why is it so difficult to find a good school

NC level 3, 3%, level 4, 18 % and level 5, 79%
@ceilyP, how are you? Apologies for taking fifty to years to get back to this post. I've tried desperately to find your source of information regarding a top school, in that nearly 80% of their intake are level 5 kids. Where can I find that?

This is really interesting website. On the whole schools in leafy mc areas cost a lot less per pupil than those in tough inner cities: www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/school.pl?urn=109278

I know a school that has a "house" system, is very religious and is failing dismally !!!

The other statistic to look at in those individual school pages are the percentage of pupils making expected progress in English and maths. If I do that on my little selection of schools, the faith and the comp do OK, the GS is 99/100%. Could be relevant to what you're seeing, circular?

The attainment levels are based on the children's KS2 results, so should be the same for all schools. Obviously, there will be a range of ability within each of the groups, especially the middle one.

CecilyP - re the BBC link

Any idea how each of the attainment groups defined?
I wonder if they are all being measured in the same way for all schools?

DD's comp uis showing > 30% higher attainers, but their average GCSE grade for that group is B. Grammar shcools typically have over 80% higher attainers, but their average GCSE grade is A.

If the starting post is equal here, this looks to mean the same bunch of kids could have done better at the grammar, had a place been possible.

@CecilyP - Hi there, the selection, after siblings, is by random allocation. As a comprehensive, the school by law, on the basis of the banding test, has to allocate 25% of the places to the top performing group, 50% to the middle and 25% to the lower performing group, which is how I believe, many academies are run. I have also read somewhere, that these schools simply 'attract' high performing pupils.

I thought that selection was of 'practicing catholics' - then random allocation within that. It is what you have to do to show that you are 'practicing', that provides the hoop that you have to jump through, though I believe it is currently far simpler than it was 5 years ago. Less over-subscribed Catholic schools only ask for a baptism certificate! If the school is the one I am thinking of, the ability levels of the 2011 GCSE candidates on entry to the school were NC level 3, 3%, level 4, 18 % and level 5, 79% (I assume the average range is roughly 25% 50% 25%, respectively). These pupils would have entered the school in 2006 which may be before the current banding system was introduced. Obviously, if a school is already high-performing it attracts children from more aspirational families from far afield - children who are often likely to be high performing.

cecily - oh right, I knew about that - I thought you meant someone had mined the data and graphed 'input versus output', as it were. I too have looked at details of the schools I know about locally and found no suprises - a graph might reveal interesting outliers.

Diary - that's the thing - you have chosen to put in the focus and committment to get your child into a good school (and good for you, too, congrats on getting your place!). Therefore your child starts with the advantagde of parental support - one of the biggest factors in success. That, in turn, affects the statistical outcomes of the school's achievements, because the children of parents who have not made the choice you have made will not be there, dragging down the stats.

It is open to all to make those choices, but the fact that the 'wha'ever' parents do not, or in some cases cannot, is in effect a selective process.

cecily - I know the data are in the tables (for each school) but I can't find the plot you describe (or an obvious way to generate it)

You have to look under each individual school. It you click on a school, it takes you to a second page which gives you comprehensive details about results. I have looked at a few for places where I used to live, or areas that have been in the media recently and, so far, there have been few surprises about results reflecting intake.

I guess this isn't so much the case in London (where children travel on public transport for free I believe), but where I live several families had no choice but to apply for the school nearest them, because they knew they'd struggle to find the bus fare.

Funnily enough the nearest school is CofE but has been undersubscribed for decades. The "better" schools are geographically difficult to travel to for us; you need to be able to drive your children to school or to be able to afford a season ticket on our absurdly expensive buses. They are, therefore, selective.

Bothering to apply for a school that is harder to get to (let alone into ) is evidence of selection, surely?

State finded schools cannot vary their admissions processes from what is published.

By law the processes have to be transparent, parents are entitled to receive information for their appeal etc.

It isn't that they select by scrutinising and address and coming to a judgement about an individual students, it is that they select by setting admissions criteria that set a certain bar which exclude the children of families which cannot reach that bar. Even comprehensives which use a 'fair banding test' to ensure they take equal numbers of children across a full range of ability are operating a degree of selection: it 'weeds out' the children of parents who cannot get it together to attend the test at 9am on a Saturday morning.

And believe me that applies to some of the children who are seriously underperforming (socially and educationally) in DS's class.

Name, address and church attendance alone give schools a wealth of evidence on which to select pupils!

'Schools that practice selection (on entry, on whatever basis) are almost always going to have better average examination results than schools that do not practice selection. The ability to refuse children that they don't like the look of really helps schools move up league tables.'

Certainly in the application form I received and subsequently completed, did not have a space for a photograph, nor earnings or the like. There was name, address, church attendance. Surely you are not implying that just because someone has a faith they're smarter? How can the fact that one is being selected on religious belief be enough for better results? In fact, one of the highest schools in my borough is not a faith school and children are selected by distance/random allocation.

I reiterate, I am a single Mother; my son's best friend who also has a place there is from Columbia and live on a council estate.

Please check out this article: www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/mar/29/homework-linked-better-school-results?CMP=twt_gu

It quotes: Children who did well from disadvantaged backgrounds were backed by parents who valued learning and encouraged extra-curricular activities. "Parents' own resilience in the face of hardship provided a role model for their children's efforts," the research says.

Nothing to do with faith, where you live or how much you earn. Plain and simple, Aspirations! And in my view of the aspirations of both the teachers and in many cases parents too, was the deciding factor.

@Grimma, I totally agree with the funding aspect, as I know in this school they spend quite a bit and are quite resourceful with the use of 6th formers, etc., in tendering and raising the ability of the lower performing groups.

Just one other thing worth mentioning. I have friends who attend what was once deemed as a feeder school to one of these top faith schools. Leading up to the Sats, which we are doing right now, their kids, rightly or wrongly are given a paper a night for homework. My son's school over the past four weeks, was sent home with a book from Smiths and told to simply revise. Does it come as any surprise therefore that this school has something like an 80% success rate for level 5 and our school more around 10%? How, is that in anyway dependent on what you look like, where you live or the size of your bank balance (in which I would fail IN EVERY SINGLE ASPECT). One set of kids were not smarter than the other - one merely had the muscle of the brain exercised more.

Maybe there should be an explicit link between funding of schools and their intake. The 'better' the intake, the less resources it needs. Difficult schools should be able to recruit more staff to provide smaller class sizes (not just throwing money at expensive equipment or buildings). Maybe this already happens to some extent?

What bonsoir said.

I am always 'amused' when you read people shrilly (even on MN!) demanding to know why all schools can't be 'as good as Eton' on whatever; why all schools don't adopt the same evidently successful policies as private school so they'll get stellar academic results, too.

One barely knows where to begin dismantling that one, it's so bleedin' obvious!

(And half the people here on MN would be 'marching up to the school' tonight if their local state suddenly adopted the ethos and rules (and hours!) of the local private!)

Selection is all, be it by academic test, size of bank balance either via fees or selection-by-houseprice, or 'faith'. I think someone may have already pointed out how that work, ie why faith schools generally do better and it ain't necessarily to do with how pious mum and dad are!

"Why are almost schools with good academic performance are either independent, grammar, or faith schools?"

Schools that practice selection (on entry, on whatever basis) are almost always going to have better average examination results than schools that do not practice selection. The ability to refuse children that they don't like the look of really helps schools move up league tables.

Value-added is a different issue altogether, and refers to the ability of teaching to improve a child's performance while they are at a specific school. Some schools select rigorously but then add little value.

It is, however, easier to add value when children are able and children are in relatively homogenous ability groups. Hence the much better performance of grammar schools versus comprehensives.

Let us know if you manage to figure it out diary.
It does seem there are some less tangible factors than what we can find in the league tables.

@Grimma - Your school runs that system and it's a GS. The Grammar's run it, the privates and an unknown number of comprehensives. Those that we know of are 'Good Schools'. What I'm going to research is, are there any schools that operate in this way, with poor results? That would be interesting; to establish the average gcse results A-C (inc.English and Maths), for schools who do run this system versus those that don't.

@blu Hi there, If you're 'wha'ever' about education, then once again, I think that's a matter of choice. We simply don't have that luxury. Moreover, I'm a single mum with ZERO family support, so in terms of structure, I struggle to spell the word in all honesty. I openly admit to throwing up twenty balls everyday and count it as a good day if I catch one:)

@CecilyP - Hi there, the selection, after siblings, is by random allocation. As a comprehensive, the school by law, on the basis of the banding test, has to allocate 25% of the places to the top performing group, 50% to the middle and 25% to the lower performing group, which is how I believe, many academies are run. I have also read somewhere, that these schools simply 'attract' high performing pupils. What is interesting about this statement, is that, despite the parents in my son's current faith primary school having six choices just like me and I would say around 80% of them probably being eligible in terms of church attendance etc, etc, for a place, only two applied. Now call it coincidence, but the two that applied are both in the top group at school working at level 5/6. They will also both, have to put themselves out to get there. It is not the school down the road, but it was the price both parents and child was prepared to pay. Moreover, eligibility for the school we're attending is not area dependent, but by faith and as such we'll be traveling in from a, not at all very posh part of South East London,to get there.

@Bruffin and @ Seeker: I agree that leadership has a lot to do with things. My son has been educated in both private and state schools, and certainly, when he was in the private sector, I just noticed that the house groups really helped to drive and inspire the kids. I looked at in excess of 18 secondary schools over 2 years (obsessive I know) and in London spotted only 2 comprehensive schools (not grammars as they also have them) that has this set up and they were the two top performing comprehensives. I appreciate however that 18, is by no means enough to make comparisons for the entire comprehensive school system. In truth, I don't know, I'm grappling for reasons as to why there is such a disparity in the statistics, and from observation, that is the only thing I could think of. When he starts, I'll have a better idea. I want a decent education for all kids, regardless of their beliefs, so I'm always racking my brain as to why some schools do so great and some don't.

@ohmydarling: The religion aspect was a way of life and not one that had to be 'done' to get my son into the school - which includes Church every Sunday, which we love. I will not be moving, my son will be traveling for thirty minutes on the train, his friend who was also offered a place, forty minutes - that is not for everyone. Many will prefer to stay local - it's a matter of choice. We wanted to travel for thirty minutes to increase the probability of getting better grades (because of course, life has no guarantees). As a back up, we did apply to the selective grammars. There was no way I could afford the extensive tutoring my peer group were paying for. I did a bit, but ultimately, had to teach him myself with bonds books. I like you am cross about the current system. Grammar's should be means tested and like my original post stressed, just because one is not of a particular faith should by no means mean that their child is not deserving of a decent education. My gripe is this. The aspirations of many of the teachers and indeed some parents, (because parent power can move mountains) is often very questionable www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/apr/27/state-school-students-oxbridge. No kid is smarter than another, is what the teachers and indeed some parents too, believe is possible.

cecily - I know the data are in the tables (for each school) but I can't find the plot you describe (or an obvious way to generate it)

lets not be under any illusions here that if you are prepared to put "effort" in you can get your child into the best state school - not everyone has the advantage of being able to move , or drive miles, or even pretend they are a particular faith or even pay for tutoring to get their child into a selective state. For a large proportion of society this is simply not possible. This does not mean that those parents who cant do not care about their child's education either!

The high school my ds is going to has all those things too- most schools do. I don't think they are a particularly private school thing.