Analysing the new league tables?

Mumtogremlins the GCSE table excludes IGCSEs so you need to look at the individual school to see what they sit.

The tables are nonsense, I would like to see a table which includes data for the top set of comps against the selective schools, otherwise you really are comparing an apple with an orange.

The three things I would suggest you look at are the % A-C inc Maths and English, a Value Added of over 1001 and the actual look and feel of the school as you go around it.

Obviously other things are important like levels progress aspect.

Redvalerian thank you.

Mumtogremlins. I would assume that the private school is not very good if the points score is low, but it is broken down into lower, middle and higher attainers so which one have you compared?

The average exam grade for the lower, middle and high attainers is particularly interesting I think. It shows that, near me, the girls grammar school (a state grammar with some middle attainers) gets an average of A+ grades for their high attainers and B+ for their middle attainers, but a comprehensive school I know only gets an average of B for their high attainers. I know there are definitions for "high and middle attainers" but clearly some schools have a different type of "high and middle attainer" who possibly under-achieve! The VA score for the comprehensive indicates that this would be the case. I once read that for every 8 points below 1000 (ie 992, 984, 976) students will not achieve their potential in one or more subjects, hence the lowering of grades. It is a minefield of statistics though and unless you know the actual school, it is difficult to make judgements.

Gunznroses - go to the BBC Education web site www.bbc.co.uk/news/education/ and put in your postcode.

I do wonder how many schools are getting away with this

The newspapers are wrong to describe Watford Grammar as non-selective. It isn't. They select on academic ability. It may only be a minority of the places but that still makes it a selective school.

The few remaining grammar schools are allowed to select on academic ability. A school with a specialism (e.g. music) can select a limited number of places based on aptitude for that specialism. In other schools the only selection allowed is "fair banding". This is designed to ensure that the school has pupils covering the entire ability range by putting the applicants into bands based on ability and then admitting an equal number of pupils from each band. This means there is no advantage to being super-bright and is designed to counter the residential catchment issue.

Personally I tend to agree with Curlew that VA is one of the most important statistics to look at but it is not perfect as a measure so you need to look at other things as well.

Ridiculous to say it's non-selective agree offblack at the top.

Please which stats is everyone looking at? Are the FT ones out? Thank you.

To me the most important things to look at are the Value Added (this gives an indication of how the school deals with the actual intake it's got. Some selective schools, for example, have fantastic results, but poor VA- which just means that they are relying on a high achieving intake and coasting) and the % of low, middle and high attainers who make expected progress. If all groups do, it's a fair indicator that the the school is functioning pretty well.

So, do the league tables just published for last year exclude retakes? I thought this was from next year.
Just curious as DCs school's results have gone down a lot.

And many schools select on religious adherence. Implicit or covert. Or a residential catchment which of course can be 'predominantly middle-class' heavily private tutored etc.

All of these Tables/stats etc need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt.

I was shocked to read too this morning about the "best performing non-selctive school". Actually 25% are selected on academic ability, and a further 10% on musical ability. I do wonder how many schools are getting away with this. Is it ok, to say you are non-selective so long as you let in a couple of average kids who happen to live quite nearby?

A high EBacc is not essential. It tells you what percentage of pupils achieve a C or better in English, maths, history or geography, the sciences and a foreign language. Pupils don't need the EBacc. It was introduced mainly to cope with the problem that many schools were boosting their statistics with vocational qualifications that are of little or no use when it comes to entering higher education or getting a job.

For GCSEs points are allocated according to the grades achieved. An A* is worth 58 points whereas a G only gives 16 points. Where a candidate has sat more than 8 GCSEs (or equivalents) the best 8 are counted. The scores for all the candidates are added up then divided by the total number of candidates to produce an average.

There are varying views as to what is most important. It depends on what you are looking for.

Schools are very good at manipulating this data (hence the recent exclusion of retakes and regrading of BTEC equivalence), so never, ever base your decision on this data alone. EBacc stats only show you the % of kids who did that combo of subjects, and no it isnt essential at all - no Uni insists on EBacc. 'Average' scores can be ramped up by stopping low GCSE performers into 6th Form, etc etc.

Look for a school that is calm, happy and has confident pupils. That will tell you far more about that school than any of this artificial League Table nonsense.