Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Original poster

Financial Times Top 1000 Schools

512 replies

Xenia · 26/02/2011 16:03

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.

OP posts:
mottledcat · 27/02/2011 14:40

Did your older children go to Oxbridge Xenia??? I have a feeling from a myriad of other posts that they went to the same Russell Group universities as mine.

BeenBeta · 27/02/2011 14:43

crazymum - I think I said this last year but if your DC is at a school in the top 1000 and is not selective at all then it is a good school. If it is a bit selective and in the top 500 outside London it probably is a very very good school.

I take comfort from the fact that my old school is in the 400s and my DCs' school is higher than that and we are not in London.

We really could not and should not wish for more.

MigratingCoconuts · 27/02/2011 15:18

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

No, this is not what is exasperating. Its the hugely sweeping and ignorant statements she has made here and presented as 'fact'.

When anyone opposes her, you call it rudeness and she stubbornly refuses to hear another point of view.

For example, take the last post: I regularly teach individuals at our local state comprhensive who go to oxbridge. However,there is an underlining assumption in her post that state school kids don't go to oxbridge and the like.

If a selective school only allows those who are bright enough to go to oxbridge, and no-one else, then of course they can get into to oxbridge. But that does not mean that the teaching is any better than at a nonselective school and that those very same oxbridge types would not get the same grades in the same subjects at the local comp.

There you go, rant over. And, if you are right and Xenia has been spouting these ignorant opinions for a while here...I think my rant has been a waste of good typing time.

MigratingCoconuts · 27/02/2011 15:25

sorry, my rant got confused. that should read;

If a selective school only allows those who are bright enough to get into it, and no-one else, then of course they can get into to oxbridge.

crazymum53 · 27/02/2011 15:35

BeenBeta thanks for your comment. This is my first year on mumsnet!

Original poster
Xenia · 27/02/2011 15:38

We all know that 50% of those at Oxbridge go to state schools but it is a very large number of those who are at selective schools in the state sector.

All tables like this show (which is very useful) is which schools are getting pupils with the best results. The interview with the teracher in today's Sunday Times is good. She asked the bright pupils what most of all would have improved their education. It wasn't better class rooms or even better teachers. It was that the constant low level disruption in the class wasn't there, it was wanting the other pupils in essence to shut up and be quiet. If you have to pay school fees to ensure that environment that is a shame.

OP posts:
carmenetonense · 27/02/2011 15:41

Xenia's opinions are strong and challenging but always interesting and lively. I am sure she has stated in the past that the father of her children is a teacher so I think she is probably basing her opinions on quite well-informed observations, even if her conclusions are different to those many of us might arrive at.

It is also likely - unless her partner is in a senior position - that she has put her efforts behind her opinions and earned enough money through her own hard work to achieve her aspirations. Gotta admire that!

SugarSkyHigh · 27/02/2011 15:42

My DC's are at a comp in the 800's on this list.

BeenBeta - what is a school that is "a bit selective"?

Also, the private schools on this list, are they all selective? or some not?

To make the list meaningful I think it should have (s) or (ns) next to each entry - meaning for 'selective' or 'non-selective' (I had to explain that for the benefit of those working on our local council tips/too focused on their basketweaving to concentrate properly)Grin

MigratingCoconuts · 27/02/2011 15:48

even if they are misguided carmen, yes I suppose so.

and Xenia, I agree with this sentence wholeheartedly:

All tables like this show (which is very useful) is which schools are getting pupils with the best results.

The school get the pupils and then the pupils earn them the grades for their league tables. I've met plenty of pupils in my time who were 'filtered' out because they weren't going to get those grades and so the school didn't want them any more; nothing to do their their behaviour. Nice, eh?

MollieO · 27/02/2011 15:50

Our local grammar is in the top 300. Huge pressure on dcs who go there and an expectation on parents to have dcs tutored who can't keep up. Not sure I'd want that for my Ds even if it is free.

BeenBeta · 27/02/2011 15:53

Sugar - by 'a bit selective' I mean not intensely selective like many London and South East schools.

Most private schools on the list will have some kind of entrance exam. My DCs (private day) school has an entrance exam but as the Head recently explained the exam is only about making sure the DCs can 'cope' and will be good enough to get enough A Levels to go to University. The school still manages to get into the 200s.

Our DCs used to go to an intensely selective school in the South East where the school openly stated that it selected from the top 5% of the intellectual range and also rigoroulsy excluded anyone who fell behind after they had been selected.

Our DCs were just fine at the intensely selective school but we thought it was wrong and that there was more to school than league tables.

CrazyHorse · 27/02/2011 15:58

I'm very interested to see that some selective schools I would have expected to see on the list not there. I would be furious if I'd tutored my child to pass the entrance exam, then paid the fees to discover there were 1000 schools getting better academic results!

And our local grammar school is usually very high up, and certainly isn't in the top 300...must have had a bum year.

Xenia, if people have very bright children, surly they will do well at any reasonable school....it's those who are able but not outstanding who need to be placed in a school which will ensure they achieve the best academic results possible.

I do like league tables...but I also like checking out a schools alumni....DS's school has churned out a stunning amount of high achievers, many of them in the arts, which personally I think is equally important.

hocuspontas · 27/02/2011 16:03

All the comprehensives around here (E.Herts) 'select' in the 6th form. Used to be if you got 'C's in GCSEs then your passage to the 6th form would be assured. Due to stupid league tables like this, and the negative attitudes associated with poor positions, the schools are now starting to want 'B's in the relevant subjects. The local comp that that does the IB wants 'A's in the higher level subjects. All so they look good in these tables I suspect. So for 'comp' read 'selective at 6th form'.

BeenBeta · 27/02/2011 16:03

Crazy - good point about checking alumni. What we do is ask how many students they get into Oxford and Cambridge and how many students have represented their county at sport.

A school that can produce a decent smattering of high achievers in a either academic or sporting life is doing something right. Also it is very difficult to 'fiddle' the results for Oxbridge or selection for county sports teams.

League table positions are notoriously easy to massage and some schools are well known for doing it.

carmenetonense · 27/02/2011 16:18

Hocus I take your point but selecting before entering 6th form is better and more honest than taking children on (to get the funding) and then seeing them fail or having them leave due to being unable to keep up. This happens. Unfortunately, gaining a "C" at GCSE means a child is unlikely to cope with the level of work in that subject at A Level. The sheer volume of work, together with a more independent style of learning at IB, means that to succeed at Higher Level IB, a child needs good grades in those subjects if he or she is not to be unhappy in sixth form. This does not apply if the sixth form courses are btec type.

stoatsrevenge · 27/02/2011 16:35

crazyh And our local grammar school is usually very high up, and certainly isn't in the top 300...must have had a bum year.'

Ours just missed it too...funny that....ds did his A levels last year. Blush

cory · 27/02/2011 17:12

tbh if my children have such poor self-motivating skills that they will only work hard if everybody around them is working at the same level, then I am not sure it is in the best interests of society to have them end up in high-flying jobs

and I don't see how they'd get past an Oxbridge admissions tutor either

CrazyHorse · 27/02/2011 17:25

This is probably a whole new thread, but..the people I personally know who have been to Oxford and Cambridge haven't ended up in high flying careers. They have chosen to go in to careers such as teaching (at independent schools) DH thinks they should have gone into something higher earning, and occasionally mutters about it.

catinthehat2 · 27/02/2011 17:30

"And our local grammar school is usually very high up, and certainly isn't in the top 300...must have had a bum year"

Am still wondering if the table is based on A levels only - any IB/partial IB school is going to be skewed?

hocuspontas · 27/02/2011 17:32

Yes, our local high-performing IB school isn't on there and it's usually one of the top comps in the tables. So not a reliable table on that basis.

MaeMobley · 27/02/2011 17:33

Crazy, I went to Cambridge as did my DH and many friends. The men and single childless women are in high flying careers. The mothers, like me, teach or work part-time.

CrazyHorse · 27/02/2011 18:02

Mae...I'm glad to hear it. I thought I might be living in a parallel universe.(Or maybe I am, this is only an internet forum, after all!) Weirdly, my bright friends/relatives who weren't offered a place at Oxford/Cambridge, but did go to Russel Group Unis (after attending, shock, horror, Xenia; Comprehensives Shock Wink) do have high flying careers.

Obviously, I only know a handful of people who went to Oxford or Cambridge, so it's hardly a scientific study.

Milliways · 27/02/2011 18:29

My DD's (old) school has risen over 250 places, but is still >700 places below DS's school! However, that makes DD's school sound rubbish compared to DS's, but that is not so - it thoroughly deserves it Outstanding rating, especially as it is a "true" comprehensive, 10 form intake but still manages to get good grades.

(DS's school is selective so stays at the top of the tables.)

MigratingCoconuts · 27/02/2011 18:29

It may be a small sample size Crazy, but I think it says something about the complexity of life decisions and the way different people find happiness.

None of which can be summed up in a league table (unless you are Xenia and pointless data does it for you Wink)

drosophila · 27/02/2011 18:31

I work with a guy who turned down a place at Oxford. I think he went on to Durham. He thought they were dotty at Oxford. He is a lovely (comprehensive eduated) clever guy.