Nenny,
But results can be (largely) a function of intake - hence why sorting the 'league tables' by absolute scores and by added value give COMPLTELY different orders. And other parents only have knowledge of their own school for their own child and are unlikely to be wholly objective about an institution that they have chosen to send their children to (I mean, I have wholly different views of THE SAME school for 2 different children only 2 years apart and roughly similar in ability ... how different can another parent's view be of a school for their child, of a different age and possibly quite different from mine, also coloured by the parent's own view on what is important in education...
I know that Ofsted isn't perfect. In some cases, it is used for political ends. Some inspectors have insufficient knowledge or experience of the type of institution that they are inspecting (in most cases they work in teams to try to balance out this issue). Some schools play games, because they believe that they know what Ofsted is looking for (these games are not always successful).
However, having a report on a school, against specific benchmarks, from a team of people who have visited many other schools, is of value in the decision making process. Not the only thing of value, but of value.
Certainly of much MORE value than context-free results data - is a school good because its results are good IF the nature of its intake is such that in fact the results should be excellent (but aren't)? Is it poor because of lower results, despite the fact that over 50% of its children start school way below expected level for their age? Are good results obtained through endless rote learning to the test, or are lessons interesting and engaging (OK, Ofsted only view a snapshot - but they also ask pupls whether this is what lessons are typically like, and pounce when there is a disparity)? That's what I read an Ofsted report for - the text, the chat, the non-numerical information, the context that tells you about progress, which is what a good school should be about.
To take a concrete example, our local grammar (taking children in at high Level 5s, at minimum, at the beginning of Y7) gets 100% A to C including English and Maths at GCSE. A comprehensive I know of, in a very challenging area, gets 45% A to C including English and Maths ... but that is from a starting point where well over 50% of pupils arrive with Level 3s or below in English and Maths. Which is the better school? Where do the children make better progress?