The Times School Rankings

[Ivybound]

Does anybody think that The Times' ranking of the schools maybe does not treat the IB in a truly comparable way to A-levels? Just looking at how G&L and NLCS see such a precipitous drop in going from their GCSE ranks to A-level ranks. 1 to 19 for NLCS and 5 to 25 for G&L. Yes, I know some top students might leave the school for sixth form, but still it seems like a very large drop which you do not see at other schools like City Girls, Guildford High, or JAGS for example

have you looked at the gov site?

@curchy and @Bunnycat101

I can't comment on any of the schools
at the top of the list except for one: Guildford High.

Whilst obviously it is a very academic school, it absolutely values breadth of education too. That was something that attracted us, and I presume many other parents.

A high proportion of the girls take part in extracurricular music, drama and sport, and standards are very high.

It was named 3rd best sporting school in 2022 (behind Millfield and Putney High).

I don't suppose there are any league tables for music and drama but there are several orchestras/bands and choirs in order to cater for all abilities, and I would be surprised if many non-specialist schools had better musical ensembles than the best ones at GHS.

The school also organise a range of other extra-curricular activities such as the Duke of Edinburgh Scheme, Model United Nations and Young Enterprise.

No doubt the range of activities is not as wide as would be on offer in the big public schools, but I'd say it was pretty impressive.

I'm not sayimg the schools at the top don't have good sport/arts, I'm just saying that the balance of focus is probably very slightly more towards academic success than at some of the big boarding schools, and that the balance some parents are looking for is very slightly different. I can imagine a child getting into a big boarding school who has a huge amount to offer in (for example) sport and general personal qualities, for example, who's still very able, but who wouldn't quite make it into one of the top day schools on exam results. And I doubt that that pupil getting a 6 along with their 8s and 9s would be seen as a great cause for concern, if they'd generally had a very successful time at the school. (I'm absolutely not talking about the stereotype 'rich but not very bright' child - if Eton for example is 34th in the league table, it's hardly slouching academically).

(And I'm not trying to suggest that getting a 6 means you're not academically successful!! I'm just trying to say that you only need a very small difference in emphasis to make the difference between 15 and 35 in the rankings.)

These lists are self-congratulatory nonsense. The top indie schools select the most able at entrance so it is not surprising they achieve top results. I also know many of these schools purposefully do not allow students to sit exams they might achieve a lower than stellar result in or make them sit it as an external applicant which means they don't show up in the school's results. Students who don't cut it in L6th are told to resit the year or go elsewhere.
As a parent I chose a school where the children appeared happy and confident, the pastoral care was good, the extra curriculars were extensive and there were a range of results, many as high as the top schools . I did not choose the local school that is close to top of the table where students are constantly made to feel failures if they don't achieve 9s and A-stars and this extends to extra curriculars where many are invitation only.

This is how it is calculated. It means that lower attainers will impact the ranking (even if they made stellar progress from their starting points).

The ranking gives more weight to the percentage of students who get A or B grades in A level, so Wilsons CCC’s policy of allowing resits helps to eliminate the lower performers and improve its position on the table. However, if you examine it more closely, its percentage of A grades is not as high as QE or KCS St Paul Westminster Highgate etc. All these schools have strict admission criteria (like QE boys’ absurd rule to restrict students’ choices of A level subjects) or they focus more on getting more A grades than a few B grades, students who took 4 or more can drop those for University Application.

At NLCS and other independents I know you need a certain level of attainment at GCSE in order to take the A level. At NLCS it’s an 8, some others I know it’s a 7 - I know of one family at a girls school in St Albans who weren’t offered a levels of their choice because of their attainment. Still this information is all available before the 11 plus and at the super selective independents / grammars - the kids are able to get the gcse grades needed. At NLCS the A was 39% 77 A/ A and 25% take IB and were awarded top marks. A school is personal experience and doesn’t suit all.

I was amazed that Wilson's had class sizes of 16 apparently. Not sure how they manage that as a state school, albeit a selective one. DD1 goes to one of the London selectives and they have 32 in a class. I thought all grammar schools were struggling for funding.

I'm not sure there is a correlation between league tables and eating disorders. Surely this kind of thing happens everywhere, not necessarily a higher percentage at higher performing schools. Anyway I haven't seen any statistical evidence to suggest this.

@Stokey To clarify that the 16 per class at Wilson's does not apply to all year groups or lessons. My son is in Y7 and there are 32 pupils per form. Also to say that I agree we shouldn't accept as fact the claims of a link between a school's academic performance and eating disorders. I'm not saying there isn't some form of correlation (I don't know) but we can't make generalisations based on anecdotes. I suspect there is more complexity to this topic. At Wilson's for example, there is great emphasis on music and sport (and lots of other activities also benefiting mental health) and they also have a pupil wellbeing team/scheme. What is true of course is that a child is more likely to flourish and be healthy if they are in a school that suits their own personality and strengths. Some children do better when challenged, others can't cope with pressure, etc. League tables only tell a small part of the story.

The Top 40-50 independents are very selective on entry so of course they churn out top results.
The London superselective grammars are even harder to get into with largely pushy parents who have huge aspirations for their children, just like the top independents. Lots of those kids are also very talented at extra curricular. If you have an academically gifted child often they also have other talents and need that outlet, especially at primary level (which can be boring for them).

Teaching in the state sector is sometimes better because there is more regulation. Private school teachers have more freedom, typically. Top private school teachers as a group tend to be posher/more middle class, many went to Oxford or Cambridge and private school themselves. It does not always make them better at teaching to the test though. Lots of private school teachers in top boarding schools get perks like free housing and free food etc. - it is a whole bubble lifestyle with strong friendships amongst them. State school teachers do not get free housing.

Most of these schools are great with gifted students and dedicated teachers and well run and most there work incredibly hard, state and private.
An average lazy kid isn’t going to get into any of these schools and become an academic high flier. Not really sure what the point is of these league tables other than to prove they all work hard. It is the same as league tables in industry. We all know where it is hardest to get a job and where they work hard and earn lots of money.

Wilson’s is interesting - they now do 14 free school meal places, 9 music and 9 sports places. They keep most of the boys and do not take girls into the Sixth Form. So if they select mostly at 10 and keep almost everyone they are clearly doing an amazing job.

Thanks for clarifying @TimeRider. I was wondering whether that was either some less popular subjects at GCSE or smaller A level groups. For example DD1 is going to choose drama and it's not very popular as an option at her school because it's not academic so it is likely to be a smaller class size.

Her school, Latymer, has also got a strong emphasis on outside activities particularly music.

@Araminta1003 I think in most of the grammar schools people tend to stay? At Latymer, they only leave to do a wider range of subjects like psychology etc.

@Stokey - I think there is more movement in some of the Outer London ones. Especially at Sixth Form, places likes St Olave’s where it is mixed in the Sixth Form cream off a lot of high performing girls. Or some of the superselectives in Kent that are accessible from London Bridge, some do IB, some do A levels which means kids move.
I would prefer it if they all went co-ed in the Sixth Form, at least. I think Tiffin boys takes girls into Sixth Form too and vice versa.
However, Wilson’s clearly does “all boys” incredibly successfully. I just think maybe it is better prep for uni if they mix in the Sixth Form. I would be quite worried to not let my boys mix especially if they are aiming for Computer Science/Maths degrees as well.

Tiffins Girls does not take boys for sixth form (but tiffin boys takes quite a large number of girls). Girls do leave and new girls join for sixth form - not sure of the numbers but I’d guess around 40/180.

Please remember that from the 100 girls taking alevels 25% took IB and obtained top marks in the country. If you add the Astar a level with the 25% top IB marks the percentage is much higher