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.