Daughter kicked out of 6th form **Title edited by MNHQ**

[Dollytwoshoes]

My daughter has been told she can not return to her complete her psychology A level because she failed her AS. Through out year 12 she's been on target for a B's.They have advised her to do applied science 1/2 A level (whatever this means) instead. Is this because this won't be published in the league tables? I've put in an formal complaint and asking to see governors. Is the head acting lawfully with my daughters best interests at heart. Has anyone else had to deal with this?

titchy
normal and illegal
they can ask you to change courses
but not to leave
if they do not offer the course they want you to go on, that is their problem
and TBH if kids have gone from A/A* at GCSE to E/U in a year, the problem is with the school not the kids
schools have been able to hide this for years
no longer

Indeed.

there is a difference though between that and being told to leave with a pass. Schools try extremely hard to make this a mutual consent thing precisely because of the exclusion rules!
Generally, at my place, if a student got a U in one subject only, they would be made to drop that one -a d would usually replace it with an AS (this has become increasingly problematical post reform) If they got 2 or more Us, generally they leave : but that is invariably for the best and is their decision. In the case of the Grammar school, I don't think anyone thought that was for the benefit of the boys concerned!

And I would add , those who are getting Us aren't usually in my school coming from a base of an A or A* in the subject.

Piggy
If these "departures" become correctly classified as exclusions, then after the 5th day, the excluding school is responsible for finding alternate provision for the pupil
www.gov.uk/school-discipline-exclusions/exclusions
at which stage the head of Olaves might have to learn about the world outside his gates

I know.

It is giving me a whole new level of schadenfreude to see that school going through this. Presumably , up to this point, they have laboured under the old fashioned notion that if a student fails(by whatever definition they have applied!) it is the child's fault entirely and he should rapidly vacate the premises.

It has really opened my eyes to a new world!

But I am talking about moving from year 12 into 13 prh so you are being obtuse... no idea why

That did not appear to be what you were saying. Apologies if I misunderstood.

However, the point is that there is nothing in the Admissions Code or law to prevent schools having entry criteria for Y13. Many have long required minimum grades at AS before proceeding to A2 - and yes, I know a number of schools that have stopped pupils going into Y13 or forced them to drop subjects when they didn't do well enough at AS. They are therefore working on the basis that both Y12 and Y13 are years of entry. Provided the entry criteria for Y13 are reasonable and are applied equally to internal and external applicants I do not see any reason to believe that the courts would rule this practise unlawful.

I feel like I am missing something. If a student does not get the grades at as to progress to a level then they would be asked to adjust their course or repeat the year. If not they leave and go to college/ do an apprenticeship. Something better suited for someone who gets a U.
And why is it the schools fault? There is a huge jump from gcse's to a- level. Some people are not suited to that level of education. We have always done this- all schools I have worked out have basic requirements year to year.
It's always someone else's fault.

prh
The DfE does not appear to agree with your interpretation.
6th form courses are now a two year linear block
exclusion for lack of academic progress is not permitted

wannabe
If the school accepts them onto the course it has to get them through
simple really

Quoted in the Grauniad ....
The Department for Education said it could not comment specifically on St Olave’s because of legal proceedings but a spokesperson said: “Our regulations make clear that schools are not allowed to remove pupils from a sixth form because of academic attainment once they are enrolled. Excluding pupils temporarily or permanently for non-disciplinary reasons is unlawful.”

They aren't being excluded though.
And it's ok saying 'you have to get them through' but sometimes it's just not possible.

wannabe
They aren't being excluded though.
They are being forced to leave the school before the end of their course.
What technical term would you use for that situation ?

It is being pointed out (we have a duty of care) that it is kinder to either
Start them again in year 12
Find them courses to suit
Not set them up to fail and waste another year. As is an indictator of what is going to happen. Not an inclusion.

I suspect that this is a situation where schools' 'custom and practice' has not quite kept up with the change to AS / A-levels, and where perhaps it has not been fully documented as 'admission criteria'.

So in the days where virtually everyone did AS as a prelude to A-level, there was a clear 'break point' where the school could set a minimum performance in AS to proceed to A-level, and that would be OK because the student still walked away with something.

Now, many schools aren't doing ASs, so the school is effectively getting rid of a pupil halfway through a course with nothing to show for it, and it is not clear what the school SHOULD set as the entrance criteria into Year 13, because these would have to be clear and unambiguous.

So one way schools would have been able to regularise the situation is y setting admission criteria for Y12, and then separate ones for Y13 based on AS results. That would AFAIK be legal. However, with schools no longer routinely doing ASs, setting clear and unambiguous admission / progression criteria for Y13 becomes much more difficult.

wannabe
Start them again in year 12 - Find them courses to suit
3 years of 6th form only gets funded for the youngest in the year group
and if the school does not have the courses to transfer the kids to, and the other providers are full, then what ?

The reality is that the 99% stellar grades were always a lie
its about time schools admitted it

@cantkeepawayforever I agree with your comment and it's difficult for schools. My partner is head of sixth form where they are dropping a levels due to performance and lack of teachers to teach them. The btecs are more popular but they are changing this year.
Actually most of his students decide whether to continue and they have lots of children fully funded on year 14.

Kids are funded for 6th form until their 19th birthday

DCs 6th form college is massive (and quite aggressive about kicking kids off courses / over to other colleges)
but of course colleges are allowed to remove kids for academic reasons schools are not

The summer of their 19th birthday so they have three academic years. My son has done it.

I hate threads like this where the op gives half s garbled story and then buggers off

What grade did she actually get? Is she being "kicked out" or just asked fivhsnge this one subject? Was she doing 3 or 4 a levels? Those are just some of the questions.

6th form courses are now a two year linear block

Yes, things are changing. However I am talking about the current position. Right now, as far as I can see, if a pupil takes an AS level there is nothing to stop the school from refusing entry to Y13 if the grade is inadequate.

Did you read the quote I posted ?

And several of the Olaves kids took internal exams ....

prh, a lot of pupils didn't take AS levels this year, because their subjects are now linear. To refuse entry to Y13 to those who did AS, but to allow through those who didn't, would surely be unreasonable and likely to be unlawful - and in the absence of an externally-marked AS, the fairness and comparability of the internal exams would be suspect. for example, a department setting a hard Physics exam (or one with higher 'grade' boundaries) might end up with 'worse looking' results than a department which set a slightly easier History exam, while in fact the future A-level results of those two groups of students might be identical.

the last year of what you describe as 'the current position' was actually 12 months ago - the new 'no universal AS level' scenario has already happened, but schools haven't adapted their 'progress into Year 13' approach to match.

It is anyway unclear to me whether an existing 'progress into y13 is dependent on AS grades' form of admissions criteria would stand up to scrutiny, as most are informal and no precisely quantified, rather than being collected and administered publicly, as other admissions criteria are.

I would imagine parents would also have a right to query progress levels and what support was given to DCs when it became apparent they might not reach targets. In fact, they may well have been achieving their potential, just not St Olave's apparently required grades (still no one has been able to show that there is a clearly stated policy!)

The vast vast majority of A levels are reformed, with ASs that do not count towards the final grade.

prh - define inadequate.

practice - OP buggered off ages ago ! We are carrying on regardless!

I do think that if we arrive at a situation where a pupil CANNOT have it suggested that continuing to an A-level is not the best course of action - and that ultimately a school has no right to transfer a student an track for UUU at A-level after a year of the course to a more suitable course for them - then that is equally unsatisfactory.

However, what might be sensible - I have suggested this on another thread - might perhaps be that any school admitting a pupil to Y12 retains 'ownership' of their ultimate results, even if they in fact ultimately attend a different institution (by agreement - like schools that use alternative provision for some pupils) to obtain them. So a pupil who starts Y12, is getting poor results and by mutual agreement moves onto a BTEC course at that institution OR ANOTHER ONE, has their results counted at the place where they started their Y12. It would mean that schools would have to continually work on getting the best from every pupil, rather than being able to 'palm off' underachievers to other institutions.

the new 'no universal AS level' scenario has already happened,

Actually it hasn't. The 17/18 cohort are the first for whom there is no AS Level that counts across the board. For the 16/17 cohort a lot of courses, including Maths, still have AS exams that count.

Titchy, sorry, I was unclear.

What I meant was that 'AS levels were not universal', not that 'not having AS levels was universal'. As soon as there is a 'mixed economy' - ie from this summer - you can't use AS levels to create a fair set of admissions criteria.

DS will take AS levels - which he starts this week - as that's a decision his school have taken and will apply to every student doing A-levels. So that particular school COULD apply AS-level-based criteria for Y12-Y13 progression within A-level courses. However, that's not going to be the case in many other schools.