did not want to be associated with John Wilkinson.
All the schools in the trust will have proper, permanent Head teachers rather than being Heads of Schools with JW as the executive Head.
I think JW will be paid off and go and be a Head elsewhere.
The Sixth Form at Teddington was rated good but there are only 65 students in the Lower Sixth which means that it may not be viable in the future. There is rumour that the Sixth Form may be amalgamated with Waldegrave Sixth Form but I am not sure how definite that is.
I think Teddington School with the right Head has the potential to be outstanding in a few years.
I hear there are money problems as well with some of the RWT schools. I don't think JW had much of a handle on finance either.
With effective Head teachers, problems will be sorted out quickly.

I can't see why Teddington having a dodgy Ofsted would lead to the MAT which is currently Twickenham and Hampton disbanding, although agree that it may not be able to afford an Executive Head and that this role may no longer be necessary if Twickenham and Hampton have improved considerably since it was set up in 2015. The website doesn't say it has disbanded yet. We are continually being told that all the schools have to cooperate and share resources because they are so hard up so would have thought some mechanism for continued co-operation would be needed. Not sure how the Waldegrave and Teddington sixth forms could physically amalgamate as neither has a big enough building for many more pupils and Waldegrave is very full (it had to cut its intake last autumn as it had taken in extra pupils the year before) and presumably there is no money for more building work at either site. But would be sensible if they would run some subjects jointly as they were trying to operate with very small numbers in some subjects at Teddington (of course small class sizes can be a good thing but are not very economic!)

@mrsmuddlepies How do you know Waldegrave pulled out because they didn't want to be associated with JW. I thought both schools pulled out because the extra funding they were promised (or may have assumed was coming) didn't eventuate and therefore forming the MAT was not a financial incentive. There are money problems everywhere. The Academy model is broken and I would like to see a return to LEA's where the schools focus on what they are good at - teaching - and leave HR, Finance and so on to others. It's a a bit of a nonsense at the moment but Richmond isn't alone. Waldegrave and Teddington could easily amalgamate sixth forms. I'd be all for that but I'm not sure how Waldegrave would feel about it. Can't imagine JW will return. Early retirement beckons I suspect.

just wanted to say that this is such an interesting and informative thread!

PKenn - you are right, there were links lower down to Teddington’s explanations about not joining the RWT trust because that was conditional on extra funding from DfE, now not forthcoming. Clearly there are capacity issues with many of Teddington’s senior leaders being on secondment and that would affect its own ability to progress from RI. Waldegrave isn’t joining either for the same reasons, but bear in mind also that (a) it supported Nelson but had to withdraw, (b) it has also been advising the Richmond Upon Thames School, and (c) it is doing its own succession planning for when Mrs Nunn leaves in a year’s time. And at some point it might have to go through its own Ofsted (it’s been over 10 years), so it shouldn’t be overcommitting itself. So no implication that the trust is being disbanded, just that there’s no financial benefit for the other schools to join it. All schools are having funding problems now - 8 out of 10 academies and a quarter of LA maintained schools are in deficit. Hence the begging letters to parents.

Eight out of 10 academies in deficit, say accountants

You can’t have a CoE and lead school of a MAT that is RI. Forget about funding. How can they help RI and Inadequately ofsted graded schools. Saying that I hear the HTs at both schools are good!

Not sure why Waldegrave pulled out of the Richmond new school. They certainly did nothing to help Nelson.
Now that Ted Sch are in a difficult place, Waldegrave are walking away from them too.
There may be funding issues but it is interesting timing.

AfC need to sort this mess out as I believe it was them that decided to approach Ted and Wald to help two failing schools (and Nelson when it was in a bad place).

And teacher shortage is worst in outer London so spreading management expertise thinly, setting up small new schools while expecting existing schools to take on school improvement roles as well as new management and finance responsibilities, and teachers coping with new exams, etc. was never going to be sustainable.
www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/outer-london-is-worst-in-uk-for-teacher-shortage-a3754336.html

Justtw2 I think Waldegrave is great at running a school for girls, but perhaps not a whole MAT of three co-ed schools plus a primary school needing improvement. The head will hand over the reins in a year so it’s unfair to expect her to take on additional long term challenges. The academies model relied on senior leaders working flat out. I have much sympathy for Mr Wilkinson.

Ah, you are right - P Nunn stepped down on 5 December 2017 as a director of the RTS Trust, same day as E Ball, head of Orleans Park. Mrs Nunn had served for longer. There were new appointments at the same time. The trusts/schools as organisations were not formally connected.

Yes, it is sad.
I do hope Mr Willinson goes back.
We lost Ms Pugh (Nelson), its just not good. Very high stakes system. Glad I am not working in schools anymore. Why take on headship if the stakes are so high? Bonkers.

does anyone know how the second offers for secondary schools work? if you have a place at a higher preference school, do they email you or send a letter?

@DDqueen40 i was wondering this too!

When we were going though it a few years ago the second round of offers was delivered by post during the Easter holidays.

Good luck!

thank you @graciousgoodness. @goddessnic - i have spoken to the council today and they have said they are sending out a letter to offer our ds his first choice school - i am guessing we have to post a confirmation letter back to confirm we want this place. Would be more helpful if they could have done this all electronically but am pretty chuffed he has got his place so am not going to complain too much.

Hi @dramaqueen40, what was your first choice again? We’re on the waiting list for Orleans but got offered a place at the Richmond upon Thames school which i am warming to!