I studied in this school for 2 years -- from year ...

I studied in this school for 2 years -- from year 9 to year 11.

Teaching:

Sub-par. Maths lessons consisted of the teacher putting on maths videos on specific topics from external resources and hoping that their students will eagerly absorb the information. Needless to say, most didn't.

The coursework, especially for the science subjects was terribly-handled. My work was lost in two instances by the administration team, leading to my grades for that specific work defaulting to a 'B'.

As with any school, there are some teachers who excel in their teaching methods and overall competence. I found that for the essay-based subjects -- specifically English, business studies and religious education, the teaching was much more encapsulating, which was often achieved by the staff enforcing dynamic teaching methods to retain their students' attention and ensuring that the information being taught wasn't forgotten. I found that the more science-based lessons were far less interactive and interesting, however. Whether this is a coincidence or not -- I am in to position to state.

I found that the administration within the school were below acceptable. In tandem with the missing coursework, there was an instance where I was placed in a 'foundation' tier paper for a subject that I excelled at. Keep in mind, the foundation tier papers only entitle you to achieve a maximum 'C' grade, whereas the higher-tier papers allow students to achieve the upper end of the marking spectrum -- the Bs, As and A*. To find an interest in a a subject, work hard in it and develop an intrigue, only for something like that to happen -- it's unacceptable, and it goes against whatever values the school may hold in terms of 'letting my light shine'.

When confronted with the issue, the school realized that their incompetence was irreversible, and that I simply had no choice but to take the foundation paper and be happy with a 'C'. Fun times.

Resources:

Inherent to the school's 'academy' status, it is naturally quite well-equipped. Printing resources are extremely limited for students, but that's somewhat ameliorated up by the fact that teachers often have the budget to provide their students with worksheets and revision notes. Whether they do provide the resources is completely up to them, so don't expect a handful of useful notes and revision guides each day. In reality, the tangible resources are much more uncommon.

The classroom sizes and student:teacher ratio are both average from what I can tell. The thing that really angered me were the chairs -- they're very similar to the ones primary-school students are offered; plastic, cheap, flimsy and unsupportive. We're adolescents, not toddlers!

Extra-curricular opportunities:

A good mix of after-school clubs: football, cricket, basketball. A debate team would've been nice, however. Nothing to ride home about in terms of variety, but nothing to really nit-pick excluding the lack of a debate team. Keep in mind, this may have changed since then.

My experience at St. Matthew was lackluster to say the least. I didn't feel motivated to learn about my subjects; something inherently due to the fact that the school does literally nothing in an effort to cultivate an interest for subjects. We're all just expected to learn by watching monotonous videos and reading textbooks.

I achieved 3As and 7C in my GCSEs. Coincidently, the subjects I achieved 'A' grades in were all essay-based subjects; a true testimony to how important the quality of teaching is. Unhappy with these results, I spent the next academic year self-teaching myself 4 subjects (maths, biology, chemistry and biology), eventually earning A*s in each one.

I have myself to blame for the initial set of results, but I strongly believe that if the school had done more to cultivate interests, practise high teaching standards and review their current administration team, then I would've done orders of magnitude better.