Why choosing a school just based on league table position is a bad idea.

[jackstarbright]

Pretty scary stuff from the Guardian. The comments seem to back up the findings in the article.

Schools focus attention on middle ability pupils to boost results

Common practice in schools- e.g. one of Brent's top performing comps (based on the stats at least) puts their best teachers in the C/D borderline group, the rationale being the bright students will always do well and the bottom groups won't pass.

In his school, Dh has been given the top set and the C/D group in a parallel set to increase both A/A* and A-C pass-rate.

Sorry should have added, it's the reason why the comp has shot up the league table having been middling before.

I've got a few friends who teach in (different) 'outstanding' primaries in North London, who say that focusing attention on 'borderline' attainment pupils is common practice just before SATS, as well.

Oh, and the TA actually telling some of the pupils the answers during KS2 SATS in one of these 'outstanding' bun-fight-to-get-into primaries .

I've just watched the John Humpreys' programme and what struck me was the contrasting approaches of two heads to 'turning around' their schools.

The head of a comprehensive in Wimbledon seemed to be pinning his improvement hopes on attracting middle class pupils by boosting the school's league table position, by a 'middle ability' GCSE pass focus.

Whilst the head of a Tower Hamlets primary's focus is the particular needs of her pupils - giving them the enrichment, nurturing and aspiration often lacking in their home lives. Very inspiring.

The second approach actually helps children and improves their life chances - I'm not sure what is achieved by the first approach.

One was a primary and the other a secondary. They are different creatures.

The comment that stuck with me that not even John Humphreys picked up on was the successful secondary head of Phoenix School who remarked. "Most schools are better than the media would have you believe".

Which I think is true.

My dd goes to a comp in a grammar area - so most of the bright kids will have done well in the 11+ and will be at the grammar schools.

So the brightest kids at dd's school will be what would be classed as middle ability. The top sets (which dd is in) are very small - in all her classes (except RE and food tech) there are less than 15 kids. I don't know if the school has deliberately done this on order to give them more focused teaching in order to boost the GCSE pass rate.

Somehow i don't think so. The GCSE pass rate (at A-C) is in the low 40s percentage wise, and has been so for years. The school is excellent pastorally, and achieves highly on the value add scores.

i agree that just looking at the pass rate figures is a very short sighted way of judging a school's achivements. A lot of times schools achieve things which cannot be measured by simple statistics.

Jem44 -

"One was a primary and the other a secondary. They are different creatures."

True - but secondary pupils also deserve to have their educational needs met - rather, than being seen as 'exam fodder' (or not) in some wider game.

For example - the Mossborne Academy head mentioned how important structure was to many of his pupils (in contrast to their chaotic lives) and the extra-curricula activities form part of the success of his school.

I too noticed the Pheonix's head remark. John Humphrys' did challenge him. He said something like 'why is the attainment gap so wide then?' The Pheonix head didn't give an answer (on camera at least). IMO he's very modest and doesn't appreciate how amazing he is.

Jem and Jack, I too noticed that Phoenix head's remark and I don't think John H did respond to it properly. Humphreys has this continual bee in his bonnet about how crap state schools are and everyone is desperate to go private. I think he might have some personal reasons for doing so (his kids went private and he feels guilty?). Ditto his girlfriend Catherine Bennett lives opp our vg primary and is always writing articles about how concerned parents have "no choice" but to go private which is obv quite annoying for those of us who have put our kids into the one she's rejected...
I loved Sir William and want him to be education secretary. He was just obviously fantastic and that school is not improving because it's got m-class kids, quite the opposite it's still shunned in favour of privates and catholic schools in west london. It's improving because he's a god.

I just watched it again. And JH response was more like ' if all schools were as good a your one - then we wouldn't have the gap'.

So yes - not a direct response - but I think he has a point. And of course many schools are no where near as bad as the Pheonix school was 12 years ago. But, when we are talking about severely disadvantaged children - they need something more than 'better than ... you would believe'. And, I doubt dragging in a few middle class kids is the whole answer.

Also, I loved the first question for new pupils to the Phoenix school. "Which university are you aiming for?"

Similar things happen at primary school.

DS1 is very bright but has some special needs (which can be overcome with the right kinds of teaching), however his supposedly 'outstanding' school stopped providing him with any additional support once he reached a level that won't pull their SATS down. This is not actually the level he is capable of achieving (far from it actually) but they absolutely could not care less as he won't make them look bad.

I find it very difficult to believe that my son is the only kid in the country experiencing this.

Jack I like your point about teenagers being treated as "exam fodder".

This is a society-wide problem in education though, affects children across the wealth and ability spectrum and doesn't look likely to change.

Daisy Goodwin wrote a large article in the Times with a title like "I teated my daughter as an exam passing prize bull" complete with photos of daughters. It was an annoying article full of rather smug statements. (Easy to make after the daughter has her 4 As - and she hastened to explain they were passed last year so she couldn't have got A*s of course )

Being pragmatic, getting a certain amount of A-C s at least gives them the opportunity to go to the next level in education or training so the school is increasing life chances. I don't think the headteacher in question said anything that suggested to me that he only cared about getting middle class children in. But it is much harder to turn around disaffected teenagers than primary school children, who can still be excited by a school trip or litle treats.

jem44 - That is exactly the comment that stuck with me. I have found it to be very true

In that Daisy Goodwin article, didn't she say that she treated her elder daughter like an exan passing automaton, but that she regretted it. She was going to be a lot more slacker wuith her younger daughter iirc.

Riven - yes it does mean neglecting those of a lower ability for example I was told my DS couldn't do FLS as he 'couldn't spell'. DS could actually spell over 3/4 of the KS2 spelling list. FLS is about sentence structure not spelling; sentence structure is where some of his problems lie. Yet he wasn't included; until we 'proved' he could spell.

'Intervention is for those who will benefit from the push' was another statement we received from a teacher. Most of those kids who received intervention in KS2 are among those now considered C/D borderline who were offered extra support for KS4.

Today I asked my DS if he would consider going to after school lessons to get some help and increase his understanding in those lessons where he considers himself to be 'failing'. He asked why he isn't getting one to one tuition like some of the others who are better than him. How do you tell your child 'they aren't worth it?'

Rosebud - we've had that as well, KS1 and 2.

More recently DS told me that a TA had sat in the corridor with him during two end of module tests reading some of the questions and helping with most of the answers queried this with the school and head wrote 'whatever is done to promote the best possible level of GCSE performance is,in my opinion to be encouraged'. .

IMO somebody 'helping' with the answers defeats the purpose of a test. Allowing him to do it on his own, then acting on the results could be more beneficial for him now and for future GCSE performance. Their way to all intents and purposes was cheating, but it proved he was 'doing well'

When i was at school all the best teachers were given to the top sets or the bottom sets, which was bad for those in the middle groups and the gap widened between top and middle. Therefore there is a problem with this system.

Some schools work better with kids who are average and above. Other schools work better with the less able kids. The only problem in identifying which school suits your child better, a problem then arises as to how much information your primary school are willing to share and how true the SATs levels are.

I always take the results with a pinch of salt and get the GCSE data from the schools, it will give you better information as to the type of subjects studied, passed and in which year. I saw one school that appeared to have reasonable results until I saw that most were all in BTEC subjects to boost the figures. At the end of the day, though I am not sure how average or good my kids really are as they are at a good primary so gut instinct, general feel, feedback from existing parents and where their friends are going is becoming more important for me.

I think the value added score is the one to look at. That should show the improvement for all the children regardless of ability.

It seems that Ofsted are taking this approach too. I am a governor of a Junior school. The infants that feeds into it is outstanding and the majority of the children move up with one or more level 3 KS1 SATS. The juniors appear to have good KS2 results because the children all start off from such a high baseline but actually they have come very close to being put special measures as a failing school because their value added has just not been high enough. Ofsted weren't interested in their end results but in the improvement in the all children. That is as it should be - pushing the borderline children to go up a level won't improve that score. I know the article is about secondaries but the principle is the same.

Exam results are probably quite low down on my list of priorites for chosing DS1's school for next year yet I am having to fight my instinct to do that - it is such an easy to understand statistic and ultimately we all want our children to get as many exams as possible. However as the article shows it can be fudge too easily to the detriment of some of the children.

I also wonder how many parents understand the value added score outside of MN! I suspect it is not a figure many would look which is a shame and probably the schools know this.

I think this just goes to show how why league tables are a truly shit idea .

League tables are shite.

They can be very very misleading and I personally take no notice of them for several reasons.

1. How can you compare a grammar school in the same table as a secondary comp?

1. How can an independent school be included in the government league tables when they take the (unrecognised by gov) IGCSE in many subjects including Maths, English and Science) . Those subjects are excluded from the tables in such schools,therefore ranking them very low in the tables when in fact they are a very tough exam gained by the majority of students in independent schools and in high grades.

1. The A to C grading on the tables does not state whether they were foundation or higher level exams. i.e a school could put most of their students into foundation level exams, therefore teaching them at foundation level, only to be 'up amongst' the top schools.

I judge each school seperately, and find out my info from the school direct, the parents and students at the school before making a choice of school.