Mo and LB

[Jacko51]

Some people on here are comical the rubbish they spout. Caroline I just did some reading about the school you name and now is Good with Outstanding Features which surly is all that matters when judging a school?

 

Also according to the LEA league tables one of the best schools in Staffordshire for students achieving the e-Bac.

 

Maybe you should go back to school yourself if you can't spell the word "enough". :rolleyes:

 

Caroline said the school WAS in special measures. That is absolutely true. The latest school league tables also show that the GCSE CVA figure for Cheadle High was 965.5 which, if you had the slightest idea what you were talking about, you would know placed it at or near the bottom of the county league table of high schools.

 

This is not intended in any way as a criticism of the excellent work done by pupils and staff at Cheadle High - it is simply a vain attempt to educate you.

[Jacko51]

But also Mo was making this into his referendum as well. Don't forget all the press releases coming out about "how they were working behind the scenes to secure votes" and "confident the shareholders would vote for change". All of this was helping to fan the flames and played into the boards hands by allowing them to attack the rival, rather than defend what they have done.

 

All of the quotes you have used about Mo Chaudry came after the EGM papers were circulated which included the appalling Saint or Sinner leaflet from the Board. The Board turned this into a Mo debate, not Mo himself.

[markymark]

Caroline said the school WAS in special measures. That is absolutely true. The latest school league tables also show that the GCSE CVA figure for Cheadle High was 965.5 which, if you had the slightest idea what you were talking about, you would know placed it at or near the bottom of the county league table of high schools.

 

This is not intended in any way as a criticism of the excellent work done by pupils and staff at Cheadle High - it is simply a vain attempt to educate you.

 

I believe if you do your own research that CVA is no longer a measure of performance. It is based on E-bac and GCSE A*-C (inc Eng and Maths). Looking at those figures seems like the school is actually quite successful.

 

Statistics can be interpreted in any way that people like, however seems like the Ofsted reports for the school in question are very pleasing and they take into account all aspects, including results.

[markymark]

All of the quotes you have used about Mo Chaudry came after the EGM papers were circulated which included the appalling Saint or Sinner leaflet from the Board. The Board turned this into a Mo debate, not Mo himself.

 

Mo was in the media bigging up this whole issue way before we got to the EGM. It seems like Mo is good at talking and getting people on board, however when push comes to shove Mo actually hasn't delivered. Normally hostile take overs work because the person taking over makes it work ... here it seems like the board actually were smarter than Mo.

[Twitters]

Mo was in the media bigging up this whole issue way before we got to the EGM. It seems like Mo is good at talking and getting people on board, however when push comes to shove Mo actually hasn't delivered. Normally hostile take overs work because the person taking over makes it work ... here it seems like the board actually were smarter than Mo.

 

So why did they lose the vote of no-confidence, why did two directors get voted off and why were the other three only saved by voting for themselves?

[Jacko51]

 

Statistics can be interpreted in any way that people like, however seems like the Ofsted reports for the school in question are very pleasing and they take into account all aspects, including results.

 

The latest OFSTED report has the school rated 3 (on a scale of 1-4) for pupil attainment and the measures of attainment to which you refer reflect that "broadly average" score - unless you can direct me to an LEA League Table that supports your original assertion. I will say no more about this because this discussion is spamming the thread - suffice to say your comments were incorrect.

[markymark]

So why did they lose the vote of no-confidence, why did two directors get voted off and why were the other three only saved by voting for themselves?

 

Are you saying they are not allowed to vote for themselves then?

 

Nothing wrong with that as far as I see it - they invested their money and are entitled to vote as far as I see it.

[markymark]

The latest OFSTED report has the school rated 3 (on a scale of 1-4) for pupil attainment and the measures of attainment to which you refer reflect that "broadly average" score.

 

That is one section of the report that makes up the overall grade. Looking at the figures that is the only 3 grade and lowest score as all the other sections are 1s and 2's. Interesting if you care to quote the comments in that 3 grade the report states that they believe it would be higher, but can only work on the last set of grades. At the end of the day you can not argue with the fact that the school in question was judged "Good with Outstanding features" overall. Your right though, lets stop this spam of the board.

[markymark]

So why did they lose the vote of no-confidence, why did two directors get voted off and why were the other three only saved by voting for themselves?

 

Also do you not think that Mo should have had a better plan to ensure that he didnt lose such a vote?

[9012ziggy]

They have just cut there grass next door and it's gone over my drive and they have left it