Financial Times Top 1000 Schools

[Xenia]

398 of the top 1000 are independent
Of the top 100 schools 80 are private and 19 grammar. Only one is a comp but it is a partially selective comprehensive.

(England only)
My older children's schools are 5th, 24th and 35th, not too bad.
www.ft.com/schoolmap-2011
The % ho get A or A* is proper subjects is a good measure and the fact they give the position in 2009 and 2008 too so you can see if a school has just had a bizarre year.

There a lot of inequalities aren't there. I suppose despite the south having a higher cost of living, more people can still afford private schools down here.

I don't give a shit where my schools are. My kids are happy and so am I

Even the state schools (some of them) have better results darn south

The South East thing is interesting. Why are children doing better in the SE than the North? There are obviously some good ones in the NOrth always like Manchester Grammar (Private school)

I suppose it must be because there are fewer schools in the North which are selective.

I think so Xenia, the private schools are selective here and there's no state grammar. There are 2 state schools in the top 1000, far less then in the south. I'm in the East Midlands.

thats cos we have quality children

no selective state schools in this area.

well thank f*ck for that - the (excellent) school which I hope the DS's will go to in a few years time doesn't feature on the list. Thankfully it's not the sort of school that assume that all their pupils are going to end up as doctors, lawyers and astronauts (although they do have excellent results in the subjects required for such illustrious careers - they just allow other pupils to sit "rubbish" ones too.

ahh - but on the list AnnoyingOrange linked to it's on there about 1/2 way down. - I guess that list is the one that includes the "rubbish" exams

Horses for courses and plenty of ex polytechnics accept A level needlework etc. The important point is information - that teenagers and parents know what universities of various kinds if the child will go to university and what old fashioned employers with fixed ideas however wrong they are will be looking for.

well 2 Russel Group universities offered me unconditional places with "rubbish" (as I've seen them referrred to on here) Scottish Highers, another gave me a conditional offer (which I could have taken up as I got the required marks that year).

I did (among other subjects) Music, Modern Studies and Geography.

I'd much rather a school that offered all round good education than a hot house for the next generations of Lawyers, Doctors and the likes - there is every possiblility that at least one of my 3 children may end up an area that is rubbished by mny. Hence me being very pleased that my chosen senior school caters extremely well (middle of the list on AnnoyingOranges link) for everyone that attends.

Currently I appear to have a future performing artist (though he's pretty damn good at his maths too so could yet suprise me and go off "academic" way, car mechanic and footballer on my hands

I also went to school with someone who Cambridge turned down as she didn't have "varied enough interests" - not quite sure what was wrong with her 10 Scottish higher and 7 A levels (Maths, all the sciences, Greek, English, music, German, French, and others) and she was a talented violinist too - sometimes you really can't win (she went onto to a PhD in genetics and postgraduate degree in performance and does both

Ok,
I cracked and looked for the state comp I work at. Interestingly, it does really well for A level results...best state school in the county , and it is an excellent school...my own kids will go there

However, I also know that it is one of the very few schools that has a sixth from (most kids end up at FE colleges round here). Not really surprising that it is doing so well in this league table really. And that the majority of schools on the list are independant selective schools.

Its interesting what you find out when you start digging behind the lies, damned lies and statistics

Yes and everyone on this thread and elsewhere knows that selective and non selective schools aren't the same comparison. There are private schools on those lists which cater for the very much less able child who add good value but it is useful for parents to know how some schools do and if you've a very bright child for many of us we tend to think they do better if everyone about them is working to similar aims I suppose.

I certainly think the days before league tables when clever parents always knew Eton, Manchester grammar, North London C were great schools with good exam results but some parents with less knowledge thought as their local school in the state or any sector had been told it was "good" by ofsted or had nice carpets was good academically, were less good and not fair on parents less well educated about what certain types of schools were like. Information rules although you need to interpret it.

Your second para first sentence doesn't make sense

Yes but Xenia - the senior school I hope my DS's go to get excellent results in "proper" A levels..........they just don't make the FT list because they also allow pupils to do "rubbish" ones as well (which they also do very well in). So the teaching there is probably just as sound as any of the 1000 schools on that list. If all pupils did "proper" A levels they'd probably be on the FT list.

Xenia, has anyone ever mentioned to you that tact, sensitivity and tolerance are useful qualities?

It's amazing how people can be so well educated and yet remain so ignorant.

like all tables needs careful inspection - the difference between (at least) 134 and 211 is 0% - both get 26% of candidates with A*AB, very respectable. Other schools may be less selective and so have great results for some pupils diluted by the less able.
IMO the reason the se always features strongly in these sort of things is that the population density allows some schools to be very selective indeed, whereas in more rural areas, even grammar schools don't select the tiny proportion of pupils that the se/london schools do.

I don't quite follow that. I think league tables are of most use to the poor and even out inequalities as information is power and if someone is happy with a comprehensive low down in the rankings which is doing well for their child that is absoultely is great and huge numbers of very good private schools add loads of value to the less clever child and will be low down or not on those tables. There's no problem with that at all.

I am sorry but I cannotbelieve some of these posts. What the heck does it matter where the a Childs school is in a national league table? It's shear snobbery. Of course selective schools are going to be higher up, in fact I'd be worried about any selective school that wasn't! Having worked in a previous top 3 in the guardian league tables school I know it's all pants and that I would be far happier for dd to attend the not in the top 1000 schools I currently work at,
Then again I'm up north and obviously not intelligent enough to know any different.

When you have children applying to univesrity and putting schools on application forms it may well matter to some employers. Daughter 1 mentioned 2 months ago a good few years sicne she left school she'd been asked by a boss at work where she'd gone to school and he was impressed etc. I am from the North. My brother's school I think is about 70 in the country in the North.

If you don't want your child to be part of a society where the status of your school or type of university counts etc etc then it's easy enough to opt out. Working at the local council tip etc i doubt it helps you went to St Paul's or Henrietta Barnett state school.

Also if 100% of children are very bright the peer pressure is going to mean your child is likely to go to a great university rather than go on the dole or go to work in the local call centre at 16. It's pretty obviously, thus plenty of chidlren in state and private sectors seek schools which will do their children good depending on teh type of child they have. There is also some good special needs help in the private system too.

I hate league tables and wish they were banned. My DC's schools are not on the list, they are doing fine, love school and it opens all doors for them- if they take the opportunities offered- so I really couldn't care less!

It only seems to be those whose children are in schools pouring out people mostly with poorer A level results who don't seem to like the league tables. That's not surprising.

Why shouldn't people have information?

They can have the information but it is pretty meaningless. Go to see the school on a normal working day. My DCs school has excellent A'level results, but it isn't selective and so it won't be top (or anywhere near).Since DC got top results and went to a Russell group university (the same one he would have chosen had he gone to Eton or similar)doing a highly academic subject-why on earth should I care where it is in a league table? It has a good reputation locally, I have always been extremely happy with it and I think my judgement is much better than relying on a table that tells you next to nothing-except they select bright DCs in the first place!
People can have the informatrion ,but I think they are extremely foolish if they do more than take a passing interest. Visit the school-is it suited to your DC?

My DD's school is in the high 300s. Many pupils there choose to take the IB so I'm not sure if that makes the figure meaningless.

It is not meaningless to know that one school is say the 5th best in the country for A level results. Yes we would kow it is selective but it shows it's a good school if you ahve an academic child. I don't see why that sort of information shoudl be hidden from parents. Most parents do visit schools. However morally wrong as I mentioned in the anecdote above people do say - ah you wne to XYZ and think wow that must be a bright worker at this workplace and same aboitu if you went to Oxbridge etc. I dont' see why if you can give your child that advantage you would not.