How do you judge this school's results?(75 Posts)
GCSE Results 2015
90% of all students attained A*-C grades in Maths
91% attained A*-C grades in English
95% of all students attained A*-C in Science
1/3 of all GCSE grades in Maths were an A*/A grade
3 levels of Progress in English: 87% and 4 levels of Progress: 38%
3 levels of Progress in Maths: 85% and 4 levels of Progress: 45%
1/2 of all GCSE grades in Biology were an A*/A grade
1/2 of all GCSE grades in Physics were an A*/A grade
3/4 or all GCSE grades in Chemistry were an A*/A grade
7 students made 5 levels of Progress in Science!
81.3% of students attained 5 A*-C grades including English and Maths (a 9% increase from 2014)
Close to 1/4 of all grades at GCSE was an A* or A.
Our highest performer secured 12 A* grades and the second highest performer secured 11A* grades.
A Level & BTEC Results 2015
26% of all grades at A level were an A*/A grade (an increase of 10% from 2014 to 2015)
Including BTEC qualifications, 37% of grades awarded were A*-A/Distinction*-Distinction
In Maths, 3 out of every 4 grades were an A*/A grade
One student secured 100% in all of his A level modules!
50% of all A Level grades awarded were A*-B (54% A*-B including BTEC's)
82% of all A level grades were A*-C (84% A*-C including BTEC's)
99% of all A level grades were A*-E
A Level ALPs 'Outstanding/Excellent': Maths, History, Geography, Economics, Business Studies, Music, Art, Media.
A Level ALPs 'Very Good': Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Psychology
A Level ALPs 'Good': Classics, Physical Education
93% of students have secured a place at University
I'm guessing it's a selective school.
3 levels of progress is what is expected, the fact some students are making 4 levels is very good & shows they are stretching students.
I would be concerned at students taking 11/12 GCSE's & would be asking the question what do they have to sacrifice for this (extra curricular, excessive homework etc)
No, it is actually a normal state secondary (catholic but non-selective)
That's excellent at GCSE for a non selective, or indeed selective school. Post 16 is harder to judge as they might be kicking some out/ encouraging them to drop subjects.
Thinking about it I did wonder that unless it was a very small school the English/maths a-c seemed low for a selective.
What's the catchment? If I had a lower ability OR Sen child is be concerned that it might be too pushy. Those results are very good & could indicate excellent teaching but there are a few warning signs which indicate it might be too academically pressured for some children or they might somehow weed out lower achievers.
Catholic schools often attract middle class families with motivated parents who statistically achieve more. I'd be looking at free school meals stTs etc.
The levels of progress aren't that good, which made me think it was a very selective school to achieve those outcomes
At DD's school 3 levels of progress is expected, 4 levels is good and 5 levels is very good. I don't know what the percentages are at her school. DD's school reports show that she has been achieving 4 and 5 levels of progress across all subjects. Her school is a standard comprehensive and achieved 72% pass rate for GCSEs A* - C including English and maths last year.
Given the high A*-C results but not as high 4 progress figures I would say they have a high proportion of level 5 students on entry.
Means they take bright children and get them to come out with good results. Fairly easily done. I would be more impressed if they took bright children and got them to come out with great results rather than good.
I think the BTEC results indicate it is not selective or independent. However progress is good. 81 % A*-C is not indicating selective either. However, it really depends if a child fits into a Catholic school ethos. I would run a mile but it depends on what you want. Where I live, the only Catholic secondary school has a vast catchment area and this overlays the catchment areas of other schools. It is not really about where you live, more about where you worship. Lots of faith schools are selective, but "select" in a less obvious way!
If you are middle class, why would you look at fsm stats? They don't apply. If your child does not have Send, these stats don't apply either. I do know of a state C of E secondary school, (in a selective County) which achieves similar results to this but obviously has fewer higher achieving children because they are in the grammar schools. If this schools hits the right notes, then why not go there?
I would judge the school one what the students are going on to study and, also where.
Look at the science, engineering, medicine and languages and law - subjects that are easier to get jobs in.
The GCSE results look reasonable.
Is this school in Surrey? As the results look familiar.
Now i understand what "progress" mean and how to look at those stats.
Bojorojo, yes, we are Catholics so we would fit. (I wouldn't dream of sending my children to a religious school if we didn't believe - I know many people would!)
Middle class but would look at fsm stats as id want to be sure that all children make progress, not just ones who enter with advantages (but then again I have an asd child who I'm about to take out of a selective school as he's not getting the supper he needs to achieve.
I'm staggered that some of you think that 90+% A*-C are just reasonable. I think they are amazing. DD's HT was ecstatic when they achieved 80% three years ago.
90% is low for a selective school who would presumably only have children with a Level 5 on entry.
It's worryingly high for a non selective school which combined with the levels of progress leads me to wonder how they get such stats.
Levels of progress is key, also what is KS2 average of intake? ( How many in high, medium, and low prior intake groups)
Sometimes you can't win, you can't do right for doing wrong.
Friends of ours sent their DC to the Catholic school. It got good results but it was a pressurised exam factory. Tellingly, they all went elsewhere for 6th form (and from those they still went to good Universities).
So, it's great that a school gets good results but sometimes you can overdo it. That's a long list of statistics - looks like someone has their eye on League Tables and not so much on the children?
The value added is key. Also context about what the likelihood is of the students having tutoring and the proportion and achievement of children attracting pupil premium.
If those statistics are as quoted by the school, I would worry about whether they are fixated on A/A* to the exclusion of everything else.
But then we rejected a nearby Catholic school because that was how they came across at open evening. It was fairly blatant that we should not seek to send our child there unless they were expected to work extremely hard - including when they were sick (this was explicitly stated in the Head's talk!) - and prioritise academic results over everything else.
On the other hand, the families we know who did choose that school are also very happy with their choice. So it depends what rocks your boat. DD1 is currently getting A*s somewhere else, that doesn't have anything like as good results on paper, but I believe offers a more rounded educational experience.
Nickname. The headline A*-C result has to include English and Maths and that is 81.3% (up 9% from the year before). It is not the 90% figure that should be used for comparison. The secondary modern I referred to in a grammar school county regularly gets over 70% A*-C including English and Maths. However it has a tiny catchment and recruits church going C of E from far and wide. It is, in effect, selective. Catholic and other faith schools schools are often similar.
The 81.3% the school quotes that has improved by 9% may not be sustainable and may depend on cohort. Was this a particularly strong one? Will good teaching be sustained into the future? It could easily drop 15% when the new curriculum kicks in regarding GCSEs.
OP. If you look at the detailed information available on the Ofsted Data dashboard you will see the value added and how many children arrive that are higher, middle and lower attainers.
If a child has special needs, then you should look at the statistics that apply to your child and not just academic ones. No statistics give info on pastoral care for example or the breadth and value of extra curricular activities.
I completely agree with those who have said you need to look at the value add score. Taking an intake of incredibly gifted children, then telling everyone what a great school you are because they all got As, is meaningless. Also carefully read through the Ofsted report; loads of A*s means nothing if safeguarding is poor.
What % of low, medium and high attainers does it have?
How many children on FSM?
From PP's comments, it is clear that the issue isn't what the statistics tell you in themselves, but against what alternatives you are comparing them. As you can see, the results can be read differently depending on how many were already high attainers at 11.
From the extract of statistics, it isn't clear to me how many pupils take the individual sciences quoted. Often for example only the top sets will take individual sciences, and the lower sets will take Science and Additional Science say (made up of all 3 sciences but coming to a Double award). This feels as if someone is cherry-picking the best headlines.
If only 9% of pupils didn't get at least a C in Maths and 10% didn't get a C in English, then it seems odd that nearly 19% didn't get 5 A*-C. You'd expect an overlap in those pupils getting neither maths nor English. There must be pupils getting at least a C in one or both maths and English yet not getting the other 3/4 subjects at C. which is strange.
Better results than our local church school, but I would wonder how big the school is, and whether these results are consistent, year on year.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.