How did your primary school do?

[RosaLuxMundi]

New KS2 league tables are out.

We are quietly smug.

The school DS1 will be at next year (he's currently in infants so not on the list) is on there- but I don't understand the numbers

100.6 284 30.2

is that good, ok, or bad??

That is good. 100.2 is the value-added - a score of 100 is average, anything above is good, 284 is the aggregate points score which is well above the national average of 245 and 30.2 is the points per pupil which again is above the national average of 27.9 The link here tells you exactly how the numbers are calculated.

not great unfortunately, high level of pupils with sen though

Ours is 100.6 287 and 30.
Second is down on last year. Over all I am really happy with the school, the just got an "outstanding", and DS is very happy. My only gripe is lack of after school activities.

The school dd got (not first choice local school, but slightly further away, 3rd choice) has dropped down the tables.
237 agg score. 99.1 value added.
School we wanted, 400m away, 300m catchment. Still doing fine.

Actually feel like crying. Had started to feel more positive about the school. In a "well let's make the most of it and I'm sure it has lots of positives" way. Think am back to the sleepless nights until January. F-all I can do about it anyway.

Our school got a value added score of 100.9, a 282 aggregatepoint score and a 29.8 points perpupil score.

DD's school doesn't do SATs.

Our catchment schools looks like it did pretty well in the three subject areas, above area and that is with 29.4% SEN too. VA is 99.8 so that could be better.

Our other two choice of schools:

Both did really well. Again VA only around 100, but gained high SAT %ages and abve average agg score.

School friend's DS goes to did excellent on SAT results - 100% for one plus two in high 90s.

These sats just give a totally skewed result if your school happens to be small as just one child's performance can throw the results.We are happy with our school and know that our dd's year and the year above her will do very well because they have a high percentage of bright kids and did extremely well in key stage 1 sats. But the year who just did the Stage 2 were very weak and despite the school's best efforts performed below the national average. I don't care as I know that they had a high number of sn kids plus border line ones and no really bright kids at all. The teachers can't work miracles.

100.1
269
28.9

oops, pressed post before I am ready.

I am very pleased with that. It got an ofsted 'very good', has a great feel to it, pupils fab, brilliant, involved and enthusiastic teachers, and all in all I think it is a fab school!
Ds very happy there too

it is in the best of the best

the only one from county that is

(tbh I dont really understand the numbers )

Our's did well which is great as it's not in the best area and they've had to move to temporary accomodation until the old school is re built!
value added thing is 101.6

agree with you idlingabout, our school is the only one round here with a sen base and so lots of children attend it solely for that benefit.

we have 35% with sen.

Ours seemed to do OK but sadly not as good as the other school we are in the catchment for . To add insult to injury my DN goes to the better school and I know that my MIL will drop the fact that his school did better than the dc's school into the next conversation we have. She seems obsessed by the results at times and TBH maybe I have made a mistake with choosing the right school but we were happy with our choice at the time .

Below average - just. But not really surprising considering it's in special measures .

But it's a lovely friendly school and my DCs are very happy there. Also doing loads to improve atm.

It's all rubbish though isn't it, doesn't really tell you the full story of what pupils a school has and what it's doing with them.

For instance, in our town probably the best regarded school in terms of academic success comes high up in the aggregate points and points per pupil but way down the table for value-added. It also has a very low proportion of children with special needs. Whereas 'my' primary school doesn't do so well in points per pupil and aggregate score, but very well indeed in value-added, and has over 34% special needs.

So doubtless schools will pick the figures that show them in their best light, and many parents will continue to look at the raw results and think that is necessarily the 'best' school.

I also agree with whoever said a particularly bright or challenging year group can totally skew results, but unfortunately many parents just look at the headline results of x% level 4s or 5s or whatever.

Ours has done really well - the scores are 101.5, 300 and 31.2 - top in the town.

However, it is a small school and if one pupil doesn't do so well/has sn it falls down the tables, and also the ofsted, while good, isn't outstanding, so I take this with a pinch of salt.

dd3 likes it there though

Is within top 6 in borough - BUT how on earth is that important, per se?

DS is v happy, the CVA is good which means, presumably, effective teaching, but other than that, I don't see how it impacts on the idividual child. DS will do whatever he does in SATs when the time comes, and he may take the average up or down - but the average tells me nothing about him.

House prices may rise on our road, I suppose - but my advice to would be house-buyers in the area would be wait until another up and coming year take their SATS because rumour has it they are not, on average, doing as well. So house prices will drop again!!

LOL - in a cynical cackle sort of way.

I used to think the added value was the only relevant stat but I now realise that these are calculated in a very strange way after reading the bbc link posted earlier. I had naively thought that the comparison was by child against their own keystage 1 results - but no. It is their results against some sort of average therefore totally useless.I presume they do this because they know that pupils move so they won't always have the same set of pupils. But if they are half acknowleding transience then they should also acknowledge that small schools with changing pupils have it even tougher; they could lose just one bright spark after key stage 1 and that child could be replaced by a slower learner and then the school gets a lower value added - nonsense.

Blu and exbatt, thank you both, that is really food for thought. I've never really understood the competitiveness over results and that wouldn't be my main reason for selecting a school anyway. I have known people move their dcs between our two local schools though depending on which is higher in the tables .

Our school isn't listed, as there were only 8 pupils in yr 6 last year (who all got excellent results, well done - plus they were a lovely lovely group of children).

The school is usually in the top few in the city, and has just been ofsteded as good with outstanding features.

I'm happy with the school (and not just because DH is chair of govs, lol). All three boys have received a good education, the staff are motivated, and the boys generally enjoy school. This is what is important to me - not the SATS (individual results or average results) and the Ofsted.

I'm currently choosing schools for my DTS and even though I have looked at the results, the school that is our top choice only scored satisfactory in the recent Ofsted report and its current scores are 98.8. 272, 29.8.

I really liked the school because I felt the warmth and passion the children had for it(they showed us around) plus the school offers a vast range of extra-curricular activities (over 14 clubs including French, fencing, dance, choir, orchestra, football, cricket, tag rugby, art, science,gardening etc). With the supportive home environment that I and DH provide for our boys plus the fact that we are both educated to PhD level in the sciences, we know that our boys will thrive at that school or the other two which are our 2nd and 3rd choices.

104.3
300
32.2

is that any good???