School performance question

[Thomasina76]

Just looking at my sons' school's SAT results for 2016. The school has 70% of pupils meeting the required standard which seems low. However, I compared it against another local school which has 80% of pupils meeting the standard BUT, oddly enough, the average point score was lower in all cases for this other school than DSs' school. How is this possible if the other school had a higher overall percentage of kids meeting the required standard? Presumably it means there was a lot more variance in DSs school, lots of kids getting higher and lower results, or a small proportion getting very high results which pulls the average score up but does not impact number of kids actually meeting the standard. This fits with my view of the school which is that it focuses very much on the high achievers and neglects the middle/lower end.

Average nationally last year was 52% or thereabouts so 70% is actually very high.

To "meet the standard" you have to achieve expected result in maths and reading and get assessed as meeting writing standards. So some children will, for example do phenominally well in reading and writing but not maths - so not counting in the "meeting required standard" but pushing the average up.

It is 70% of pupils meeting the required standard in Reading AND Writing AND Maths. So they may have scored highly in 2 papers but not in the third, and hence have not met the standard in all 3.

They have to meet the standard in all three

You had to get 100 to pass. This means that the other school had more children achieving the standard but on average their scores were lower, could be 101,102 whereas your school might have had fewer children achieving it but those that did scored higher on average. Yes could be a few bright ones pulling up the average but difficult to say really.

70% is a very good result.

I thought this was about a Nativity, or other play

Me too

70% reaching the standards is very high. League tables don't tell the entire story. What is important is the progress individual children have made.

One if the schools in my town is next to the travellers' site and they don't get such good results as a school in a wealthy area. The school that serves the travellers has a good OFSTED as those children make excellent progress from a low starting point. (The travellers tend not to send their children to nursery and often the often the parents have low levels of education.) The school that serves the rich kids is in trouble as the children have made no progress.

"This fits with my view of the school which is that it focuses very much on the high achievers and neglects the middle/lower end."

Different schools have strengths and weaknesses. In the past schools used to focus on those on the pass boundary. The no hopers and gifted children were ignored at Dd's school four years ago. The school failed its OFSTED because of it.

Schools are expected to track the progress of every child.

Not just track the progress - ensure there is progress!

The school my daughter attends is well known as the local 'sink school' - the school nobody chooses to go to, the school with rough parents/children and who get hideously low scores all the time because of the children's low starting points.

They have just been ranked 2nd in the town and 8th in the county for results in the league tables. It is possible, even with 60% EAL, 60% Pupil Premium and high SEND. There are no 'similar' schools within 75 miles who have performed better.

So, even with low starting points, itis possible to get good results.