How the lack of real school league tables are failing Scottish parents.

[Meeplemakeglasgow]

I’ve become quite frustrated on how we measure school success in Scotland.

Even though the Scottish Government doesn't publish official league tables, the media always compiles them using the standard "5+ Highers" benchmark.

However the closer I look at these metrics, the more I feel they completely fail us—both as parents trying to make decisions and as a society trying to hold schools accountable.

The "Gold Standard" that ScotGov measure is far too generic and doesn’t differentiate between a pass mark and a high quality level.

Right now, the headline figure is just the percentage of pupils achieving 5 Highers but this completely ignores grade quality.

For instance a school where 80% of pupils achieve five 'C' grades would rank higher in the tables than a school where 75% achieve straight 'A’s' (Realise this is an extreme example but the point stands).

Look at East Renfrewshire—all the schools in Eastwood sit very close to one another near the top of the tables. Yet, anecdotally, we know there are distinct differences in how many pupils achieve the top grades required for highly competitive university courses which is masked by the generic tables.

I also think this fluffy "Positive Destinations" metric is a bit of a joke.

We often hear the "added value" argument defended by the "Positive Destinations" metric, but it’s far too broad to be meaningful.

Right now, a teenager entering a hospitality role such as ‘trainee barista’ is weighted exactly the same as a school leaver securing a highly competitive aerospace engineering apprenticeship.

We need real data on where these kids are actually going. How many are entering trade apprenticeships? What industries are they going to? How many are doing degree apprenticeships, going to FE Colleges, or entering top-tier universities?

The current system is masking coasting schools and not allowing others to celebrate real success.

By avoiding official, detailed tables, the we allow some schools to comfortably coast without proper scrutiny or appraisal.

Worse, it lets down the schools in disadvantaged areas that are doing brilliant work. Some of these schools are significantly improving their pupils' life trajectories, yet they don't get the recognition they deserve because their raw numbers look lower.

Meanwhile, other underperforming schools are able to hide behind poor SIMD (Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation) stats, using them as an excuse for stagnant performance rather than being pushed to do better.

If we were able to actually compare these schools using proper data we’d see the ones that are really adding value.

Ultimately, if we don't measure properly, we can't challenge. And if we can't challenge, we can't improve.

I completely agree. The positive destinations metric is utter nonsense. We have so many kids who do nothing in 6th year- don’t turn up to class, drop subjects etc. It is a complete waste of teaching resources. But the schools don’t tell
them to leave because that would affect their stats.

Back in the day you used to be able to get PISA scores by school (sat at 10 and 14? IIRC?) primary and secondary. I haven’t seen these for years? It would at least be something to go off!

I would like a proper league table of results weighting As, Bs, Cs for Highers and Advanced Highers, but I also see how this metric isn’t helpful to all learners and parents so happy for there to be more rankings or multiple tables.

The current government have too much to hide to offer comprehensive and accurate data. I’m still appalled that it’s become normalised for only 50% of pupils to sit Nat 5 Maths. What kind of education system let this happen?

And “positive destinations” 🤦‍♀️, a temporary summer job can count! It’s not exactly positive if they’re NEET by October!

I agree that highers are a blunt tool, but they do paint a bit of a picture. The two schools in my area which consistently rank in the top 30 of the table are definitely far better schools for most students than the rest in my area which barely rank above 200. In addition, you have access to HMIE inspection reports for any school. I’m not sure what kind of “recognition” you are looking for?

I wouldn’t want a ranking system like Ofsted, which has a number of issues and doesn’t address many issues in schools. It’s also unnecessary as we don’t have the same process in place for choosing a school and the vast majority of young people go to their catchment school.

I agree about the “positive destinations” bullshit though. I mentor a young person who is going in to S5. When I met her in S3, she had hoped to study medicine. Her grades were quite good and with the right support she could get there. But she isn’t going to get the grades she needs, despite me trying hard with the school to get it for her. When I mentioned the severe drop off in her grades, they said “that’s to be expected, S4 is harder than S2”. In S5 she is going to be doing 2 days at college studying childcare, planning to do it full time when she finishes school. This will be classed as a positive destination. She claims she is happy to be doing that and is sure she has a bright future with it, has plans to expand on the job, but I can’t help feeling she has been made to feel that’s the limit of her capabilities when it really isn’t. She has the potential to break out of the cycle of poverty she was born in to, but apart from me, nobody seems to think she deserves to do that.

SNP stopped shouting about PISA when we started not being good in the rankings. We dropped from a score of 506 in maths to 471 over the tenure of the SNP and from 515 to 483 in science. We had been matching or exceeding the scores of U.K. and England but now rank lower in all areas. The data is still there, for 2022, but the latest 2025 scores are harder to find.

Speaking as someone who used to teach in England, not sure you want to go down the league tables route like our schools have.

I think it’s total nonsense. The stats for our school will always be based on nothing as about half the children leave after s4 - so we’ll never score more than 50%. The reality is that loads of those s4 kids go on to college or apprenticeships which is totally valid, and the kids who are left do extremely well as it’s usually the most academically motivated kids and the classes get much smaller. But we will always look like a failing school when you just look at the tables.

I appreciate that getting a part time job at a shop isn’t the same as a scholarship to Cambridge, but I don’t think all children should be encouraged to go to university. There are many other paths for people to become happy and fulfilled adults and I’m glad those options are there and celebrated (I grew up in another country where it was often talked about as university or failure, no middle ground and it was rough for the non academic kids)

Exactly my point, the current metrics fail both academic and vocational students.

The academic reporting isn’t detailed enough to really compare standards and the vocational routes aren’t reported at all.

I would rather send a practical child to a school where 60% of pupils go into apprenticeships than 60% go to Warehouses/Hospitality but right now that isn’t reported.

No, but we can do better.

Knowing what industries the pupils are ending up in, or what level of employment/training would be useful metrics.

I agree with a lot of what you say OP. But league tables are always tricky when the demographics in a school can be quite different.
I’ve always thought the Positive destinations was a load of nonsense. It only looks at destination from school and, as a PP pointed out that could be a summer job and then the young person is unemployed by the autumn.
Or they’re pushed on into college courses and then unemployed from there 2 years later.

I agree the very phrase ‘league tables’ is quite emotive, but I do think that schools should be publishing comparative data.

It’s exactly the differing demographics that makes me think they should publish more, with only really highers to go on we have no idea which schools are managing to improve kid’s lives through education and which are sending them to work in Sports Direct.

I understand you are going for the extremes to male a point, but I don’t believe we should consider working part time in a shop as a positive destination for any young person capable of attending a mainstream school.

There seems to be a real attitude of not wanting to compare in Scotland. I never found out how good my child was at any stage at primary and secondary school until they sat their prelims. No ranking within the class / school / country for children makes it very hard to judge what careers advice to give. Private schools give feedback of where your child is working every term. After exams your child finds out the exact grade they got by the end of the results morning. The number of children with 5 As is always published by the schools and is usually around 30-40% of children, compared to a state average of about 5%.

@Zebrah Where did you get the state average figures from?

Can you still get the PISA results by school? I haven’t seen it for about a decade?

I also used to teach in England, and while some negativity comes from the current curriculum, inspectorate and also league tables at least academic standards benefit from that. I acknowledge it has its downsides and I did not like teaching post-Gove as much in England, but standards in Scotland are on the floor. When I first moved here my P6s were roughly on a par with Y2 in writing. There’s very little holding schools accountable for actually educating children here.

Good question. I wonder if if wax from the Edinburgh schools guide in the past. On the question of PISA we certainly got results by school in the past on how many primary children were meeting requirements in maths, English etc per school, along with the free school meals SIMD rations etc.

This may not be widespread, because in Scotland kids generally go to their catchment school, but there is a understanding that schools higher up the published tables do not let poorer performing students even sit the exams (positive pathway instead maybe?) to ensure the % of students obtaining a C grade or above stays high.

My DD's school is at the bottom end of the league table but they've recently had students go on to Oxbridge, into medicine and into astrophysics at University so, thankfully, support is there for more able students.

Wondering if we are neighbours now as I could say the same!

I really am not sure what league tables really say. Just because lots of kids get whatever grade doesn’t mean my kid will. It’s so much more nuanced than random stats based on unfair metrics.

I don’t think studying astrophysics at St Andrews is the same situation as working part time in Starbucks. But it’s also possible that in 15 years the person working their way up to regional manager in Starbucks will be happier and more successful than the person struggling to find a permanent academic post in astrophysics. The world is changing quickly and there aren’t as many guaranteed career progression jobs in what used to be good options for academic kids.

👋 to @PurpleThistle7

But I thought the 5 Highers metric was a % of the total pupils in the year? So not letting pupils sit an exam in case they bring the pass rate down will still affect the results as that’s 1 less pupil getting 5 Highers?

I prefer our system where you go to the catchment school , the English system has created huge divides and tbf from what I read here on MN; obsessive parents, I’ve yet to come across anyone in RL who treats their kids exam years as life must stop for them.
My DC went to their catchment schools and all have good careers (2 went to uni)

The finer details around destinations are collected by Scot Gov, so they do know where individuals are going. Re positive destinations, as well as the initial destinations, sustained destinations are also evaluated in February.
The other metric analysed is the annual participation measure which looks at the proportion of 16-19 year olds involved in education, training etc over a year, which is a better indication that initial leaver destinations.
https://www.skillsdevelopmentscotland.co.uk/publications-statistics/statistics/annual-participation-measure

Aside from the measures used to indicate school performance, I think there needs to be a shift in attitude by schools as to what is classed as achievement for school leavers.
From what I can see nothing much has changed since I was at school when the options appeared to be university for the more academically able, working in a local shop or factory for the less academic kids, maybe an apprenticeship for those with a bit of drive and practical skills, or the forces. There was no sign posting to any other options.
These days it's much the same, maybe less so the Forces (cut backs) and factories (manufacturing decline).
Apprenticeships are extremely competitive so those offering them can afford to be picky, and university can rack up huge debts and result in little improvement to job prospects over those who have worked since leaving school.
I would like to see proper analysis into what happens next for school leavers, where they are in 5 years for example, what they did to get there, and importantly, are they happy. And I would like schools to publicise all the wide ranging and varied options that are out there for students.

I think you are right. The % of ABCgrades is based on the total number of students at the start of the year. It doesn't take into account students leaving part way through or not sitting the exams.
School A: 100 students, 100 sit the exams, say 80% pass rate.
School B: 100 students, 50 sit the exams, same level of academic achievement but the school is reported as having a 40% pass rate.

Isn’t it actually based on the percentage of children registered in s4? So if there are 100 children and 50 leave in s4 and 50 sit their highers in s5, there can only ever be a 50% pass rate because half the kids aren’t even students anymore.