Areas where state schools are better than private?

[Narrie]

Does anyone live in an area where the state schools are really better than the private ones? I picked this up elsewhere but am afraid to comment there.

I have lived and worked in the Midlands where there are few private schools to choose but the state schools are not very good. I have lived in Nottingham, where again I felt the state schools were poor.

Even in London there were some awful schools and private was best.

I currently live in Cornwall having got here working in Exeter, Plymouth and Barnstaple. None of the state schools were good there.

Just wondered where the good state provision is. Is it just odd schools within a mass of poor provision or are there really whole areas where state schools are better?

Thanks.

(PS I have my own DC in a boarding school partly because of the state schooling and partly because we move around so much)

Ising, I suggest that the points per student is really not a good measure to compare schools with until and unless subjects like gen studies and critical thinking that require little or no teaching time are excluded from the figures.

The FT probably has the right idea with its table in that rather than giving all subjects equal weighting it just looks at core subjects, and then considers both the actual grades achieved as well as the numbers of subjects taken (quantity and quality). However I don't know how it defines 'core subjects' - obviously the more vocational type courses it excludes the more it will disadvantage comprehensive schools, but I suppose it is their attempt to make an A level distinction between schools offering mostly good solid A levels and softer ones (a bit like the ebacc measure did for GCSEs). I would have thought simply excluding critical thinking and general studies would be a fairly sensible approach rather than widening the net of exclusions further, or just looking at points per entry rather than per student which I think is a much more useful figure.

Generally though, what tables (and indeed anything except hindsight) cannot tell you is how your child will fare at a particular school which of course is the most important factor. Agree that if people are happy with their choices that is important and good.

Some people don't know what's good for them or their DC gelo.

That's all too true pickled, but many people think they do, so they end up happy anyway.

I don't disagree gelo but any system of league table is going to be flawed. What we're really saying is that you cannot compare two state schools let alone a state school and an independent school. As for comparing generically all state schools with all independent schools ..... well, all 280 messages in this thread were a waste of time entirely

Points per student is very obviously not the way to compare schools because although PS has more points than Win Coll, Win Coll has significantly better grades there is no critical thinking or general studies (what ever the hell they are) at Win Coll.
Surely if anyone wants to see how successful PS is then it would be better to compare it with other 6 th form colleges requiring the same criteria for admission in a similar area.

Yes happygardening but the subject of the thread is comparing state to private schools in any given area. There are plenty of threads comparing PSC to other sixth form colleges - it is a well trodden path.

I think there is an issue amongst some of the private school parents that they actually haven't a clue what is going on in the best of the state sector. Perhaps this is because a large dollop of what they pay goes on slick marketing to convince the punters that the private sector alone can deliver for their child, that it alone is on the inside track.

middleclassonabursary the state school that my DC all attend or have attended is completely abreast of all developments in the university sector both here and in the US. It is really quite ignorant of you to suppose that there are mysteries about this stuff that are kept secret from those in charge in the state sector but I suppose you just make assumptions because it's not your patch. Top universities in the US are actually reaching out to the brightest state school students in the UK. For those who want to go there (none of my eldest four did, not as undergraduates at least, but the opportunity was certainly there).

The idea that all state schools dance around with modules and re-sits is also not universal. Our school has done all GCSEs as linear and in one sitting for as long as we've been there (since 2001), with no messing around (well, for the past three years students have taken a single Physics module early, but apart from that. So my eldest four all sat 11 or 12 GCSEs in one go, with no re-sits. That's a far more challenging way to do it educationally of course and far better preparation for juggling a workload in the Sixth Form and life beyond.

Do the FT list which A levels they count in their tables - as then at least it would be honest discrimination, rather than hidden!!!
A bit like the RG coming clean about the A Levels they want

But as has been said, there is some shockingly bad guidance given to children

interesting article in Private Eye I read this morning : that some people are trying to promote Computing A Level and getting lots and lots of press coverage for it.
Shame then that the prerequisite for the computing degrees at top Unis around the world include Maths, applied Maths, a science but NOT Computing .....

Accountancy A level actually counts against you for the CCAB courses unless its accompanied by an A* in Maths and at least one other rigorous subject!

Private schools have been better than State at this for years
but the (decent) state schools are getting their act together pretty quick

we'll see the outcome of this discussion in about 15 years time

ISing the point I was trying to make is that it really only makes sense to compare like with like either in the same area or nationally any other comparison is ultimately meaningless.

Competition is brilliant. If state schools start to do better if they took say 92% of good university places as they have 92% of chidlren that would spur on the private schools who teach 8% of children and get 50% of the good places. No one should fear competition and variety in different sectors is a good thing.

I am happy with our children's private schools and most parents on here seem happy with state schools chosen so there is no problem at all.

It says core academic subjects as defined by University of Cambridge.

"The FT school league table for 2012 includes the top 1,000 secondary schools in England, measured by performance in A-level, International Baccalaureate Higher and Pre-U (an alternative to A-levels) qualifications. Based on results in 2011, the analysis focuses on core academic subjects, as defined by the University of Cambridge.

Of the 3,000 or so schools in England, just under 2,180 qualified for the FT ranking. The criteria for inclusion were straightforward: schools must have had at least 20 students registered for A-levels, IBs or Pre-U exams in 2011, with an average of two or more exam entries per candidate, and an average of at least one core subject per candidate.

Due to the lack of consistent information for the devolved administrations, which have control over education, schools in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are not included in the analysis, but the independent Scottish results can be seen in a table elsewhere in this report.

Like the government?s own performance tables, which include information on results in all exams, the FT has used the Qualification and Curriculum Development Agency?s tariff to assign points to grades obtained by students. For example, an A at A-level is worth 270 points, while an E scores 150 points.

The introduction of the A* grade at A-level in 2010 and of Pre-U exam results in 2011, alongside the inclusion of IB Higher exam results for the first time in our table, make comparisons with data for previous years difficult. Overall, the average number of core points per candidate has increased slightly compared with results for 2010.

The ranking itself is derived from The Good Schools Guide research, using Department for Education pupil-level data. Two measurements have been devised to rank the schools: the points per candidate and points per entry, in terms of core subjects only. Using these two measures gives an assessment of the quality and quantity of exam passes in 2011.

An FT score has been calculated for each school. First, Z-scores were calculated for both ranking measures ? these are a mathematical formula that creates numbers reflecting the range of the points. These were combined, to give a total. A positive score indicates a performance above the average for qualifying schools in England; a negative score equates to a below-average rating.

The left part of the table deals with the core A-level results, the FT score and subsequent ranking. Performance for two earlier rankings is also shown.

Given the closeness of many schools in the league table, and the volatility of the underlying measures, only large changes in rank are likely to be significant. Additional variables are shown for information, including the proportion of entries in core subjects graded at A or A* level (or Pre-U/IB equivalent).

In addition, the fees data are collated from the ISC census that was conducted in 2012.

. . .

The FT school league table for 2012 details the top secondary schools in England, measured by performance in A-level, Pre-U and International Baccalaureate (IB) qualifications. Based on results in 2011, the analysis focuses on ?core? academic subjects, as defined by the University of Cambridge.

Key to the table

FT API Rank 11: position of the school, compared with its peers, cal­culated by the FT (based on the FT score for core points at A-level, Pre-U and IB).

FT AP Rank 10: equivalent position in 2010 (based on the FT score for core points at A-level and Pre-U only).

FT A Rank 09: equivalent position in 2009 (based on the FT score for core points at A-level only).

School type: type of secondary school (6th = sixth form college, AC = academy, ACC = academy converter, Comp = comprehensive, Gram = grammar, Ind = independent and other).

FT score: total score assigned using the FT?s ranking methodology. This combines the points per candidate in core subjects (to measure quantity of work), and points per entry in core subjects (to measure the quality).

Core entries/candidate: average number of entries per candidate in core subjects.

Points per core entry: average number of QCDA points scored per entry in core subjects.

Points per candidate (core exams): average number of QCDA points scored per candidate in core subjects.

All entries per candidate: average number of entries per candidate in all subjects and all exam types.

Number of candidates (all exams): total number of students taking exams in all subjects and all exam types.

Government rank (points per candidate): government ranking for the school, based on the average number of points per candidate in all subjects and all exam types.

Points per candidate (all exams): average number of points scored per candidate in all subjects and exam types.

% A/A grade per entry (core subjects): proportion of entries in core subjects graded A or A (or equivalent at Pre-U/IB).

Number of AAB grades per candidate (core subjects): average number of entries per candidate that achieved A, A or B (or Pre-U/IB equivalent) in core subjects.

% girls: proportion of female candidates.

Day fees (£000s): cost per annum for non-boarders.

Board fees (£000s): cost per annum for students who board.

% boarders: proportion of students who board.

World-ranked university rank: position of the school compared with peers, calculated using the proportion of students entering an ARWU ranked university.

Average entrants/annum (2005-09): average number of students entering a British university per year, between 2005 and 2009.

% world-ranked university: percentage of students entering a British university between 2005 and 2009 who went to a British university ranked among the top 500 universities in the world, according to the 2011 Academic ranking of world universities.

% Oxbridge/UCL: percentage of students entering a British university between 2005 and 2009 who went to Oxford, Cambridge or University College London.

But comparing league tables of any sort is pretty pointless and reductive. The vast number of different tables out there show how you can add many sorts of bias

If you take average point score, the schools where children do General Studies come out higher (though most pupils don't actually do very well at this and there are few A grades). Some schools also encourage more A-levels eg if you look online you'll see that one clearly incredibly bright boy at Colchester RGS got 8 As - some schools don't let any pupils take more than 4 subjects.

Then again, if you want to compare A grades rather than A grades, for example, you'll see that Colchester got 26% A in 2012 at A-level compared to the 2011 figures for the school below it in the FT table, St Paul's, which got 52% A (2012 results not posted yet) and, of course, Westminster where 53% of passes were at A.

So which is the better set of results? And does it matter? I imagine the same child would get the same results at any of these schools.

All these schools are incredibly selective so it would be terrible if they didn't get good results.

I would like to think that most people are choosing schools for the journey as well as the destination based on their own particular circumstances.

So the FT bases its list on what Cambridge call real A levels.
I wonder what Imperial, Harvard and a few other top universities think of that?

There's a state secondary in Durham with a particularly good reputation. The cost of houses in catchment carries a premium pretty much equivalent to private school fees for a couple of kids.

I couldn't agree more ISing although league tables can be a measure of quality if you could find two indentical schools in preferably the same town/city and did a comparison if one was doing significantly worse than the other then maybe alarm bells would ring. This is what happened in Bristol with paediatric cardiac surgery where the death rate was significantly higher even allowing for adjustments. But you example of Westminster and St Paul's shows that when all things are equal then low and behold results are virtually equal!!

seeker thank you. I have sent her a text (she's at work ).

She says she thinks her DC are part of the 'old' system because they already done some modules. But she will check on Monday with the school.

To be honest, she's looking for a reason to put a cat among the pigeons, as she feels the school has been very short of outstanding both for her eldest who struggles and had to resit ad infinitum to get the school their precious 5 Cs.

But also for her very able youngest, who will be far less likely to reach her potential if she has to sit everyhting so bloody early. Clearly their A tally indicates this may be so. I simply cannot believe that out of a huge and well supported cohort only a handful of students can get an A in English!

A truly good school will get the full potential out of each pupil. I don't see how the percentage of pupils getting five A-C GCSEs tells us that.

This is the lovely thing - if you don't like academic league tables based on which schools get the most chidlren to the universities which will get them the best careers then ignore them. If you major on classical music you will be looking at whether to pick a good private/state school or else going for a choral scholarship at a Cathedral school or Chetham's or Purcell school etc. If you want them not to have to go to lessons you might go for Summer Hill. If you want them to be posh and finished you will pick XYZ school. If you are fundamentalist Saudi you pick the London Saudi school. Hindu - may be our local hindu primary.

Bright children in my view though tend to do best with other bright children where expectations are high.

Also don't underestimate the effect of a school longer term. One of my older children has had someone at work who mattered saying - oh you went there, you must be very clever (as most people who try to get in fail and probably his own children failed to get in). Obviously the same can apply with the working class lad made good who went to a bad comp who finds another such at work from the same kind of place - street cred etc

Yes, I've had that 'you went to Cambridge you must be bright' thing all my working life. It's doubled or trebled in intensity because I went to a comp.

I am 'someone who matters' in my firm. Personally I only care about what university our younglings attended, and what they studied - and soon enough, I care only how strong the force is in them (ie how well they are doing the things I care about them doing). Because that's what actually matters.

Once you have been to university it doesn't matter which school you went to-no one has ever asked me.

Like Mordion, I am judged on the university that I went to - but never on the school that I went to.

Obviously had I NOT gone to university, then my school might have mattered. I suppose it also matters that as an adult i have always lived far from where I went to school. Had I, for example, gone to a London school and then remained in the city to work, then it might have come up in conversation - in the same way that people who have lived their whole lives in one place retain much more 'background in formation / value judgements' on each person than a mobile professional ever would..

Depends on the people, doesn't it? Some will comment on all kinds of things. Of course it's how well you do your job or not that always is the only real thing that matters. However if you got into a school hardly anyone manages like Manchester Grammar, private or Henrietta Barnett (state) or a university it hard to get a place at that will look good. I agree that if you went to a really bad school and then did really well there and at university that looks good too unless they want someone with the accent of their customers and it will be held against you unless you changed your own accent or never had one that would put customers or or indeed you may be in a company where the customers need someone with a regional accent. All good fun.

I think really, the thing to be most wary of is that unfortunate creature, the private school product who didn't go to Oxbridge. Obviously Xenia keeps telling us that private school pupils get 50% of the places (in my day it was more, of course). Given that built in advantage it must be very difficult to explain going somewhere else. Whereas for State school pupils merely getting out of bed in the morning is clearly viewed as a triumph in some quarters. Such fun.

there are plenty of them at Edinburgh, St Andrews, Bath and Exeter
yah