Help me understand school ranking

[SweetsAndChocolates]

My sleep deprived brain is missing something here. I've attached two screenshots to show (and hopefully explain what I'm asking).
How are both of the schools ranked as above average? One has a 95% GCSE pass rate (above grade 5) the other much lower. I would class 95% one as above average, but how is the second in a similar spot on the tables? I apologise in advance as I'm guessing it's really obvious, but back in the day, I only remember schools being ranked using %pass rate for grades.

It's making me wonder whether the schools i was told and thought were overachieving are actually just average and maybe I've stressed about this whole thing far too much

Is it because the progress score from starting points is the same as in they both add equal value to the student a coming in depending on where they were at end of KS2? One might take a slightly lower ability cohort but do just as well by them if you see what I mean.

Because they have a higher percentage than both the England average and the local average?

I think I took a screenshot of a selective grammar and a local academy. So I'm guessing the academy would be taking students at all levels therefore that would add value (or points in this case)?

@AccidentallyOnPurpose yes that too! I think I'm slowly beginning to understand the school ranking system 😂

Because both a much higher than their local authority average. And obviously the first is selective so they're effectively failing 5% of their kids!

Compare it to the local authority average. Both schools do significantly better compared to other schools in the same local authority. One local authority has much higher average results than the other. Both schools also do significantly better than the national average.

The decimal number in the green band at the top kind of does the maths and summarises for you (it's complex and flawed but it is what it is), so the one on the right does a teeny smidge better being 0.79 rather than 0.77. It is the 'value added' kind of idea that PPs have mentioned.

Of course there's loads more to a school than that one figure but you definitely already know that. You'll likely find a few with minus figures and you'll also likely not be surprised by which ones they are...

However if you're not a fan of the Ebacc then things get more complicated when trying to make comparisons!

Yes, I would think it's all about the Progress 8 score. If you take one pupil entering year 7 at a certain level and based on their performance in their SATS etc. they are likely on the trajectory to get straight Bs at GCSE... If that same child went on to get a few As in the mix as well, the school would be seen as adding extra value and boosting the trajectory for that child compared to anther school, where they might have got those straight Bs, or another where they might have got some Cs (this is where you see minus Progress 8 scores as it is showing that the child would have likely got better grades going to a different school). A school that boosts the performance from predicted straight Ds to straight Cs is worth celebrating. But the school that boosts from A to A* amongst an already strong cohort is likely to have the higher % of good GCSE passes overall... But yes, both would have similar Progress 8 scores...

The well above average score is only related to progress made between KS2. So it takes into account the starting point when assessing how much value the teaching added compared to children of similar ability.

It doesn't have anything to do with comparison to the Local Authority average.

I'm not sure what table you are using to rank the schools though as lots of league tables are constructed differently