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.

I can't see Kings College Wimbledon. Am I being dim?

I just had a quick look in the paper version and couldn't see it either - ust two other wimbledon named ones under London south. Dulwich college is there 57th.

Thanks for looking, Xenia. It seems odd that it is not there at all. In another survey (cannot remember which one) it came within the top 50. It is certainly within Tatler's top 100.

xenia, whilst I find your thread illuminating, I would like you to ponder the fact that if I had just one child at the North London Collegiate School (ranked 5, doncha know?), it would wipe out a whole year's salary. The fact that you are paying vast amounts of money several times over for your children's education means that, to me, you must be very rich.

However, I wonder why you need to boast about things that are unaffordable by 97% of the population?

You can sort the list using either core points or all subjects- just check or uncheck the core subjects box and then sort by that column. It does make a difference.

When the list comes up it doesn't initially use the core points method- it includes all subjects

If an independent school takes vast amounts of money from parents, and selects the DCs according to ability, I would say it was an absolute disgrace if they didn't come near the top of a league table!!! Why do you need a league table-a selective school will come before a none selective school-end of story.

I think they can be useful for information, in the same way that I would look at an Ofsted report, but I wouldn't put faith in either. A school being top or having an excellent Ofsted doesn't mean that it will suit my DC. A school that will suit my DC1 may not suit my DC2-there are no short cuts to visiting on a normal working day.

Mid 300's - not bad!

I haven't named a school where I have a child now. My older children have all left school and indeed in one case we didnt' really pay fees (15%) as their father taught at one school. Not everyone at these schools is rich in any sense. IN fact the hardest thing of alli s getting in - most people however much mnoey they have dont' have chidlren who can pass the exams. Most parents both work and pay school fees so that is about £5k per parent per child. That is not a ridiculous amount and much less than for boarding schools and the children of local shop keepers, pharmacist and others go to schools like this which are not really "posh".

Plenty of women go back to work full time so that they can earn a net £20k whcih pays school fees for their 2 children all round the UK. It is a lot but it is not a king's ransom.

Baroque- how can someone do "10 highers and 7 A levels"-

Xenia, you seemed to have missed the point of my last post, so I will spell it out more clearly for you:

Yes, information is good. A little bit of poor information, however can be very harmful.

Statistics tell you nothing meaningful. Look behind the stats and you will find that the picture is so much more complicated as to render them meaningless. I am telling you this based on my professional understanding of stats and their interpretation.

OFSTED judegments are also virtually entirely meaningless. I am telling you thid based on my professional experiences of OFSTED inspections.

The feel of the school when you visit it and local knowledge is far more important for success of your child as the parent/school trust and partnership is everything.

I don't mean to be rude but you sound like an awful sob!

IN fact the hardest thing of alli s getting in - most people however much mnoey they have dont' have chidlren who can pass the exams.

Oh dear, oh dear, Xenia, you still don't seem to understand cause and effect. If the exam to get in is so hard that most children fail- even the children of wealthy parents - then the only children that they do take are going to be the children who are likely to do well in their A levels.

I wouldn't want to work somewhere where a manager or employer thought more of an employee because of the school they'd attended. Parents choose a child's school. Which schools end up on the list of schools parents choose from depends on chance and lots of decisions already taken by parents. Fortunately, the vast majority of employers and managers are more interested in what their employees/potential employees have achieved and their potential to do well in the job.

I'm relatively new here but Xenia's MO appears to be to get two messages across:

1. She is very clued up and intelligent and has made all the right decisions about schools for her children. Everyone else who has made different decisions is stupid.

1. Her children are super-bright and have made all the right decisions about universities and jobs, guided of course by their mother. Other people's children who have different gifts/attributes/interests/plans are not really worth much in comparison.

Would I be right? I'm making no effort here to say this politely and tactfully as it seems to me if you dish it out you need to be able to take it back.

A voice of commonsense MigratingCoconuts.
League tables tell you nothing of importance and Ofsted reports often mean that the school is very good at paperwork! I would look at both, but not base a decision on either.

I think if a school was famous, like Eton or Harrow, then an employer, or anyone else for that matter, might take a passing interest. Whereas, most of us attended schools that no-one, who didn't come from our local area, would have heard of. It shouldn't, and almost certainly won't, make much diffence to employment prospects. Higher education and work experience are far more important.

Xenia sounds downright dotty to me. I'm wondering how she managed to produce such clever children.

I don't think she is dotty-just has different priorities. There is no way I am going to work all hours to pay for education, unless I wasn't happy with the state schools in my area and even then I would be more inclined to move as first option.

I think that saying something as hideously patronising about GCSE Basket weaving at a 'local comp' has just made me extraordinarily angry - and I was actually having quite a nice day. Arrogant doesn't begin to cover it.

This is obviously the assumption we have to make about her:

1. She is very clued up and intelligent and has made all the right decisions about schools for her children. Everyone else who has made different decisions is stupid.

Based on what Xenia has said, a league table of top 100 old-school-tie networking success would be a more useful device for deciding which school to send her children to.

Mine, however, will get where ever they want to be in life on their own merit. As long as they are happy (and not pole dancers!) I will be happy too

"Xenia sounds downright dotty to me. I'm wondering how she managed to produce such clever children."

erm , because she's a bright lady herself?

I don't get why people find Xenia so exasperating, unless they are not hugely secure in their own choices.

Why on earth should she affirm what she regards as the poor choices of others? Why would anybody for that matter?

And why on earth make such personal comments about somebody except in spite? I said a very long time ago, shortly after Xenia came on these boards that I don't believe Xenia "does" anger, and nothing I've seen since then has changed that view. And I can't see why people get so angry with her.

I admire Xenia enormously, she knows exactly what she wants for herself and her DCs and thankfully her DCs appear to take after her. She is consistent and always polite and cheerful. It isn't what I want for myself or my DCs -but then we are all different-which is a good thing IMO.

That's fine but I do find it offensive to make such sneery comments about 'basket weaving gcse's'. Or this 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.

No I don't want my children to part of a society that looks down on 'local comp' children thanks!

If you get a first from Oxbridge or went to a school most employese know is a devil of a job to get into that will not do you any harm. Get your basket weaving degree from XYZ poly after attending the local comp and you might find life in some business areas a little harder.

Everyone knows that state and private selective schools will get better results than non selective schools.

Information is power and the more we have the better. That's all. Indeed it's the people who don't know these things eg that some employers respect certain GCSE topics more than others etc who need the information, not those of us perhaps already know a lot of those things. It's why web sites like this are a good things as all sorts of people can see the views of others.

My old school which is fee-paying is approximately 500 and the state comp that my dd will (hopefully) attend is round about 700 in the rankings. Am not sure if the difference is worth it really ?!