UK comp tops the PISA charts

The BBC reporter probably has a child at the school. :)

Seriously though - it is an excellent school - good leadership and aspirational for all its children (FSM and Special Needs) - this is what makes it different from other schools in 'affluent' areas. But it does get a huge boost from the aspirational parents who move to the area just to get access to the school. So a bit chicken/egg really.

The Head has done amazing things - and is now part of consortium to try and help other schools (especially those on the other side of Haringey) learn from what they have achieved - this is where they can really start to make a difference for other disadvantaged kids - so the ripple effect goes far beyond these PISA scores.

The school is clearly doing a good job and should be congratulated.

However, the initial headlines about the achievement were completely misleadling and downright false and deserved to be called.

Agree that the BBC headline is misleading. The comp is rightly proud of the achievements of its students - it didn't really need over egging.

Mind you even if the school had out-scored every school in the world people would still find a reason to knock it.

Yes, it's a great result and the school is clearly doing a fantastic job. But the BBC is running an article saying "Is this the best school in the world?" which is a trifle hyperbolic.

TalkinPeace

I am very happy that a comp has done well, but I hate the misuse of statistics.

Is it too much to be happy that a Comp did well ?

Merry Yule all

Good link GreenGinger.

It pretty much confirms what gets said on mumsnet all the time.

www.theguardian.com/education/2015/mar/22/is-londons-ethnic-diversity-driving-its-school-success-story

It's based on research. The article above is also interesting as it looks at the improvement of a London school where the demographics have been unchanged. If it's all about immigration, why aren't Bradford and Birmingham performing better?

Clearly there has been a culture change in London schools and they have become much more aspirational. There are probably a mixture of reasons behind the change, but given how dire a state London schools were in before, it seems unnecessarily pessimistic to suggest that they would have improved without all the government initiatives, and that there are no lessons for the rest of the country.

I can only see a long list of possible suggestions posted on the NUT website.

GreenGinger2 What date was that document produced?

Private schools and those with a similar social economic make up appear to do well.

How many of the schools in the tested sample group had a comparible social econimic make up and how many of those comparible schools outperformed this state school?

Please read the teachers.org link where an academic study suggested it was neither due to immigrants or more money, but leadership. There is no need for fatalism.

Do you?

www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisainfocus/48482894.pdf

Private schools and those with a similar social economic make up appear to do well.

GreenGinger2 It is in the context of a tested sample group that this school is considered to have done well. In order to dispute that on the basis of the school intake you would need to know the intake of all the other schools in the tested sample group. Do you?

And an immigrant child on fsm will probably have a whole different work ethic than a fsm white boy who lives in an area with generations dragged down by low aspirations.

The evidence doesn't just suggest it's leadership, you can and do get that anywhere. Immigrant numbers have increased and London schools got a shed load more money.

Over a quarter of APS students are on free school meals, so clearly much of the catchment is not advantaged.

London schools have lots of immigrants, but they also did in 2000, when they were the worst-performing. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4053335.stm

The evidence on why London has improved suggests it's better leadership, rather than having more immigrants.

www.teachers.org.uk/expert-view/why-attainment-higher-london-elsewhere

This is a great finding as it gives hope of replicating it elsewhere. Personally, I find the turnaround in London schools amazing. My kids are only at primary school, but I've been delighted with our state primary and pleasantly surprised by most of the secondaries I've viewed.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2015/oct/21/coastal-school-conundrum-five-challenges-how-to-fix-them

Odd that coastal towns like Skegness and Ramsgate should have problems with low expectations. Because aren't all the 11 year olds desperate to get into Skegness Grammar and Chatham and Clarendon Grammar? The fact that 80% of them will have been effectively labelled as "not academic" has nothing to do with these low aspirations presumably.

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11223747/Schools-with-large-migrant-intake-get-better-GCSE-results.html

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/why-we-should-thank-immigrants-for-raising-standards-in-our-schools/

A supposed middle class family in other parts of the U.K. will earn peanuts compared to a London middle class family. I think some London posters have no idea how low salaries can be in other parts of the country.

Having high levels of immigrant families is a huge advantage as shown in stats. Immigrant families have pulled up London schools and this is widely recognised. The extra funding, high aspirations and high incomes also help. The head itself recognises that many of his pupils are very privileged. Unless supported by benefits most families in the uk would never have a chance of sending their children there as they could never earn enough to live in the catchment. London is becoming a world apart from the rest of the U.K. Coastal towns are actually being targeted with extra funding to help with low aspirations.

"Randomly selected".....to turn up for a non-compulsory three hour exam at 7am on a cold December morning? That's not random for a start. The inherent biases in this testing are notorious.

I totally disagree that the result would have been more impressive had it been in a coastal town. Just 15 years ago, London schools were at the bottom of the league tables. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/education_league_tables/32270.stm
APS is in Haringey which was second from bottom in 1997.
At that time, London schools were considered worst because they had high numbers of EAL kids. Now this is somehow cited as an obvious advantage compared to having native speakers.

APS has a very typical catchment, both for London and also the UK as a whole. FSM are close to the national average at 27%, they have a high percentage of special needs kids. Yes, some families will be middle-class, but so too are many families in the U.K. The richest will have opted for private and others grammars like Latymer which is quite close.

As a London parent (not APS), I find it heartening that a well-run comprehensive, with no selection, and where many will have shunned for grammar or private, can produce results that are as good as the best in the world. And yes, for a school like APS which is a comprehensive, a comparison with national averages is appropriate as it does not select its intake, and includes many disadvantaged children.

What APS does show is that well-run comprehensives can compete globally. The result is impressive. Full Stop. No need for qualifiers.

The Alexandra Park headline is misleading.

Alexandra Park (564) did better than the average for countries such as Singapore (535), Canada (527), Ireland (521), New Zealand (509), Australia (503) and England (500).

I'm sure there are hundreds of schools within these and other countries whose performance outranked that of Alexandra Park.

It was a very good performance by Alexandra Park. Like another poster, it would be far more impressive if it was a school in a northern or coastal town with few immigrant families and high numbers of white working class boys.