LondonMix

Perfect! *Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Part one out now. Free binder with part one. > Collect all ten case files and receive this > attractive replica bloodstained claw hammer and > authentic dental records report.

Also, why do people think a small format Simply M&S is going to bring hoards of people in driving from far and wide when there are already loads of them nearby (and bigger ones to boot)....

The regulators are aware of the aluminium content of formula. As the article says, they disagree with the scientists who wrote this specific report that the levels of aluminium are dangerous. The authors acknowledge there is no specific evidence suggesting that these levels are dangerous for healthy babies but they warn that given the potential dangers of aluminium in general, the regulators and manufacturers should take a more prudent approach to limiting its content within formula. See extract from their 2010 study (which the current one expands upon) and the link if you are interested. While it is the case that the present levels of aluminium in infant formulas have not been shown to cause adverse effects in healthy infants it is also the case that there have not been any clinical studies which refute such as a possibility. Previous research has highlighted the potential toxicity of aluminium in infants with confounding disorders (including, prematurity, poor renal function and gastrointestinal disease) and fed infant formulas [10-13] and these studies when viewed alongside aluminium's known connections with medicine and human disease [22] should at least deter complacency concerning this issue. It is widely accepted that the not fully developed physiologies of infant's gastrointestinal tract, kidneys and blood-brain barrier may predispose them to aluminium toxicity [10,11,16,23,24] and while there are no definitive links between aluminium exposure through infant formulas and immediate or delayed toxicity in healthy infants this neither should not nor does not preclude such as a possibility. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/10/63#B22

Yes, a very small low-attaining cohort would be a mitigating factor. We know the cohort of low attainers at Heber is at least 6 (as the data isn't suppressed) but if it is 6 that would be small and it could be unfortunate circumstances that led to 4 out of 6 not progressing 2 levels. I think everyone has agreed with that from the outset. Heber overall though is a large primary school and the size of its total pupils makes its total value add score reliable statistically. I am not saying that to be argumentative but just to be clear.

Scribble you may be right but the guidance suggests to me that statistical significance is one of the considerations as I highlighted. As you will see below, the guidance discusses declining statistical significance as you approach 11 total pupils for value add analysis and then cuts off publication data at 10 pupils. However, the logic behind suppressing the information at 10 pupils may not actually be linked to a cut of in statistical reliability. Please note that all of the below only concerns the value-add data. The progression data is suppressed for privacy reasons if there are less than 6 pupils in a cohort (which is a non-statistical consideration). I thought I said that in my last post but if it wasn't clear then I am happy to reiterate that. Edited for typos--- Statistical Significance The degree of significance that can be attached to any particular school's value added measure depends, among other factors, on the number of pupils included in the value added calculation. The smaller the number of pupils, the less confidence can be placed on the value added measure as an indicator of whether the effectiveness of a school is significantly above or below average. Mainstream Schools As a guide: ?at KS1 to KS2, for schools with 30 or more pupils in the value added measure, measures of 99.1 to 100.9 represent broadly average performance, while for schools with 50+ pupils, measures of 99.3 to 100.7 are broadly average. When comparing the measures for two schools a similar effect holds: ?at KS1 to KS2 when comparing schools with cohorts of about 30 pupils, differences of up to 1.3 should not be regarded as significant, while for schools with about 50 pupils, differences up to 1.0 should not be regarded as significant. Special schools Particular care should be taken with the results for special schools and other schools where cohort sizes are small. For example, for special schools with 11 pupils included in the value added measure, only measures of below 98.5 or above 101.3 are likely to be significantly different from the average. When comparing special schools with cohorts of about 11 pupils, (remembering that the VA measure and KS2 results are not published for schools with 10 pupils or less) differences of up to 1.7 should not be regarded as statistically significant. http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/performance/archive/ks3_04/k4.shtml

Also to Kestonkid-- I think the government's Academy program at best could be described as overly zealous and ideologically driven (in a bad way). I don't have anything against free schools-- sometimes they are great but the devil is in the detail and execution is key. Some things that have happened are shocking. Still, I wouldn't go so far as thinking that there was a conspiracy against Heber.

There is a large on in Brixton.

Yes, sorry that was a typo. Literacy. Scribble you are right that privacy within the coherts is part of it. However, there are also guidelines regarding not doing analysis for numbers below certain thresholds for statistical reasons. For schools entire number of students in a school I think its 10 or 11 as the threshold. Privacy is a different consideration within cohorts.

Why? It's the National Literacy Trust-- is that acceptable? I'm sure there are a lot of people very happy at Heber and we are lucky to have so many quality establishments in the local area. I really didn't start out for this to be me against Heber! I think Heber is fine with some issues that need to be addressed potentially - which is all I've ever said. Whatever you think of the report, and even if Heber wins its appeal, at the very least it will lead to some positive changes and deeper reflection on certain practices. Though people think schools are being downgraded willy-nilly the truth is that 78% of schools are judged as Good or Outstanding now which is 9 precentage points higher than last year. Ultimately, I think Heber will recover its rating and this is just a temporary set-back. ETA-- x-posted! My point exactly regarding overall increase in higher ratings... KestonKid Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > May we know for which educational charity > LondonMix volunteers?

Fair enough-- however the sample isn't 3. It is a minimum of 6 for cohort data not to be suppressed. Still 4 of 6 would be a small sample with potential mitigating circumstances. Though even 4 out of 6 would suggest to me that the issue should be raised.

Now really off to bed. Education is my passion so I could really stay up all night responding as this is a debate I think is very important but early start and all that :)

Sorry didn't see your post before responding to the other one civilservant. There is more breakdown than what you've shown. If you look again, you'll see that the progress data is broken down by the various attainment groups. There is a huge discrepancy as I detailed. That's not to say to there might not be mitigating factors that will explain it but an explanation is definitely required and if one isn't forthcoming that is credible the school needs to address this by improved support. I have never said Heber is a bad or failing school. Its more or less average and it has certain issues that need to be addressed. I don't have a child at Bessemer either so I'm not playing favourites-- I volunteer for an educational charity and have a special interest in primary and secondary education issues. If you don't like Hamlet or Bessemer as comparators (the most affluent and the poorest intakes locally) to show the extremes then look at any of the local schools. They are all progressing students more effectively than Heber. If you can explain why its not to do with teaching or management I'd be interested to hear. civilservant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LM, first a declaration of interest - I have a > child at Heber. I have no connection with > Bessemer Grange > > Now some observations based on the data that you > linked to: > There were 47 kids at Heber who took KS2 > assessments and 37 at Bessemer Grange. Those are > hardly the kind of numbers on which to base a > robust assertion about a school. All we can see > is that > - 11% of the 47 kids at Heber and 11% of the 36 > kids at BG achieved Level 3 or below > - 85% of the 47 at Heber and 86% of the 36 at BG > achieved Level 4 or above > - 36% of the 47 at Heber and 24% of the 36 at BG > achieved Level 5 or above > - 89% of the 47 at Heber and 89% of the 36 at BG > achieved 2+ levels of progress in English > - 83% of the 47 at Heber and 94% of the 36 at BG > achieved 2+ levels of progress in Maths > - average point scores at KS2 - 28.7 at Heber, > 27.8 at BG > So apart from the Level 5 achievement and the > Maths progress, barely a whisker between the two > schools > > And while the figures as presented prevent us > seeing the precise distribution of pupils by > attainment, beyond the fact that BG has very few > High Attainers, they allow us at least to surmise > that the spread of ability at Heber is much wider > than at BG. > As you know it is much harder to teach a class > with a wide spectrum of needs - and to meet > individual needs effectively - than it is to teach > a class with a more homogeneous ability profile. > > Worth pointing out that BG gets more money per > pupil - ?5643 - than Heber does - ?4997 per pupil > - very likely due to its more deprived student > intake. Also worth noting that the average gross > teacher salary at BG was ?42k compared to Heber's > ?35k, indicating more experienced teachers > (although my observation is that Heber's teaching > body makes up in dynamism for its relative lack of > experience) > > You linked to Dulwich Hamlet as well - I suggest > that this is hardly the best comparator with > either Heber or Bessemer Grange. Its academy > status means that its published info is incomplete > - nowhere as transparent as other 'ordinary' > schools are obliged to be.

I agree that SEN and low attainers are not the same and aren't even overlapping categories. Dog Kennel has the highest SEN numbers but too few low attainers for the DoE to disaggregate their progress. Anyhow, as DaveR said, both the Ofsted assessments and the data are blunt tools to assess complex situations with lots of nuance. However, the need for nuance doesn't render the information that can be garnered from the data useless and saying its just for bean counters is churlish. When Heber launches its appeal, if there are mitigating facts (credible ones) then I am sure they will detail these then. However, I'd be surprised if 67% of Heber's low attaining students were actually intellectually incapable of progressing from their starting point, however low that might have been. It's right that Heber at the very least needs to improve this or provide an explanation and this level or oversight seems fair to me. Let's see the outcome of the appeal. Off to bed :)

That's fair but its also worth noting that if the cohort is too small to analyse they don't. For instance the number of students at Bessemer who started out as high achievers was too small to do any statistical analysis on, so the DoE state this and as a consequence don't present any disaggregated stats on that cohort's progression. Also, the percentage of SEN students isn't that high for Heber within the local context (all of this information is available on my previous links) -- 5% for Hamlet and circa 7% for both Heber and Bessemer. Goodrich has 10.5%, Dog Kennel has 15.5%, Goose Green and St Johns both have circa 8%. All of these schools do significantly more for students who start with low attainment than Heber- and I mean significantly more. Of course there could always be an unfortunate year where the problems are particularly acute by chance but Heber really can't claim that it has a disproportionate number of SEN children vis-a-vis other schools as an explanation for why so few of its low attaining pupils aren't progressing.

The links are in post from 4:28 for each school- I forgot to link initially! For each school look under the heading-- KS2 test results and progress Information for your local schools should be on that site as well but if you can't find it, let me know and I'll link it here.

That's true. Engaged parents can accomplish a lot. However, good teaching is an incredibly effective tool to level the playing field. Good teaching is one of the most valuable social tools we have. Ineffective teaching-- particularly of the kind that leaves those who start at a low attainment level behind isn't acceptable in my view and shouldn't be seen as okay.

Thanks Scuffy Mummy, Skegness and Jessie. Sometimes poverty is discussed like its some kind of disease that makes you stupid that is also contagious despite so much strong evidence to the contrary now available. Also, in response to an earlier post suggesting the local variance in value add scores isn't that significant, I would urge you to look at the way the precentiles work: http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/performance/archive/primary_10/p3.shtml A value add score of 101.8 puts you in the top 95th percentile regarding pupil progression nationally-- this also happens to be Bessemers math value add score... A total value add score of 99.7 like Heber's puts you in the 40th percentile nationally. The bottom 5th percentil is only 97.8 so what might seem like minor differences are in fact not. Langbourne's value add score is 99 if that provides some context...

OFSTED has its flaws (as does the government's plans for education). However so do parents and this goes to all the demographic comments people have been making. Bessemer Grange is a fantastic school and gets great outcomes for its entire intake. Its value add is the highest of all the ED-area schools (including better than the Hamlet). It also has one of the highest absolute academic performance figures of the local schools just behind the Hamlet with 86% achieving level 4. It does this with an intake that has 43% of the kids on free school meals and 33% with English as a 2nd language. However, instead of this being one of its championing points, I think those figures combined with the fact that it has a huge minority intake is the reason why its one of the EASIEST local schools to get into. People think demographics matter more than teaching and it doesn't. I know the location is a bit tricky but if this school served a more affluent / white intake, ED parents would be walking over hot coals to get their kids a place regardless of how tricky it was to get to. Rant over...

Which data? Please be specific so I can change it if I made a mistake. I do (like everyone) make mistakes and don't want to spread incorrect information. Edited to add source data: http://www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/school.pl?urn=136665 http://www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/school.pl?urn=130918 http://www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/school.pl?urn=100793

Are you eventually planning to buy near the school or will you eventually go back to your house? If the latter, then there is a huge difference. You effectively are just trying to game the system to take a place that should go to a local child. You want the local school without having to commit to living near it. And I would heap scorn on you if you did that.... edcase Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This thread came up on a search and I just wanted > to revive the discussion further up the thread > around the acceptability or otherwise of renting > to be near a preferred school. > > We were thinking of renting out our house next > year and moving closer to our preferred school > because proximity is one of the admissions > criteria. The school says short-term rental is not > allowed, but what about longer term rental? > > Going by the earlier comments, this seems to be > frowned upon, or even against the rules, but why > is a decision to rent any different from selling > and buying nearby? If we rent for a minimum of a > year, doesn?t that satisfy the ?no short-term? > rental criteria? It was suggested that the offer > of a place could be withdrawn if you have another > property ? is this really the case in Southwark > and is it documented anywhere? > > I expect I?ll cop some flak for what we?re > proposing, but it is a genuine long-term plan and > buying and selling in that time is not really an > option.

Katgod, that's fair. The link below provides clearer guidance from the Department of Education-- http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/performance/archive/primary_10/p3.shtml (to quote) "A school level CVA measure must always be interpreted alongside the CI. Schools where the lower limit of the CI is above 100 represent schools where pupils on average made significantly more progress than pupils nationally, while schools where the upper limit of the CI is below 100 represent schools where pupils made significantly less progress." To put it in context Heber's CIs are 99 to 100.4 so broadly average though with a strong likelihood to be very slightly below average at 99.7. However, what's more worrying and indicative of a deeper problem that needs to be addressed is how it progresses those who start as low attainers. In comparison to Bessemer and Hamlet-- For Math: Bessemer gets 100% of its middle level attainment students to make two levels of progress in math vs. 97% at Hamlet and 90% at Heber. For its low attainers, Bessemer gets 88% to move up two levels vs. 86% at Hamlet and a disgraceful 33% at Heber?. For English: Bessemer gets 94% of its middle attainers to make two levels of progress, vs. 94% at Hamlet and 95% a Heber. But again, for low attainers Heber?s results are shocking! Bessemer gets 81% of its low attainers to make two levels of progress vs. 86% for the Hamlet and 33% for Heber. This comparison is local rather than national which overstates the problem as London in general has much better performing schools than the country as a whole. So while Heber may be more or less average by national standards by local standards it could learn a lot by working with other local schools to ehance teaching. I hope that's ultimately the strategy the school employs. Within Southwark, Heber's value add scores ranks it 60th out of 65...

No, the value add measures the individual progress of pupils. A pupil that leaves wouldn't be included at all. Don't get me wrong- Heber isn't failing. It's average in English and slightly below average in math.

Yes Magpie. The value add measures how much they have learned and compares this against other pupils who started at the same point nationally. The problem with looking at overall performance is that it can both under or overstate how well a school is educating its pupils. If a school has an intake that is starting from a really low level and progresses them to Level 4 that shows phenomenal teaching. Another school with a more prepared / more capable intake achieving the same may actually not be pushing those students to their full potential as with better teaching perhaps they would be at Level 5. The value add score is the only measure that neutralises the impact of the intake of a school and gets down to what the teaching itself is doing which is why its so important.

The value add score was as of 2012-- it is measured every year and for Heber has been below 100 for a couple of years from memory. They do fine in English (100) but its the Math's element (99.4) where they aren't progressing students as expected. http://www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/school.pl?urn=100793 The way this is determined is by looking at where students were for KS1 and seeing how much progress students with a similar starting point make by KS2. This is based on the national average so is a relative not absoulte measure of progress. Essentially, given their initial ability, kids at Heber don't progress in math at the same rate similarly capable students do nationally. As motorbird says the other schools in the area all without exception have scores of 100 or better (Bessemer, Goose Green, Goodrich, Bessemer, Dulwich Hamlet) and compared to other local schools Heber seems to progress disadvantaged pupils less well than the others. With all that said, its hardly a failing school and its no surprise that parents in general are happy. However, its not that surprising that a school whose teaching in maths is producing below expected progress has been rated needing improvement. Below average (even slightly) doesn't exactly warrant a rating of Good. bonaome Wrote: > > The value added score is 99.7 the data available

Anyone who lives in ED could afford to live in Bromley if they wanted to. You can't be jealous of something you are actively choosing not to have :/ You don't need a fast train into central London from ED as its in inner London. How much faster do you want to go directly into London Bridge when it currently only takes 12 minutes... Big Waitrose would be nice though :) Still, I choose ED mostly because people who live in Bromley hate most of the things I like about London!