to be astonished at the Highland secondary schools' underperformance?

[ImOnAnAdjectiveSearch]

I was just reading The Times and there's several Highland schools with 0% deprivation scores achieving very poorly. I know quite a bit about city centre schools but this is news to me.

Can anyone comment?!

(Unhelpfully, I can't find the data on Education Scotland's site and there's a paywall on the Times).

Hope it works

Last one.
Sorry said that wrong; should have said; if numbers are the same in these columns, then the school results are what was expect.

Our headteacher explained that the updated virtual comparitor (which is used here) is a much more robust measure which has eliminated a lot of the previous criticisms because it uses the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation.

it's so unfair that in our wealthy, first world country, your success still depends on where you're born

It is unfair but I think it can be more than about the postcode or school or parents.

DH and I were both brought up in rough council estates in poverty but by working parents, neither set of parents really engaged in our education either if we are honest. However they did show a decent example and more or less left us to it as long as we weren't causing any bother.

We now live in an affluent area, DSs went to a mixed primary. Roughly half well off and half from families in a similar area to where DH and I grew up but with most parents on benefits or in very low paid work. Very few DC in between. Now attend a top 10 high school.

I'm really not sure what factors brought about a change in circumstances for our DC compared to us. Though, if I look at the schools DH and I attended, they are far further up the rankings now than our own experiences would suggest! Maybe they were always decent schools? DH didn't get many exam passes as he didn't attend for most of 4th year and was a Christmas leaver. I did ok but was never encouraged or pushed either at home or school.

I'd also be interested in following the link.

The points made above are all relevant - there will be plenty children who don't "need" the qualifications as they're heading straight to the family business / generational job pathway... but I'd be very surprised if there's an area in the Highlands that doesn't have poverty. Statistically the Highlands is one of the most deprived areas of Scotland due to lack of well paying jobs and the traditional brain-drain.

There may be more up to date information available from Ed Scotland (search for PEF - pupil equity fund, or SIMD data - which might show figures on free school meal entitlement for each local authority)

Oh! Loads of other messages popped up after I'd posted that - thanks for the links, I'll have a look.

It's interesting looking at the rankings. As ever, the devil is in the detail, so it is so important to know exactly the basis of the percentages.

I know that ds' school's results don't look "good" if they base the percentage on the S1 intake: it has a high proportion of asylum seekers and Roma (the Roma account for something like 10% of the cohort!), so they may not even be there by S5 (getting the Roma to take any exams is an achievement, apparently!). I know that until recently, the SIMD was calculated incorrectly for its catchment as well (although that has now been resolved: as is demonstrated in the large amount of PEF money it is now getting).

Also, is the percentage based on the number of Highers sat in S5 or is it combined over S5 and S6? Does it include Advanced Highers?

But as others have said, one of the key measures is whether the school is performing worse, the same as or better than expected.

That's a really good point prettybird, if the 'more deprived' children are leaving earlier.

It is very complex. One article said that the data was deliberately not put into tables but I think more transparency and the compilation of tables (perhaps using the virtual comparator) would have been better.

It's a difficult one. One of the "jobs" of a school is to encourage pupils to stay on and complete their education to the best of their ability; to deliver that "added value".

But if they are itinerant - either through circumstance (refugees, asylum seekers) or through culture (the Roma) - what can the school do? As it is, ds' school has been successful (compared to most) in getting the Roma kids to stay in education and even to take exams . That has taken a lot of hard work (and I'm ashamed to say, it's the one area where ds is a bit racist, as he brands them all the same way because they are disruptive in class ; this despite the fact that he gets angry about all other forms of racism ).

There are also other stats that schools gets judged on: the "positive destinations" one is an important one. Even that is subdivided and schools are measured on whether the "right" proportions of the top 20%, the middle 60% and the bottom 20% (I might have got the splits wrong) go on to positive destinations.

So, ds and his group of friends are all in that top 20% who will go on to good Unis (and already have their Unconditionals), the middle 60% by all accounts do well too - but is the school providing as much value to the bottom 20% - or the bottom 10%

One aspect of the deprivation data is income. This is based on figures drawing dole in August. In small Highland towns there is very high, seasonal employment in August. November would tell a much less affluent story.

Also, number of graduates living in a community can be skewed by retired folk who move in. Some areas look affluent but rural poverty and deprivation are very real.

Teacher recruitment is an issue.

Also very mixed ability teaching is hard unless teachers are very skilled.

@ThisIsTheFirstStep

“Coming from that area, in my opinion it’s: lack of ambition (teachers were shocked I wanted to go to university); crap teachers (most good ones want to stay in Glasgow/Edinburgh or go to England); lack of role models (nothing wrong with being a farmer/builder but I didn’t see anyone working in ‘professional’ roles growing up and it definitely affected my ideas of the jobs I could potentially do).”

Most good ones want to stay in Glasgow/Edinburgh?!
Proof please! (I say that as a teacher who moved to the Highlands from the central belt, who has 15 very successful years in a fabulous secondary school under her belt) 🧐

What do you think about overall attainment in the Highlands then doodle?

but is the school providing as much value to the bottom 20% - or the bottom 10%
Which is extremely, extremely difficult.

"It is very complex. One article said that the data was deliberately not put into tables but I think more transparency and the compilation of tables (perhaps using the virtual comparator) would have been better."

I don't agree because as a parent I much prefer being able to drill down into the data and looking for comparisons which directly apply to my own DC.

I do think there could be some virtue in producing an exemplar model average school to give a more generic benchmark. Also the 5 Highers figures are the stats for Level 6+ after 6th year and so are heavily distorted by staying on rates.

I know that in the islands it is common for academic DC to transfer to one central school for S5 and S6 so I wonder if this is also the case for smaller mainland schools?

doodle My only proof is that all my teachers were shit bar one and after their first two years during which time they mostly got slightly better, they all fucked off down south. Anecdotal only, but the whole atmosphere was one of older teachers who didn’t give a damn and younger teachers who had no idea what they were doing.

The deprivation percentage is bit meaningless... it’s most deprived areas. So it’s not a percentage of pupils living in deprivation or anything like that, it’s the areas that are officially most deprived.

For a while one of the primaries close to me was in an officially decided deprived area, the next one over wasn’t... they’re 1/2 a mile apart, the children living in the next street weren’t automatically more affluent...

So those with 0% don’t have 0% of deprivation, just that they’ll be mixed incomes and the high earners will be pulling up the average enough that they’re not areas of most deprivation.

How common/exceptional is to sit 5+ highers? "My" HS, which I though would fare better, is way don't the list and have only a score of 34 with an expected score of 45. Leaving Jordanhill and friends aside the top scores seem to be in the 70s. That is quite a BIG gap...
Should I plan to move in the next very years?

I think it's as common to sit 5 highers as it ever was. We mostly sat 5 in 5th year when I was in school and i'm in my 50s now. I'm not sure whether this is over 5th and 6th though and how they've classified AHs too.

DS1 sat and passed 5 Highers in 5th year and is doing 3AHs in 6th. DS2 had to resit his nat 5 Maths so was only doing 4 highers, one of which he just dropped this week but he is planning on doing 2 plus an AH next year.

I think it's about what the school does with the pupils they have that's important. You could attend a school with scores in the 70s and have a child who is in the 30% who don't achieve or attend a school with a score around 20% but your child is in that 20%. If your school is underachieving overall, that's maybe not great but doesn't mean that your child would also underachieve.

I’m from one of the mentioned highland villages. The local high school has a massive catchment area (well over 100miles) and is the only school in the area so all the kids go there. There is no other option
The school used to have a very good reputation - a vast range of subjects, passionate teachers, discipline and as such had a high turn out of leavers with high grades who went out to good things
The school was the heart of the community- which is massively important in an area where from October - April the place is literally a ghost town. Local businesses close down for the “off season” and it can be a very lonely and isolated place.
With budget cuts and a lot of the older generation of teaching staff now retiring the school has cut many of the subjects down so there is not the same choice as there once was and the teaching body is made up now of vastly young, inexperienced probation teachers who only stay for a year or two before leaving again. No continuity of staff which leaves the core structure of the school wide open and has a massive impact on the students and therefore the schools overall performance.

Rural schools have a tough time recruiting subject specific teachers.

It’s not unusual to have just a science teacher rather than different teachers with degrees in each of the sciences. Same for languages.

The 5 highers figure is over 2 years. This is why the main driver of the statistics is the staying on rate and the academic aspirations of the cohort / parents. (There is also no adjustment in this stat for the quality of pass).

The school my DC go to underperforms on its 5 higher benchmark. However it overperforms for its top 20%, which is all that is relevant to pupils capable of getting 5 highers. There are schools listed in The Times "best" schools who underperform for their top 20%.

Old thread but the extremely low attainment is due to a complete lack of alternative provision for violent pupils. Hence, teachers are unable to teach , pupils unable to learn ( as they're being evacuated, hurt etc).

There have been a few articles on this recently. Even PSA support in class has been taken away in the last six years ( saving £20m from the budget since 2018).

It's criminal really.

Living rurally is a disadvantage for children in Scotland.

The new veterinary medicine course in Aberdeen SAC takes account of this. They were quite open stating that many rural schools can often only provide one science at higher and often no mathematics higher is available. They have adjusted their entrance requirements to try and appeal to rural candidates who are in this situation.

Many of the schools are not rural at all. It's a red herring to base attainment on this. Primary school attainment is especially low.

Violence is a problem throughout Scotland though. This isn’t a rural issue. I’m in Edinburgh where it would be perfectly simple to open a pupil referral unit to specialise in violent pupils, but this isn’t done due to the Scottish government’s inclusion policy. The theory behind inclusion is that if we put violent pupils in pupil referral unit they will become ostracised from the community, feel like they have no part in their community and there is an increased likelihood of them ending up in prison in the long term (or medium / short term) which is expensive.

So we have ‘inclusion’. I have a child who was verbally bullied on a daily basis, and physically assaulted on at least a weekly basis. The bully had been charged on multiple occasions with assault by the police (as well as other crimes) and yet my child was expected to continue to go into this environment.

What justification are we supposed to give our children? ‘Err, yes you have to put up with being assaulted, but think of the money saved in future prison budgets’. It’s an absolutely disgusting way to treat our young people. And it’s why we went private, where thankfully discipline still exists.

I feel for you. Complain to the MSP and councillors. Ask how your child’s physical well-being and education is being safeguarded by the school. Quote the education act (right to education). Ask how their mental well-being is being protected when you mr child lives under constant threat.