Don't want to send DS to school with 40% GCSE pass rate

[Ouch12]

My son is in year 6 and we submitted his choices for secondary school earlier this week.

The only schools he stands a chance of getting have GCSE pass rates in maths and English (grade 5) of 40%.

I have visited the schools and they had decent facilities, engaged students and teachers. I cannot work out why 60% would not get a grade 5 - which I know is a high C / low B.

About 500m away is a school where 60% of students get a grade 5, which isn't great but much better than 40%.

I feel I have to move so my son can get into a better school. Am I being unreasonable about not wants him to go to the 2 schools he could get into.

I can see the concern - I would be worried that education isn't prioritised by many families.

As previous posters have said

• Check the rates for Maths & English individually
• Check the actual pass rates (4+)
• Check the results for previous high attainers
• Check the school's setting policy

Bear in mind that 40% can be specifically referring to 40% of those who had just started Secondary when Covid kicked off and had also taken their SATs at the end of KS2.

So in a cohort of 150, depending upon area, that could mean your 40% is actually nearer 40 of 100 or fewer children who did pretty damn well considering the disruption, the health and living condition for their families and whether they were new to English at the start of Year 6 (and whether there is a lot of movement, such as post Brexit returns to home countries or a more transient population due to insecure accommodation, following employment opportunities, being unable to afford accommodation in the area when the CoL started to bite, Home Office moves, etc).

If you're also in a grammar area or within easy travelling distance of one or there are a significant number of private schools, that reduces the baseline of students further and could also mean that a significant number then changed schools in the last two academic years so that the school has lost a number of results that could have changed the headline figures.

Not a resident of England (Edinburgh) but that sounds CRAZY young to have to commit! At the end of the da, thought, it's the home environment that has vastly the biggest impact so....

Yr6 is 10-11yos. They start secondary school at 1yo in England, only a few months younger than Scotland.

Hmm.

Is your son a low, high or middle attainer?

If he's a low attainer - struggled to do well in his sats and reading isn't good then actually this could be a good school for him IF it's focused on teaching children at his level (which most of them will be) and has a good behaviour policy/is on top of behaviour.

Middle or higher attainer is more problematic but if the school is largely set by attainment it might be ok.

A grade 4 is a pass at GCSE.

I agree with you. I wouldn’t either. Our school which Is a non selective is 84% level 5 in English and maths and 93% 4+. I wouldn’t have been happy with my kids being in a school with less than half the kids passing and I’d certainly have concerns about whether they’re really teaching to 7-9 level for the more able students

You need to have a look at the achievement of the high, middle and lower attainers. If the school, for whatever reason has a high % of low attainers it will skew the results.

It very much depends on the type of children attending and your child. My DC went to 2 different schools.

School 1 - where DC1 went. A 'good school', religious school, very high levels of attainment and academic achievement. Affluent, engaged parents, loads of tutoring etc. DC was average in school. Felt stupid and did pass all GCSEs but not at a high level.

School 2 - where DD and DS2 go. Dodgy area, high pupil premium, low attainment. BUT they really push and and encourage their 'high attainers' (means anyone on track for 6 and above). My DC1 would have been one of these. I think he'd have done MUCH better at this school from a self esteem point of view, as well as grades. My Y11 DCs are predicted all 7-9 at GCSE. There are so many measures in place to grades, after school lessons, lunchtime lessons, loads of info on how to revise etc etc. They are looking to do a lot lot better than my niece who went to a good private school from nursery (she wasn't considered a high achiever and treated accordingly).

So even if your DC is average a school where he is valued will make him feel good and therefore do better. If he's really clever then he'll stand out. These schools often really value their 'high achievers'.

DD's school had a lower pass rare than that but she got nearly all 9s and 8s.
The figures might mean teaching is poor but they're more likely to reflect the intake.
DD's school had a high proportion of refugee and asylum seeking kids, kids who didn't have English as a first language, kids with serious SEND needs, kids living in extreme poverty, and looked after children. Many of those kids extremely bright and talented but they were facing huge challenges so it's not surprising that the school has a lower pass rate than the school up the road with a different demographic.

I'll be honest, that's not great, and we managed to avoid our catchment school where the English + Maths at 5+ was only 33%. Whereas the (comprehensive) DD is at had 80% (5+ for maths and English); the other two good comps nearby had 69% and 73%. Anecdotally, the behaviour at the local school isn't great either - if you have other options, I'd go for them.

@Hemiola 81%???? Is it a selective school? Either overtly or covertly?

Can I ask a clarification.

Are you saying only 40% get a 5 or above in English and only 40% get a 5 and above in maths

Or only 40% get a 5 or above in English AND maths.

As it is slightly different. The last isn't massively off national average (which is 45ish%)

Is there anything obvious like an SEN unit at one that isn't at the other.

What's the progress score?

People are muddling cause and effect here though.
If you have a school with a less able intake they will get poorer results no matter how great the school is.
Equally schools with strong intakes (which the people claiming 80% at 5+ must be) are going to get good results.

The results need to be compared against the intake. (which is why progress 8 is more useful). A school with a strong intake getting good but not as good as expected results may have a better set of results than a school with a lower ability intake who are all doing better than expected. Which is the better school?

If you have a higher attainer, an alternative benchmark to the "progress of high attainers" is "is there an entire set's-worth of kids getting 7-9 in each of the core subjects?" If so, then there is a peer group and they are being taught to that level.

That's so sad isn't it
No one should be choosing a school based on the likelihood of their child being stabbed

I have had a look- does a high score in the attainment mean the school is best suited for children who achieved a high SATs score?

It can just as easily be that they do wonders with the students they have, as A8 doesn't relate solely to the subset that have KS2 SATs data, it relates to the average grade across eight subjects - so if they are great at getting students who struggle with English and/or Maths or just weren't in the country for Primary in the first place to do really, really well at eight subjects including Science, MFL, Art, PE, History, Geography, Computing, Design, Food Tech, Business Studies, Economics, Media Studies and any other subjects they offer at GCSE, their A8 will show this where their P8 cannot.

The school you want is one with good progress and attainment.

The one to avoid is poor progress and poor attainment

People will argue over whether it's better to have good attainment but not much progress or good progress but attainment is lower.

If you have good attainment but not much progress the school may be coasting. They know parents, tutors and pupils themselves pick up the slack but some people prefer the higher prior attaining peer group.

Your son will be sitting his GCSEs in 2030.
By that time there will have been a complete curriculum and assessment overhaul (currently just started, due to report next year). Progress 8 and Ebacc will change.
But also in six years time it could (and so could the ‘better’ school) be very different places. A new Head, for example, can hugely change a school. Or a different MAT running it. Schools improve, some schools get worse.
You are looking at one, very blunt measure. What the Ofsted reports say? What is attendance like (a good indicator of how happy students are)? What is staff turnover like? How many students stay on in the 6th form? How many go to university? What is parental feedback like on Ofsted’s portal?

40% does sound rubbish, but is just below average.
I would have a look at the school’s Progress 8 score as well as their Ofsted report and take all of this into consideration.

It's not ideal.
However, it's down to your ds to get the grades.
Dd has learning difficulties, was in Year 7 during lockdown and missed 26 weeks of education due to covid and all that. Feck all catch up. I was fairly blunt that it was a question of digging in and working hard. She got 8 passes including English at 6 and Maths and Sciences at 5.

Its a faith school but no entrance exam or anything. Just a normal comp other than that. The 80% is for kids attaining 5 GCSEs. The less good high school near me is closer to 60% for comparison. Starting to appreciate where I live a bit more based on the posts above!

Ah they don't have that as a figure so may well be lower.