What are STATE schools in London like?

[TeenTimesTwo]

I've been reading with mild interest the issue of exploding offers for CLGS.

But it made me wonder. From what I see in media (TV news, and papers), I have the impression that state schools in London have made great steps forward over the past 10-15 years and are now considered very good.

Is that true? Not just for schools with convoluted admissions criteria (like Grey Coats?) but on average for your ordinary run of the mill local secondary?

If so, why so much angst over applying to so many private schools? And the willingness to set up your 11 year olds for such long commutes? Is the education really so much better? Or is it 'snob value' or fear of the unknown, or 'because that's what my social circle does' or old reputations?

Talkinpeace - that list doesn’t contain all private schools, i guess it doesn’t have igcse ones (my dc school gets 0 for maths/English above grade 5)

Just rechecked. They plan to publish in March. Almost all schools in top 100 will have 98%+ by those measures, which aren't very useful.

And A*/A were still awarded in most subjects in 2017. For the ones that weren't they use 7-9.

So the methodology of the DFE tables is dire .....
What is the methodology of the Evening Standard article that you all trust so implicitly ?

I don't trust the methodology of the ES article, and there are some very strange omissions (Henrietta Barnett?). However the Sunday Times guide has far-reaching methodology and full data sets and is entirely trustworthy IF you're just judging a school on exam results.

There are problems to doing this, but it's still worth noting there are 32 Greater London independents before you get to the first West Yorkshire one. That's not explained by a 4x population difference, so what's going wrong up there?

My impression is that many news organisations assemble school data and manipulate it.

Some invite specific schools to submit data.

Some only includer schools who submit data.

Many compare apples with pears because they do not compare like qualifications.

Almost all compare apples with pears because the starting points of their pupils is so different - is a school that takes children who are below average and get them above average results better, or worse, than a school that takes excellent pupils and gets them excellent results?

Schools tend to quote the statistics that make them look best.

However the Sunday Times guide has far-reaching methodology and full data sets and is entirely trustworthy
So you have a link to their data set?

The last ES Top Schools list I saw was in the property section, advising you where to buy to get into these so-called ‘Top Schools’. And then proceeded to list a load of super-selectives for which distance is not a factor.

I would like to see ‘happiness and wellbeing’ data added to school league tables.

% of students with eating disorders, self harming, number of complaints made about bullying.

Numbers of kids studying a subject against number entered for exam.

Numbers of kids who leave, and a reason.

Progress 8 is a start at looking at education beyond exam results that simply reflect intake, but whatever type of school, parents need to see beyond their competitive insistence on the league table exam results.

It's paywalled. The 2017 guide was printed last year. Search hard enough and you'll find screenshots of the headline and/or regional tables, but it uses all GCSE and A Level results of all schools nationwide.

As has been correctly pointed out, it doesn't consider Progress 8 or similar, so some might find there are better ways of measuring good schools, but for pure results it's the best available.

Data i dont have, however i spent last year visiting schools, asking parents already ar schools their opinion, comparing offsted reports and poring over league tables.
I then took my list of schools and studied the entrance criteria and rearranged schools into those we were eligable for.
I then took the schools from that list where we were more likely to get an offer before deciding on the final 6.
Of the final 6, 2 had a clash of banding test so i disqualified my son from the school he was less likely to get an offer.

All children are differant so in a couple of years i will do it all over again....
So yes newspapers such as the times are a good jumping off point because secondry admission will FRY your brain!

it uses all GCSE and A Level results of all schools nationwide.
So the full Dfe tables then
(as EVERY school has its data in the spreadsheets - if they want to be a registered school)

Londonista,

Did you click on the 16-18 tab of the table Talkin linked to? It isn't confined to GCSE scores.

(I find the progress score interesting - it is the GCSE to A-level progress at that level.)

(Sorting by 'Grade and points for best 3 A-level results' seems a decent proxy for 'academic performance'. Interesting that some 'big names' have negative GCSE - A-level progress: Talkin, is there a particular statistical reason why this might happen, over and above just not making very good progress?)

cantkeep
i've not downloaded the spreadsheet this year
but in the past it was because the table has a really hard time working out progress in small cohorts and with non standard exams (like PreU and IB)

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks. A bit like Progress8 for small subgroups.

Well one year's results' snapshot won't give an accurate picture. If you search using A Level results (which I would think to be a 'sharper tool' for measuring the top schools), the 'top 10' list would be different again.

If my memory serves me correctly, St Philomena's (Catholic girls school in SW London) is usually one of the only non-selective (academically), really high ranking London state schools to appear in the nationwide 'Top 200' list (even outdoing Graveney).

The Times Parent Power tables does not have all schools as one poster claims above, DD’s state school elected not to be in it this year for example.

In no way can St Philomena’s be considered non-selective with a straight face. They do not select on distance but on Catholic observance.

And they have only 16 ‘low attainers’ per cohort against 85 middle and 86 ‘high’. Most / many schools have roughly an equal level of low and high attainers and double the amount of ‘middle’.

League tables are a statistical confection.

If I wanted to know which schools achieved the academically best results alone, I wouldn't look at tables that measured 5A-C but those that measured A\A. These identify the academic power houses. Tables which show - school has high 5 A-C can represent schools where most of those grades are Cs and where many of those people may have cpactually failed to get a C in several subjects, the measure of 5 A_C is not a measure of academic excellence but a measure of how many achieve a perceived MINIMUM standard required for success at the next stage - a qualifying measure if you like, not a sign of excellence. It is disingenuous to use that as a measure of academically successful schools.

In terms of which tables show a measure of academic success purely on results I think The TImes is the best. No table is without flaws in its data gathering or presentation. However any table which excludes igcses so presents those schools that do it as having 0 children passing English or Maths or whatever, when often those schools have over 90% gaining A*\A in that harder qualification, is not representing the real academic success of that school and anyone who uses those tables to therefore suggest that those schools are not academically successful are disingenuous.

In the end, it is very hard to argue that in terms of raw academic results, independent schools and grammars in the south east are performing better than Comorehensives and schools further north.

If you want to look at other measures such as progress or value added - fine. Lots of people are rightly interested in that stuff. But it's not the same as measuring raw academic achievement and seeing which schools deliver the most academic results.

I wouldn't look at tables that measured 5A-C but those that measured A\A. These identify the academic power houses.
No
They identify selective schools
therefore they tell you a lot about what sort of kids have been allowed to sit the exams
but NOT about the actual teaching / value added

I think The TImes is the best
But they are either using the DfE tables
or fiddling the figures
there are no other options

ChocolateWombat, how on Earth would a comp with a representative number of middle and low attainers get the same raw scores as a highly selective Grammar or independent?

How does anyone know that the standard of education is better or whether the results simply reflect intake?

How do you know that My top set Grade 9 / A* /A kid’s education in a comp is less good than the same ability cohort in a Grammar?

in terms of raw academic results, independent schools and grammars in the south east are performing better than Comorehensives and schools further north.

It depends what you mean by 'raw academic results', surely>?

Any intelligent person would mean 'performing better' to mean 'getting better results FOR CHILDREN OF EXACTLY MATCHED ABILITY AND BACKGROUNDS' - not simply 'having a higher percentage of children who start off with higher ability and unsurprisingly get better results'?

[As an aside, my DD started a sentence the other day, a propos of selective schools in London 'Better schools....' and instantly corrected it to 'Schools that require higher marks to get into....'. If a young teenager can understand it, surely it's not THAT hard for adults?]

I totally accept that Comps won't get those highest levels of A*\A - of course not, without a selective intake. And I agree that what those results show is just how selective their intakes are.

But that's what some people are looking for. They want their child to get into a school like that because it is a sign their child is very clever and means their child will be educated with other children if a similar ability and will probably get a great set of results. IF that is the kind of school you want to identify (and many do) then looking at A\A not 5 A-C is probably going to highlight the schools you are interested in more. And hthe se are the schools which in terms of raw results deliver the highest grades. They may well not be the best educators, but they do deliver the best grades in raw terms per pupil in the school.And I know that state grammars aren't everywhere and not all people want to or can pay fees.

I think I made this point because it was clear that people are looking for different things from results tables. Some people want to know what I mentioned above. Others want to know if a school adds value for low or middle or high ability children. Other tables than just grades will show this - the Dfe tables will be good for this. And for most people who don't have a selective state or independent option available, these will be useful in giving an indication of how well a school caters for children in your child's ability range. You could say that is what all parents should be interested in and the only thing if value in indicating if a school can deliver progress and meet children's needs. Fair enough. In reality though, many are interested in raw results at the top end where the A/A tables are seen as helpful. I agree that a top position there doesn't show that the school and the teachers there are top and best and better than all other schools below by all measures - just in terms of generating A*\A grades. I guess if your child is very clever and those grades a possibility, then that stuff is of interest.

It maybe that parents shouldn't be interested in finding schools that just have high ability cohorts similar to their child's ability, or just middle class children, similar to their child......that they should be more interested in whether a school can meet the academic needs of all abilities or the ability type of their child........however, I think the reality is that many parents aren't just interested in that. They know that in schools with broader intakes, their children will have some lessons with the full ability range and the full social mix - and they conclude that this is more likely to result in levels of disruption in class and that is what they want to avoid and in their minds, these league tables are some kind of measure of that too. Yes, good schools should be able to manage disruptive behaviour which might come from any ability or social group. However, isn't it a reality that where there aresifnificantly broader mixes of ability and social mix, these issues are more challenging and even good schools sometimes have difficulties, which others with a less broad mix simply won't have. I realise that these things are often not spoken aloud as reasons for looking at certain types of league table or preferring certain schools or types.....but I think I'm just trying to be honest about how parents' minds work a lot of the time. The thinking might not be accurate, but it is very much part of people's thinking in looking at schools.

Chocolate Wombat,

I would entirely agree that for a very, very large proportion of people who buy education - either through private education or through coaching for 11+ - academic selection is used as an 'acceptable' proxy measure for social selection.

It is acceptable to say 'I buy education because I want my children to be educated with like-ability peers'.

It is less acceptable - though tbh probably often the driving motivation - to say 'I buy education because I want to move my children away from people-not-like-us'

ChocolateWombat
But you are still missing the point about state schools
as has been said many, many times up thread and on multiple threads passim ad nauseam
most parents have no real choice about secondary schools
they go to their local one
or to whichever one they can get into after selection has distorted the market

Parents want EVERY SCHOOL TO PROVIDE A DECENT EDUCATION
London gets more money than any other part of the country to achieve that
and yet many Londoners refuse to recognise how lucky they are

If all schools were properly funded then League tables even of the dodgy Newspaper variety would become less relevant.