Do you analyse gcse data schools provide or look at it closely?

[youarenotkiddingme]

Been looking around local schools and this years results compared to previous years (some schools have new HT) and county and national average.

Catchment school has results which I think are not great for a 140 ish pupil year group yet they've sold it as amazing (they have a reputation for this)

They've said 71% passed an English grade 4 or above with 40% gaining higher passes.

55% passed maths grade 4 or higher with 30% gaining higher pass marks.

Then say 100% who took triple science got A*-C.

Then announce number passing science was 61%.

There's them a list of a number of subjects that they got 100% A*-C pass rate.

(Music/art/textiles and dance)

Am I right in thinking it's normal to have good triple science pass as most schools only allow pupils to do it who will pass?
That in a year group of 140 the number of students doing music etc will be about 5-10 and again these are students who will have a talent and take gcse because they'll get a good grade?

Am I also right in thinking the % of those passing both maths and English above a grade 4 must be 55% or less and so that's only about 75 pupils?

There's kid about how they offer over 20 different subjects but their core subjects don't appear to me to be good?

Other local schools have announced between 71 and 79% pass rate for both which I know is very good.

It is so very tricky to assess data I think.
Unfortunately [I think] headline figures taken as reflection of how good a school is when not always. Cohorts can be less/ more able, less/ more advantaged, high % new to country/ language, high SEN- you get the picture.
A small low ability cohort [for example] and a school can look crap. Doesn't mean it is. A school with loads of 8/9 and A*s may have 'easier' cohort'.
Not being helpful I know!!

Any input and different viewpoint is useful!

They had ofsted a few months ago so I'll have a look as that reports Sen and PP etc I think?

Schools write their own headlines at this time of year so take it all with a pinch of salt. They will pick out the stats that put them in the best light and the information is not comparable.

For example, how many got higher grades in anything? I think the 100% was the A-G rate. Not A-C. I would ideally want to see a breakdown of subjects and grades. Definitely A* and A grades because these matter for A level study. If pupils get mostly 4/5 and B/C they won't get many to good universities down the line. However, those results could indicate stellar progress.

The other information that is important is the progress information from last year's exams. This year will not have been calculated yet but this figure (if it's a plus) indicates pupils making progress.

When choosing a school, exam results are not everything because the school may be stuffed full of bright middle class children who are a small minority in another school. I would therefore only compare official results and not school propaganda!

Thankyou - that's what I was thinking. It's very much propaganda but the results didn't look worth selling.
70 pupils will have to retake maths from this year 11 group. I compared it to other local schools who have 200-280 per year to see if it was comparable with change of exam iyswim?

I know last year their progress 8 put them above national average which the other schools were national average - yet the results of other schools seem similar to previous years but this school has always had poor results - had a new HT who put exclusions above national average but got good results and now there's another new HT and results appear to have plummeted again. I suspect lack of exclusions may play a part!

From looking at info they have lower than NA EAL, slightly higher PP and lower SEN. It also states there is an issue with PP pupils and attendance. But I doubt that's enough to account for 45% not achieving pass in maths?

It's definitely food for thought - and certainly at open evenings etc I guess it's ok to ask what their plans are to improve maths pass rate?

Like you I think it is very difficult to unpick results. The main key is how children develop i.e. How they develop from yr 7 to yr 11.eg my son goes to a school with a highly academic entrance exam.... of course they get good results!

Yes developing is a good point.

I guess the progress 8 score will tell me that? Doesn't that indicate how much progress that year group has made since KS2? So I can see if it was a particularly bad year cohort wise.

Afaik, progress 8 just measures progress but doesn't tell you the starting point, lower GCSE's results compared to previous years will tell you if it was a 'bad' year.
Could be wrong.

You haven't mentioned the profile of their cohort. If it's stuffed with low attainers at KS2 you'd expect a low headline pass rate. Their progress figure suggests they're doing ok with what they've got.

www.compare-school-performance.service.gov.uk

Scroll down and look for progress by prior attainment.

Also, low attainers may make progress more slowly. How schools are 'judged' makes me sigh.
Judgement [both ofsted and parental] on schools with 'easier' cohorts less harsh and thus the virtuous circle for those continues....

I did look at GCSE results when picking a secondary school.

It's a tough one. There is a similar school near me - it is the "last choice school" in the area and is under-subscribed, hence any child arriving with no English or having been excluded from another achool show good progress but poor absolute results.
If that doesn't apply here, I'd say this was a poor set of results. 71% scrapping a pass in English means nearly 30% failed which is very tough on the child.

So the 'last choice' school sounds like an excellent school but will struggle against more easily attained bottom line schools.
Very sad.

Progress 8 tells you whether their students made more or less progress compared to other kids with the same prior attainment nationally, you can look at the breakdown by high, middle, and low achievers too. This year's progress 8 hasn't been calculated yet so schools are publishing what they have, which is headline figures. We're just putting something quite bland on our website about headline figures, 9-4 and A-C, 9-7 and A-A and grade 9s. What was their progress 8 last year?

Progress 8 compares low attainers to other low attainers, in that sense it's better than the old value added measures although it does still favour academically selective schools. It treats all high attainers as the same but the cohort of kids in the high attainment band who passed the eleven plus is not the same as the cohort in the high attainment band who failed it. Likewise Middle and low attainers who passed it are likely to be quite different to Middle and low attainers who failed.

DriftingDreamer - exactly.

71% scrapping a pass in English means nearly 30% failed which is very tough on the child. Isn't the national pass rate around 66% for GCSEs? This would put them as very slightly above average.

Depends on child that 'failed'/ did not get C or equiv. If has special needs, complex background, new to English- below C maybe brilliant.
Headline figures give no context....

As French Toast said they are doing better than average and the number of kids failing is set nationally anyway according to comparable outcomes. If students had all nationally performed 20% better in the final exams the same number still would have failed. It's tough on them, yes, but the whole system has been set up so that roughly 2/3 of kids pass and 1/3 fail regardless of the quality of work they produce in the exams. There isn't a set, objective standard for a pass that all schools could meet for all students. If the kids perform better the bar just raises higher.

There isn't a set, objective standard for a pass that all schools could meet for all students. But that does sound appealing!

Sorry French, I realise I got you name wrong. I don't necessarily have a problem with the system as it is but it Hi k it's important that people realise that schools don't have the power to make more children pass. Even if schools improve the pass rate won't change significantly.

Look at the Level 2+ data which Is pass in Maths English and three GCSEs. Last year we were 61% but this year we were 46%. So a terrible drop but there was nothing else we could do for them bar sit the exams for them! Sometimes you can teach your heart out, do revival. Classes after school and in the holidays but of the pupils don't engage, there is nothing you can do.

You're lucky to be in a position to have so many high attaining schools to choose from.

I didn't look that closely, I guess. So many other factors to consider.

I do have a problem with the system - my dcs will pass, so I'm not concerned about their outcomes. But I think that most employers feel a GCSE pass is a set standard - my feeling is that they'd be horrified that a pass could be achieved by getting 17% of an exam correct.

Maybe, but why should children be given fail grades when this is not their fault. Government policy failed, not children.

They aren't doing better than average.

We know only 55% passed maths.
70 something passed English.

They haven't publish what percentage passed both like other local schools.

Very mixed cohort as takes from a wide area. It's always very undersubscribed because the 4 local primary schools have 1 form entry, 1.5 form entry, 2 form entry (but high number of forces kids so move about or go private/boarding and also some of those in catchment for better secondary) and catholic primary where most kids go to catholic secondary which runs bus route via our town.

Previously they've published very good results and I've kind of glanced at them iyswim? But this years has a bigger pitch about how proud they are but I was looking and thinking they looked bad! So I've looked back over previous years and at figures rather than blurb iyswim?

Last years progress 8 was 0.3