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 get very confused about these sorts of threads as I can honestly not make my own mind up about these sorts of schools and how they operate - having not been at one myself.

The only people I know (all happen to be female) who went to selective academic privates despise them and haven't got a good word to say about them. However, the fantastic results & facilities are seductive.

Both DH and I went to selective grammars (me in a different country) and frankly did ok (not sure about a "high flying career" but then again I don't think that's anything to do with our education).

I dropped out of school one year because I hated the pressure, but then went back a year later and finished my A levels, went to uni etc....I was a very bright kid but a bit of a wild spirit and couldn't be "made to do things". However years later I appreciate I had a top class education with zero disruption in the class - so I know I was priviledged in that way.

So it's about getting a good balance for your children, somewhere supportive, with not too much disruption, good opportunities and support.

But I am very aware that whatever school one chooses is no guarantee of future success; that's down to so many other factors, often non quantifiable...

It depends on the DC, just because it has good results it doesn't mean your DC is going to get good results or fit in.

The whole point (as the OP fully realises...) is that most of these schools are not available to most of the population (even if they don't have foreign holidays, flat screen tvs, blah blah blah). And most ordinary people do not have a 'choice' of school anyway

Most are highly selective or highly expensive or both.

It would be outrageous if they did not get top academic results with the present not very hard examination system. It's certainly nothing to boast about.

The only point that is worth making is that some A levels/GCSEs are looked upon more favourably than others at university level and that should be taken on board at every school, not just those 'in the know'.

(BTW not jealous, as my DCs state school is in the list :))

Just found the FT IB results, sorry can't do a link as I'm not a subscriber. Though my DC's school is in the 300s for A level, it's in the top 10 for IB. Still not sure what it proves apart from selective school pupils do well in exams. I think the one thing to really look at when choosing a non selective school is the added value score. If a good comprehensive was available to my children, that is what I would have taken more note of.

I think all parents know that. If you get a child into a top 20 school they will probably get good A levels and follow 100% of their class mates to good univerwsities. If they are in a non selective school there is more risk they get in with the dropping out, not studying etc crowd and might find it harder to concentrate on lessons although plenty work their way through bad situations and most children do not go to selective schools in the uK and lots of them do fine.

however making the information here available does help. I found it absolutely amazing how few children do a forieng language GCSE. No private school I have ever come across woudl allow that and yet parents don't seem to realise employers and universities do prefer to see the standard core subjects so making that information available helps people.

Just reading the fantasy that 100% of the kids from the 'top 20 schools' go to good universities makes me . Does this statement just ignore the ones that crack under the pressure, 'opt out' or make their own way in life?

If they're in a selective school, I understand that they're more likely to get in with the 'going to the loos to chuck up 6 times a day' and coke taking crowd, but maybe that's as mean a stereotype as the one that you're perpetuating, Xenia.

I'm not sure about the claimed altruism behind your motives for posting this here, tbh. It just makes me glad that I turned down that place at Cambridge and went somewhere that wasn't full of smug twats that think that lists generated by the 'haves' for the 'haves' have any great meaning.

This 100% thing - what's happened to the less academically able kids by this point? Or the SEN ones that you earlier claim are so well support by the selective sector?

I was talking about top 20 schools. They don't take children with low IQs. you can look at the destinations of children at these schools and see which universities they go to . It's not hidden at all.

The private schools which specialise in dyslexia or take those not so bright (like say Millfield and I haven't looked that up on the chart) probably do add value pretty well too. Tehre is a limit to value added - you only have to look at Prince Harry's A level results to see that.

Can't open the link. Have Eton and Westminster published their results as they, along with some other independents, had planned to boycott the league tables.

Yes, I pointed out the obvious academic density of the Royal Family (and lots of other post people) earlier on on this thread.

So the 'ones with low IQs' (unpleasant turn of phrase, not one I'd use myself) have been booted out by end of compulsory schooling. Lovely.

I personally think this list is all about boosting the private school market and giving FT readers something to talk/boast about. Yawn.

Since about 90% of the population go to non selective state schools I think that you can guarantee that there are many,many, many DCs who go there to study and do well. I do wish that people wouldn't equate comprehensive with inner city sink schools!! Mine haven't fallen in with the wrong crowd, dropped out or been in lessons where they can't learn-parents would be up in arms if this happened! Anyone would think that these top selective schools don't have problems of their own!
Anyone who uses a league table for more than an extra tool is nutty! We could do without them quite happily.

The list is to counteract the previous government tables that would count Btec Hairdressing as 5 GCSE's and an IGCSE as a fail. Government started it...

Mine have all done a foreign language at GCSE level-as have all their friends at the comprehensive.

It's not actually very hard these days for an already well above average child, in a school with no distractions, small classes, crammers during the holidays, extra tuition, re-taking modules, trips abroad to help with their language skills and so on and so forth, to get top scores at A level.

The schools which should really be celebrated are those schools with a mixed intake socially/intellectually/ financially who also manage to send pupils to Oxbridge and other top universities.

That is for those who are only purely interested in what university everyone ends up at and how much money they can make in the long run. Some people don't have that as their priority in life, amazingly enough.

Yes, Eton and Westminster are on it, and Westminster is top (wonder if Nick has mentioned that to Dave yet, or maybe they're doing something more important at the mo :)).

Suspect if Prince Harry hadn't been Prince Harry he wouldn't have gained a place at Eton in the first place. Can't see them giving a place to Harry Windsor from Bash St Primary with the same intellectual ability.

Equally there are probably plenty of 'ordinary' children around the country who are just as intellectually able as the boys at Eton who are not in a position to even apply there (yes, those children do exist)

he wouldn't. The schools are not corrupt. YOu can't buy places. If you don't pass (and plenty of the entrance tests are marked without sight of who is sitting) you don't get in.

Any information is useful from all sectors. It could be enhanced for all schools. The local good comprehensive could chart leavers and say 10 years after leaving 50% are in jobs earning over £40k or whatever or x% are dentists etc etc

I thought Eton was incredibly highly selective in it's intake????

Hence always being told how very clever the boys are there (obvs not as clever as the boys at Westminster though).

Gosh I wonder how Prince Harry managed it then, against all the competition from other boys from very selective prep schools, perhaps the pass mark wasn't terribly high that year.

The only reason Harry went to Eton was because his mother died. He was planning to go to Radley but Eton felt, for the sake of both boys, that it would be better to keep them together. Obviously it was not the right school for him academically.

Where is Eton and Radley on the list?

Both pretty high from what I remember. Eton higher.

Having quickly skimmed the thread I would just like to say that dd1 goes to a localish 6th form attached to a mixed intake comprehensive & not the very local 6th form college. She made this choice herself as she felt that their results & ethos are right for her. Looking at the tsbles her 6th form is over 200 places higher than the one the majority of her friends have chosen to go to & I know some are now unhappy there. All I can say to her is well done on choosing a good college & heres to ,hopefully, a good uni place in 2012.

Floreat Etonia, that was very nice of them.

Do they do that for all the boys, take into account their personal circumstances, if they aren't as academically 'able' as they might like them to be (serious question)??

Xeenia, I think you have been watching too much Waterloo road!

Seriously, up thread, I called your opinions ignorant and I stand by this. your comments about comprehensives tell me that you have never set foot in one.

It is not corrupt for schools to admit children because their parents are able to make a large donation to the school for a major infrastructure project. It is unwise for schools to admit children who are academic outliers versus the general population of the school, but, since many schools are highly oversubscribed with potential pupils within the usual academic range of the school, why shouldn't a school admit a pupil from time to time whose parents are prepared to cough up a few millions pounds for the greater good of the school?

It happens all over the world.

Xenia, you stated that the average IQ was, everyone knows, 100 points. This, I assume is the median you are quoting.

How do you account for the fact that average IQ scores have been rising by 3 points year on year for well over a generation?

Are kids getting genetically brighter? (fastest know evolution!!) or schools getting better at educating? Are the tests getting easier each year?

Why do people in some of the far eastern countries consistently score an average higher IQ than europeans or americans?

What value do you think the IQ test actually has?

(These are serious questions ,btw, as, although we use cognitive abilities testing in my school, the use of IQ is higly controversial as a measure. No one is actually sure what is being measured)