State Schools Eclipse Eton in rankings for A-Level Science

[evenstrangerthings]

Your Life has today published a new school ranking based on STEM subject performance at A Level and ability to deliver skills for the jobs of today and the future. Several schools have climbed more than 1,000 places in new STEM rankings, while Eton and Harrow drop out of the top 100. In some instances poorly performing schools according to Ofsted have a higher than average STEM ranking. On the back of findings, Your Life Chair Edwina Dunn, has called for an ‘urgent rethink’ of the way schools are assessed to equip the country for a post BREXIT world.

Report and full table at:

https://www.yourlife.org.uk/urgent-rethink-schools-assessment-required-equip-uk-post-brexit-worldd_

I contacted Your Life on FB to ask what data they used to compile the tables. Their reply is below:
----
Hi - We used School Performance Table Data from the Department for Education on England’s 2500 secondary schools. The rankings are based on the proportion of all A Level grades achieved which are grades A-B in STEM subjects. Thanks
^*----
*^
So - yes - Eton are being penalised for having fewer students studying STEM subjects. Perhaps a fairer STEM ranking would be of the percentage of Astar/A grades in STEM subjects since as one poster pointed out, Eton's Physics results at A-Level were better than those of the top ranked King's Maths School, however King's Maths School ranks much higher because almost 100% of their A-Level results last year were Astar-B in STEM subjects.

You simply can't say with assurance said grade was nothing to do with his years at public school.

And sorry yes I do think the equivalent grade from a state school after years in the state sector in classes of 30, limited resources,zero external study support etc would be more worthy.

I doubt I'm the only one.

If I sent my child to Eton it wouldn't be for the GCSEs. Or, for that matter, the A levels.

I sent my child to Eton.

It wasn't for the GCSE's nor the A-levels.

Nor was it for the net-working or the status.

It was for the education of the whole person!

limp that's true if you are comparing children who are of equal ability and have equally supportive backgrounds. You can't say that it is true for every individual.

In boarding schools staff are paid to be the supportive background. Children are fed, watered and supported by high quality teachers in quiet study areas when doing homework. Day schools have far superior wrap around with support for prep. The state sector has none of that alongside parents trying to hold down jobs, commute, cook and run a house hold. The vast maj of parents aren't able to support secondary level homework.

Then we get onto class sizes. I have taught tiny classes and huge. The benefit for the student in tiny classes is huge. Years and years in tiny classes with the best teachers money can buy, superb study support, decent buildings and resources will have a huge impact at every level of ability. That is why parents pay a small fortune for private education.

I'm not disputing any of that, or saying that taken on a population level it isn't true. Just saying it isn't true every single time that a state educated child's grade will have always been harder to achieve, unless you are comparing children of equal natural ability.

So eg send one identical twin to a top Independent and the other to bog standard high in averageville, if they both get identical grades then of course the second twin will have worked harder. And will have done even if they get a grade lower across the board. However it's hardly the case that there are no exceptionally bright children in state schools, who will put less work into grades their less bright counterparts at private work hard for.

But there are very few good independents that don't select on academic ability.
It is definitely harder for state school children to achieve at same level because:

• They have larger class sizes
• Often the culture means high achievement is seen as 'odd'
• Low or high level disruption impact on learning
• There are less resources
• Families are less affluent on average so not all have same laptops etc

Certainly there is no evidence of better teachers in independent. Many are unqualified and would be eaten alive in a comprehensive. Teachers in independent have more time and are paid better to do an easier job.

Children are fed, watered and supported by high quality teachers in quiet study areas when doing homework.

No, they go home the same as teachers in state schools, at dd school they do anyway.
if she is stuck she asks a friend or house assistant who may not know much more about the subject than she does. They certainly can't teach nor are expected to. There's no more help in fact sometimes less than they'd get at home from an invested parent.

lurked
I totally agree, in fact sometimes state will come out better.
My dd useless at Maths, has SENCO support, in private school.
Her friend an absolute genius at Maths in a really poor state school, with no extra support as they pull the bottom up.
Friend will reach A* or A just with normal lessons, dd will struggle to gain a C or the equivalents.
It's the capacity of the child that makes the difference not the school.

crumbs as I've said I don't dispute it on a general level. I was responding to limp claiming that another poster can't possibly know her child's top grade wasn't down to public school. It's perfectly possible for a child to be in the ability range that could get top grades anywhere and also have the advantage of private school.

Yy gilly. Independents undoubtedly maximise potential, but it doesn't mean children in either sector can't have naturally high ability, or have subjects they have to really work hard in.

So eg send one identical twin to a top Independent and the other to bog standard high in averageville, if they both get identical grades then of course the second twin will have worked harder.
That is a fallacy. The top independent pupil will be working very hard. The state school pupil may achieve identical grades with in fact less work but will have probably just covered the standard syllabus rather than extra material that a top independent pupil will have done .

If the teachers are poor the state school pupil (or private school pupil) will of course have to rely more on other resources including parents and the ability to pay for extra textbooks and tutors. That is different from time spent working.

Agree - my eldest two did very well out of comprehensive.
I get quite cross that people think independent is necessarily better - there are some quite bad independents out there - particularly at prep level. That said, the top public schools select very bright children, give them huge advantages associated with wealth and then claim to be the best schools. The best schools are probably those that get significant numbers to RG and Oxbridge from disadvantaged communities.

It's not your school that brings advantages it's your home life. My DS's are have MC educated parents, we live in a great area, rural, no crime, clean, with predominately other MC families we basically socialise with MC families and friends we do MC things, our DS's have been exposed to art music drama literature etc from a very early age, we eat MC food, we and our MC friends and families have MC expectations. Doing well at school, going to university, getting a good job, is an unspoken given. I doubt it's ever crossed my children's mind that they would do this everyone they've known of the right age all their lives has done this.

I couldn't agree more. Mine are at state secondary after private prep. It's a high performing comprehensive. I wouldn't suggest for a second that they're getting a similar experience to those at Eton / Westminster etc but it's definitely not far off your standard independent day school and they aren't disadvantaged in any way. They don't talk about if they go to university, they talk about when they go to university and who out of their crowd will go to Oxbridge and who will only go to Bristol / Leeds/Nottingham. They don't talk about jobs, they talk about careers as it's a given that's what they'll do. They see their friends parents as Lawyers, bankers, TV producers, partners in Accountancy firms and in Management Consultancy, as doctors and dentists and barristers and journalists. They know of the ones who have sold out for a fortune and those who are on TV and written about in the broadsheets and they just assume that's the route they'll take. There's no discussion as to whether they'll take A Levels, they just will. And they will get a leg up because because DH works in the city, and best friends dad owns a production company, and friend they play tennis with has a mum who is an oncologist and the person up the road's dad sold to Google for x many £m. These are people they see and talk to daily and when their friends want work experience in our fields their parents will reciprocate in their fields. It has nothing to do with their state education and everything to do with it being what they see daily and perceive as normal.

send my dd is at independent precisely for that reason, because I want her doing a lot more than the standard syllabus for the exam. And of course the greater range of subjects. The rest is just nice to have. I made no effort at my awful school whatsoever and got top grades. Dd is a lot better across the board than me and yet is working at school because they provide challenge outside of that.

That doesn't make it a fallacy about the effort required to get the exam grade itself, because the work involved in getting the grade is only about the work involved in covering the syllabus. Not whether they work hard outside that.

Sys they are disadvantaged as for all that they will still be punted out of the top jobs to make way for a few from top private schools. Stats back this up as linked below.

You have also highlighted the separate issue of the huge inequalities in the state comp system and unfair funding across the country. A top comp in the SE in commuter distance to London is a world away from most elsewhere.

All three are issues that need to be dealt with.

All three are issues that need to be dealt with.

How do you think they should be dealt with, limplettuce? Apart from banning private schools.

Also, from her post presumably Sys's children have advantages enough to help them get into top universities. Do you really think a state school education plus a degree from a top university disadvantages candidates from getting good jobs?

We'll never really solve the biggest inequality in education, the variation of state provision. Because far too many of the people who care about education, and as a group are in a position to instigate reform, have children who benefit from the unfairness. Instead, the loudest voices tend to be those who believe the discrepancies between schools in the biggest group, comprehensives, are a minor issue, compared to the greater unfairness of their dc attending a great comprehensive rather than an independent. And that's without the grammar debate, where again the greater numbers disadvantaged by the unequal comprehensive provision are again dismissed as a lesser evil.

Look at the outrage to the new funding formula. I didn't notice any wide spread concern because many schools outside the hallowed London bubble are drastically underfunded and have been for years. But all of a sudden it's a crisis because more affluent schools across the country won't get as much.

I'm fully aware the funding formula had more holes in than googles tax return, and it wasn't just the high funded schools facing cuts. And the real issue is money in the pot to share out. Just highlighting how few fucks are given that some schools, mainly in rural and coastal areas have been unfairly funded for years. Whilst people focus their concern on the unfairness of a tiny minority at private.

limp

I don't think we will ever have a fair education system. Ever since the first system we had it benefitted the rich, in fact it was some time before children from mc and wc families received a free state education.
Then it was little more than a baby sitting service when children were no longer having to work in mines and mills.

I don't understand the constant moaning about fairness, life isn't fair.
You just have to try and work with the hand you are dealt and look to improve what you can.

Yes I do Dapple, did you not read the link?

We won't ever have a fair system if we don't try. You can have fairness and still work with the hand life dealt you.

How do you try and have fairness when some parents don't give a damn about their child's education and other parents put in lots of time and effort. It is constantly repeated on here that parental influence and involvement is the single biggest important factor to a child's educational success So how do we make that fair exactly?
Making all schools equal in terms of teachers ability, funding levels, Opportunities etc still isn't going to change the magical factor of parents.

As I always say on threads like this, the irony is that it's the kids who have most need of what a private education can offer that have no chance of getting it.

Privilege attracts privilege.

You can put in all the time and effort you want but chances are your kid wont have as much chance of getting a top job as a small fraction of kids from private schools. That is what has to be made fair.

Of course it's not fair. Most things in life aren't.

Education of course is a special case, and because it is, we provide a base level for free. I would agree that we should spend a bit more and raise the base level.

However, in a free society there will always be people willing to spend a marginal amount more in education. It's positively totalitarian to stop them, and logically impossible to keep up with them.