understanding what's remarkable for GSCE

soul
the ebacc was sprung on the schools after the results came out and before the league tables did two years ago.
Gove is of the mindset that he'll use the retake figures for last summer, even though he only just announced it.
He's a nasty piece of work who wants to piss off the teachers and in the process disrupt the education of the proles

VFM is pretty irrelevant in state schools
A levels are pretty irrelevant for the 1/3 of pupils who will never take them

Talkinpeace. I thought Ebacc was no longer being taken as a good way
to measure schools.

Education tables can and do read what you want them to. How do you rate a school, on value for money/ A level points or on percentage of
Gcse passes.

Wordfactory
You are assuming that OPs kids are high attainers.
There are many parents who are much more interested in how schools support those with SEN or minor learning difficulties
or even 'average' kids
and not 'losing' average kids is often harder than getting stonking results out of the highly intelligent

soul2000
Read the BBC league tables.
Straight A*-C inc garbage subjects, yup all but the failing do.
Ebacc (GoveBacc) ..... look at the county with the full selective system
www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/education/school_tables/secondary/12/html/bacc_886.stm?compare=
a fair few on under 10% there

There are also grammars that do a lot worse than comps - which is unforgivable.

Talkinpeace. At first i misread what you posted i thought you meant
5A Stars and i thought what.

Surely every school achieves more than 15% A* to C. Is the standard for a non selective school in a selective area more like 40-45% A-C .

I know of some selective grammar schools that would get 40-50% of all GCSE's at A or A* that is why i misread it.

One thing you can do OP, is look at a breakdown of the stats.

See how many students sat each GCSE and how many got an A*, an A etc.

This will help you see if the school are doing well with their high ability kids.

Beauchamp (sorry for my typo on your name earlier)
the Govebacc was a cack handed retrospective list of exams that kids were expected to have passed (which was announced two years after they made their course selections)
its gist is the old "matriculation"
but as the list of subjects was very arbitrary and will probably change when the league tables for 2013 come out in January its all a bit

On the other hand it did stop some of the 'gaming' of the system with BTecs so has had a positive effect, just not the one that Gove wanted (which was to make comps look bad)

THe thing is that schools are so different, depending on catchment, selection, others around them etc etc : you have to look at what sort of child you have to assess your options

selective?
because yes, any private school or a superselective should be able to
but the schools that take everybody do not have that luxury

These two 'exciting' sites let you see death by statistics of your own and other schools

dashboard.ofsted.gov.uk/
www.education.gov.uk/schools/performance/

5 A*-C GCSEs including English and maths is seen as reasonable achievement.

To be good achievement is A*-C in English, Maths triple or double scienc and one other academic subject.

The governments baccalaureate thing wants a MFL and history or geography. Personally, at least as long as state MFL teaching is as bad as it is, I'm happy to accept a MFL, History, geography, full course RE or music. Music is not necessarily a lot of writing, but it's hard work and complicated.

On top of this DCs really need A-B for subjects they want to do at A level ( A-A for maths which, I know personally is and has always been very hard unless you have a real aptitude for it - scowls at DH)

It's been interesting looking at the local school websites. Definitely some spin being put on results.
The one that had a huge dip in '5A-C' results has its increase in A-G pass rate splurged prominently on the front page.
Another has an increase in % A highlighted, a third is going with its increase in A-C grades.

Maybe I'm biased though as I went to a very naice school that was very nearly 100% A*-C...

Kitties I actually meant the GoveBacc
yup, 5a-c can be much higher, esp at nice leafy comps like the ones round here !

5 A-C grades isn't brilliant, really, if you're looking at further academic study. There's a world of difference between getting 5 grade C's and 9 or 10 A's, but the standard measure is only % achieving 5 A*-C which is so ambiguous.

The 'good' comps around here get 65 to 75% with 5 A* to C -- but they start from a fairly able intake.

Beachamp
In a non selective school in a naice area, they should get around 45% of kids through the 5A*-C&E&M measure (up from 33% the year before when they had no warning).
In a rougher area, that percentage will be around 35% (and 22% last year
any selective school should be getting over 80%
a secondary modern getting over 15% has done well
roughly

Not necessarily anything wrong with the teaching, more likely a poor catchment area. You really want to be looking at progress made and value-added scores, but these are less easily obtainable. If a Y7 child who was a low-attaining Level 3a in English in their Y6 SATS then went on to achieve a A at GCSE, that would be some very good teaching.

Number of GCSE grades at A and A depends what kind of FE and HE courses your child is looking at. For A-levels and other courses at 16+, the provider (6th Form or College) will specify how many GCSEs are needed, in which subjects and at which grades, but 5 A-C is the norm.

For Uni level, the GCSE grades required for offers vary massively. Russell Group universities for competitive courses will ask for say, 5 or 6 A*'s or more. Other universities may not mention GCSE grades at all.

Are you looking at secondary schools for your child, OP?