Evaluating secondary schools

[Trainbear]

Some weeks ago the Times listings of schools in order of numbers of pupils achieving four or more passes at Higher level was issued. Otherwise know as “league tables” some schools did well, some not so. The Scottish government and particularly local councils, teachers unions and various others on the left commented as they usually do when such results are released, that the tables do not reflect soft skills, that schools in deprived areas achieve fewer passes but should not be critisised for not doing well. Also it is a fact that not all children excel in academic subjects or at a spot test.

Is there a published list which takes into account deprivation, other challenges socially, academic or otherwise that is a better evaluation?

As far as I’m aware there is no such thing. But if you live in an area you get a good feel for the schools in your catchment and the surrounding area. I agree that the five higher statistic is a very blunt instrument. The high school
local to me always features high in the list but other schools locally offer more in terms of vocational courses, sport, drama, art.

It may be a blunt instrument but most parents want their children to get their Highers
We moved to get into catchment of a top school in terms of these lists and they all got 5As
Sport/art etc,can be done out of school

My DCs go to a very low ranked school. DC1 and all their friends as far as I am aware got straight As in Nat 5s last week. The school has some deprived areas in the catchment, we don’t live in one of those areas.

My DD also goes to a low ranked school. Whilst not everyone gets As etc, they all get positive destinations (HE/FE/apprenticeship/employment).

However, it was depressing though to read in the local paper about exam results though. Every year they get pupils from local high schools to pose for pictures and talk about their results.

"Lucy from A school got these highers and is going to St Andrews", "Billly from B school got these highers and is going to Glasgow", and then its a vague "Johnny from C school did well and is considering his next steps".

I don't know why our headteacher doesn't either turn around and say "nah we're not doing this stupid article this year" or think "we should up our game a bit"

This is the one thing I worry about a bit with my DCs’ school - that a “positive destination” is a relative measure and therefore they don’t have the same expectations for the pupils. DC1 felt the school could be quick to suggest the option of National 4 whereas my friend’s DC who is (now) at a private school after a troubled few years failed several prelims but sat all Nat 5s.

League tables data reflects socioeconomic status. Of course the least-deprived children in Scotland stand the best chance of hitting the elusive 5 Highers in S5 - that's how privilege works (I say as someone whose kids live in an SIMD 10 postcode, and acknowledge the privilege they have).

Are you looking to choose a school? In Edinburgh we have little choice as the catchment system is in use and most schools are oversubscribed.

If I was evaluating a school, I'd be looking for:

Variety of pathways: yes they'll offer traditional level 5 and level 6 courses (N5 and H), but do they also offer NPAs, work with local colleges, have vocational pathways that lead to qualifications and positive outcomes? This shows a genuine commitment to meeting the needs of all learners and respecting alternative educational provisions which may be more suitable.

A CPD offer for staff that indicates a real drive for self-improvement. Teachers who stagnate are uninspiring teachers. Teachers who want to work in schools where there is an ethos of reflection, self-improvement, collaboration and engagement with research and evidence-informed practice is key to a 'good school'.

I teach at one of the 'bottom' schools. We serve one of the most deprived areas of the city, and years and years of ingrained poverty takes its toll on young people. But we still have kids who got 8 straight As at N5, and five As at Higher. But we try to offer a range of qualifications and pathways to meet everyone's needs - five Hs in S5 is a fairly outdated measure in today's climate, IMO.

@FuckingHateRats do you teach in an Edinburgh school? The schools in the more deprived catchments only seemed to do 6 Nat 5s when I looked vs 8 on offer in the least deprived catchments. I was quite shocked by the disparity.

We teach 7. This is new, historically we've done six.

It sounds like a disadvantage to do six instead of eight, I agree. But it's nigh on impossible to teach eight N5s in one year, and these schools start teaching the courses in S3. This essentially denies the candidates the breadth and depth of the BGE curriculum 🤷🏻‍♀️ and contradicts the ethos and principles of the CfE.

Unis look at Highers, not N5s as far as I'm aware. I'd far rather my kids got their full entitlement to a BGE, rather than starting an exam track in S3.

Sorry, I didn't answer the Q. Yes, I teach in an Edinburgh school.

purely from my own experience of when I was at high school is that my “deprived” one that I sat my Standard Grades in were willing to let folk have a go at exams if there was a possibility of passing.

my next high school where I did Highers, in a naice area, would absolutely not let anyone sit an exam if they didn’t think they’d get an A or B

There is a league table produced on raw exam results each year by the Times newspaper group.

www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/9042254/scotlands-schools-league-table-scottish-exam/

This is just the raw numbers though and as you'd expect the places at the top (Bearsden, St Ninians, Cults) are in the nice middle class areas, the ones at the bottom are in deprived areas. My kids are at one of the top performing schools and there is certainly not an attitude of "we're not going to let you sit unless you can get a A or B". There is one particular child in my dd's year for whom it will be a massive achievement to pass Nat 5 English and Maths at the end of S6. They didn't present her in S4 or S5 as she was not ready and a total fail isn't what you want when you're struggling already.

The other thing to bear in mind is that the top schools have a high percentage of sharp-elbowed parents who are not afraid of challenging the school or holding them to account if they are not happy. Have seen this at first hand and although it must be a bit of a nightmare for the teachers, it also keeps standards high. Better that than having disinterested parents who are constantly trying to undermine what schools are trying to achieve.

There is analysis done that uses "virtual comparitors", ie the pass rates that would be expected compared to other schools with a similar socio-economic profile - but the newspapers don't often publish them as that would involve a bit of effort

Even the virtual comparitors are an imprecise science though: for example, they don't include any consideration of the numbers for whom English is an Additional Language .

So for example, ds' old school (Shawlands Academy) has 55 languages spoken at the school and 10% of the S1 intake is (or was) Roma, yet that's not reflected in the virtual comparitor . What is included is that there is a high proportion of SIMD1 and 2 (ie the two highest categories of multiple deprivation) and it performs well given that VC.

As its old headteacher used to say, its young people came from an extremely wide range of backgrounds: from children of millionaires (literally) and those who lived in "big houses in the 'Shields (we came into the latter category at least, half of a big goose ) to those who quite literally didn't know where their next meal was coming from and went home to freezing cold flats (and this was before the energy crisis ) . It worked hard to do well by all the kids and for the most part succeeded. Iirc, the headteacher was disappointed that the VC for the poorest kids was slightly below what it should have been so she was always striving to improve that (they may have been because of the high percentage of Roma as getting them to sit any exams was a challenge )