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.

Rose that is not what I said. These schools are very very good. They know exactly how to assess people. Most don't have to boot people out. in fact they have found that they can assess at 5 (as well as they could with written exam at 7) so booting out in the very best schools is not needed.

Secondly I didn't say if you don't go to a top 20 school you are mentally subnormal. I was saying children some in a range of types some with very low IQs and some very bright and that in my view the very bright benefit from being amongst others of their ilk exclusively and do best there and that we're lucky in the UK to have the choice of that type of school or a comp or home education or education abroad or whatever else the parent chooses.

some are lucky to have the choice.

I am, you are but most have no choice.

I don't think many parents reading the Financial Times need a league table to tell them which are the best schools as far as exam results are concerned. I am sure they already know.

the thing that puzzles me about private schools though...

O.k., so they select the brightest kids.

So they get better results.

So, (partly) their better results are down to having selected children who would have probably also done well if they had been sent to state school, right?

Now, I would class a school as really good, if they took the bottom set, and were THEN able for this set to come out on top due to excellent teaching.

Well, I guess you can tell the British School system is quite new to me, and I am still trying to get my head around it

It would be a good school for bottom set children. Een chidlren of the rich are often not that academic (Prince Harry) etc and the private schools can be really gooda t finding that one thing the child can excel at and give it the right accent, confidence, contacts and a range of sporting achievements which set it on a life of confidence and success. By no means all parents have a child who would get into a top 50 school and plenty of those still feel paying fees can get them a good deal and the right school for the child.

well, Xenia, my next question would be where I could find such a school for my DS! according to Sats and teachers he is a full year behind, and has been for 3 years (!) and I don't need a "top performing school" so much as a school that can get the best out of DS.

Guess it'll be a long hard search! Wish me luck!

Chandon, you'll have to do what people did before league tables...go by word of mouth and gut instinct when you look around.

Exactly Migrating, I said that earlier on this thread.

Most people don't have a choice as to which school they send their children, which doesn't make their children any less intelligent than those at the schools on the list, because most haven't even had the chance to even apply to those schools (should they want to).

I personally do not give a flying fuck where, in any league table, my Children's school would figure; is this all about bragging rights at a dinner party? Sounds like it to me. What I do care about is that they are happy, caring, motivated and have a love of learning thanks to their very ordinary state school.

Actually the idea that these schools are full of mini intellectual superstars is slightly misleading. There just aren't that many very clever people who think of attending/want to attend private school or who want to/ can afford to use their money that way. I think most people would be surprised that a child who falls into the "high average' category would stand a good chance at many a well known school, provided they had been reasonably taught. The vast majority of the population falls into a fairly narrow range, intelligence-wise.

I appreciate that when talking about the highest schools on this list,this excludes more than 50% of our children but it potentially includes far more than many people realise. For many (most?)schools, their high rating is due more to the absence of academically lower performers than the overwhelming presence of brilliance. It takes only a tiny number of poorly performing children to send a school veering down the table. This is not to say that brilliant children are not present somewhere in most schools, whatever their sector, and at a higher level in the more selective schools but really, most of us, wherever we fit in society, are closer to each other than might be guessed from looking at tables.

the fact that I have chosen differently to xenia is in her ideal for this society. She believes everyone is free to make the same choice, doesn't she!

But i don't think she realises how many people don't have such a choice. League tables are a waste of time for me, as I know they are meanlingless. They are a waste of time for the vast majority of the population who have no choice.

Two of my local comps are in the top 1000. One is 307 places above the other. Yet the one that is lower on the table has by far the best reputation locally. Why? I am guessing that it is because they have a slick marketing machine of a Head who talks of making/running his school like a private school. The demographic for the two schools is pretty much the same btw.

I agree with Xenia, as a parent it is very useful to have this information available from a reliable, rigorous and unbiased source.

I think there is some value to league tables, and perhaps moreso for A levels - many schools (and obviously, all 6th form colleges - are they included? Didn't spot any, they should be if this particular table is to make any sense) have a yr 12 entry. This is based on actual performance at GCSE so allows for late developers to move if appropriate; also 6th formers can travel further independantly which increases the possibility of there being a real choice available.

The league tables are only a rough guide though, my DH did statistical analyses of full GCSE/A level data rebased by average CAT score, plus as many school visits as we could organise. He makes Xenia look a bit lazy just linking to newspaper tables

Hills Sixth Form in Cambridge is in there.

Yes and A levels are still a lot harder than GCSEs and plenty of chidlren can't manage them so looking at A level results can be a better indicator than GCSE results.

When can Chandon find a good schools for a child who is falling behind? Most areas of teh country have private schools with small classes in a sort of pecking order - you have your North London C's at the top and you go down and down the rankings to schools where most chidlren get in if they can pay and the less good at work children one hopes can be brought on in very small classes and some with very good remedial and special needs help or specialising in dyslexia help etc. In some parts fo the country very few people can afford to pay school fees so there will be less choice but even in my town int he NE where I grew up you'd have my brother's school now at about place 70 in the UK I think and then go down to other private schools lower down the league table which do very well for other children.

Xenia, you've either intentionally or unintentionally misinterpreted what I said.

However, I will broaden my definition of 'booted out' to include those not selected in the first place as well as deselected to make the same point.

Rose / migrating

A-Levels are selective State schools effectively 'boot out' the 'educationally subnormal' at 16. (Ok - they are finally allowed to get a job or do a vocation course.).

Have I fallen asleep and sort of time-walked back to 1975 when people still casually used phrased like 'mentally subnormal', 'children with low IQs' and 'remedial' or is this what private school threads always look like .

Not necessarily, jackstarb, plenty of re-sitters in my local sixth form.

I'd also suggest that 16 is a better age to direct a child in terms of post-16 choices than 5.

You want to look for the Contextual Value Added score www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12150147#heading-1-3

Look in league tables with schools that score over 1000 points - this means they add more 'value' between primary and the end of secondary - that the pupils are achieving ABOVE expectations.

But independent schools don't like this system, and have refused to sign up?

'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'

I think you make a great point Cory. Those skills of self-motivation can be difficult to hone in an environment where DC are way ahead of their peers. It is just too much of a temptation to coast along and under achieve on a personal level whilst still over achieiving in the eyes of the school.

This is much less likely to happen in a selective environment. So whilst they may not get into Oxford or Cambridge, they should still get the top A level grades and have a greater choice of careers.

Rosebud - the league table is for A Levels - not GCSE resits.

Have I fallen asleep and sort of time-walked back to 1975 when people still casually used phrased like 'mentally subnormal', 'children with low IQs' and 'remedial' or is this what private school threads always look like .

I know what you mean Rosebud! I had thought it was a given that such terms were fundamentally offensive

captainbarnacle at least your tables have some context to them, thank you

Well I was quoting Rosebud - just for clarity. My previous termology was obviously not clear enough for you.