EXCLUSIVE Governors Woolly-Eyed over AS Subject Dropping

Frequent readers of the Trash will be aware of 2015's shocking revelations that the school had, on a particular day weeks from exams, publicly shamed failing AS students in an assembly, telling them that they would have to drop a subject that day – without a word to parents – in an effort to push up the school’s overall results. In the Governors’ Minutes for March 2015 seen by the Trash, the matter was addressed.

Evidently some of those frequent Trash readers are Governors themselves. Put using the most passive language possible, so as to exempt themselves from having to mention this blog, the minutes stated “Information which had come to the governors [sic] attention about a special assembly being held at which 56% of Sixth Form students have been told they had to drop a subject.” First of all, ‘special assembly’ is putting it lightly; school-wide cull might be more accurate. Especially given that ‘56%’ – or over half of all students sitting AS at Hampstead – were affected. That means that in at least one subject, more Year 12 students were failing than not failing.

This is a sharp departure from the earlier remarks that “Governors noted the positive results prediction”; positive, no doubt, because the school had forcibly purged all the possible bad results in some Stalin-esque pogrom rather than let students – and their legal guardians who were erstwhile unaware – choose their own education, of which the school has no part in.

Of course, despite sources for the Trash actually being there in the assembly, a kindly member of SLT “explained that the information in question was not as highlighted.” Do the statistics lie? Are you saying that students were misinformed by staff in that most ‘special’ of occasions?

“Students who were operating at the D- range and doing 4 subjects, one of which was a GCSE subject were asked to drop a subject. Likewise students who were doing 4 A level subjects and working to the required standard were also asked to drop a subject.” Ignoring the lack of commas that make either of those sentences grammatically correct, let’s unpick them a little. First and foremost, it is misleading to say that students were ‘asked’ to drop a subject; ‘asked’ implies a sense of choice in the matter. Instead students in the assembly at the time were reported to be told categorically that those on the list at the front of the fateful assembly would be dropping a subject that day. Sounds awfully like the school are misinforming their own governors. Secondly, the claims espoused that students had to be taking four subjects to be in danger is false; students taking only three subjects already were also asked to drop a subject. When one student asked a member of the sixth form team about how this would mean, with only two subjects, they wouldn’t be able to get into university, the staff replied – and at this point I am paraphrasing – that they would just have to deal with it. So much for bright futures. Thirdly, if you are a student ‘working to the required standard’ you should not be forced to drop a subject; you are doing exactly what is required of you. You shouldn’t, as the above quote confesses, have to ‘drop a subject’. Since when did achieving become a sin?

Despite these two aching faults in the school’s report to governors, there is a further one which, highlighted then and again now, is this: it is not the school’s place. The school has no power to stop students from sitting exams for anything other than behaviour. If a student wants to fail a subject, the school must grit their teeth and let them, regardless of its effect on the league tables. The school has only the power to advise students. The school misled parents by not informing them of these changes (as they have a responsibility to do; in loco parentis only extends to looking after a student’s wellbeing, not forcing them into a decision) and the students by thinking they had the self-entitlement and power to meddle so deeply. Regardless of how many subjects or what level or how badly students were failing, the simple fact is all of this is moot; the measures shouldn’t have been taken in the first place over anyone.

***

The school seems to have a strange view of what is an efficient use of public funds, in fact, some would say such use errs of the egotistic. Talking over the progress of the school, the Head – in his report to governors for last year (2015) seen by the Trash – tells of the extensive, exhaustive and, more importantly, expensive advertising campaign waged for the comprehensive.

In the aforementioned document, the Head states that the (then) “new website is just one aspect of the school’s continued marketing and publicity campaign which also included newspaper and magazine adverts, editorials, large displays at 7 designated bus stops as well as direct mailings to households, primary schools, libraries and local estate agents.” We have already detailed in articles exactly how much various of the listed cost the school each time they are used, and cumulatively it would not surprise if the total annual expenditure on advertising for Hampstead School is well over £20,000.

He then goes on to boast rather proudly that “We are full for September with a record waiting list of over 100 families for Year 7”, making the necessity for that costly advertising questionable. Some might argue that such an over-subscription is due to the advertising, thus justifying it. A rather vacuous view of parental decisions, and one that may be true for private schools, but as Hampstead is – despite the best efforts of the SLT – not a private school, it gets prescribed students by the local education authority rather than having the ability to select students, and so will have students signed up to attend advertisement or not. The problem of over-subscription is one recognised by local councils, and is motivated by a deficit of school places (due to a lack of schools) in the area, not necessarily a readiness to attend Hampstead specifically.

Advertising is an activity that isn’t confined to the school Management; pressing the skill of spin onto students seems to be occurring as well. Speaking on ‘Computing Week’ which, unsurprisingly, we have no recollection of, the Head said “the entire school engaged in Computing based activities ranging from creating an app to developing an advertising campaign for Microsoft Windows 10”, an operating system that the school doesn’t have even though it is a free upgrade.