How to interpret gov stats comparing secondary schools? Attainment, avg point scores, etc

[ParentOfOne]

Can you please help me understand how to interpret the government stats at
https://www.compare-school-performance.service.gov.uk/
to compare secondary schools?

• Progress 8 score: this is a measure of how much kids improve, right? So a fully or partially selective school may well show a lower score than a comp in a deprived area, simply because their kids started from a higher level?
• Entering Ebacc: there is a school with only 20%. What does it mean? That 80% of their students don't do the GCSE at all? That 80% drop out?
• Attainment 8: These are measures of how well kids do at the GCSEs? But what are the differences between "attainment 8", "grade 5 or above" and "Ebacc avg point score"? The last one can probably be skewed by schools promoting 'easier' subjects, but is "grade 5 or above" the % of kids who pass their GCSE in English and maths? I see schools with 30% here, and that sounds worrying.

Is it fair to say that for an academic child attainment scores are more important than progress, and viceversa for a less academic child?

But maybe non-selective schools which use seats or streams can have low overall results while still having sets or streams of highly performing pupils?

For context, we already know which schools are our top priority, but we would probably want to choose a safe option as 6th choice, just in case we can't get into any of the other 5. State schools only. So this is basically about choosing the "least worst" among schools which are either undersubscribed or less oversubscribed than most (which is typically for a reason).

Of course, I understand that metrics can be distorted.
School can push up their results by offrolling disruptive students, by limiting their GCSE options, by being partially selective with specialism tests, etc, so everything has to be taken with a truckload of salt.

Thanks!

Entering EBacc is easy to cover.

Some schools force (almost) everyone to do the subjects to meet EBacc, so as well as maths, science and English also one of History/Geography AND a foreign language (plus other things).

Other schools don't mandate this and let kids have ore choice outside of the core maths science & English.

Otherwise, you can filter on previous attainment for Progress and Attainment 8.

Are English, maths and science the only compulsory subjects at GCSE?

So "entering Ebacc" < 100% means that some students did English, maths and science (which are compulsory) but not a language and either history or geography (which are the other subjects required for Ebacc)?

Do you interpret a low "Entering Ebacc" as a sign that most children are not very academic?

By contrast, is it fair to say that a low "Entering Ebacc" but high attainment scores could simply mean that most students did well because they chose easier subjects?

Progress 8 is the "value added" score which is calculated for each child, and then averaged for that cohort, with a margin for "confidence" (error, really) adjusted for demographics (other posters have explained it better than I on other threads! It is imo the most valuable metric as it shows you how well particular kids have achieved at this specific school compared to how they would have been expected to perform, nationally. Selective schools etc can also get excellent progress 8 so don't believe the hype that some posters claim that the only good p8 scores are in "poor" schools.
In reality, P8 can vary from year to year, it can also hide some questionable curriculum choices, and as long as it isn't consistently negative I wouldn't worry too much. It is worth looking by demographic though ie a school with an excellent P8 may in fact not have a good p8 for prior-high-attauining or low attaining or disabled children etc.

Entering Ebacc is how many specifically did maths, english, science, a language and history/geography. Brought in by the last government but in itself doesn't mean much. At best it's a soft marker for "we want to attract middle class parents".

Attainment 8 is the ave score across specific GCSEs, I can't remember which and I think it includes double weighting for maths and english but you can check on the compareschoolperformace site.

For my children, who are a mix of academic, competitive, sensitive and neurodiverse, I am looking for a good or ok P8 for all groups (especially high attainers but also all other groups as I believe that indicates an inclusive and ambitious school. Attainment 8 part of the picture but not a huge part.

Our school does not stream kids except for maths yet has a stronger p8 and attainment 8 than other local schools which do. It does have q good ebacc but that's partly because it's a larger school with more language provision.

I agree with this. Look at the P8 for different levels of attainment, girls/boys, FSM. If P8 is positive across the board it suggests to me that the school has a culture of high expectations for everyone and good teachers.

Progress is important because it gives you more of an indication of what the school is doing, as opposed to the raw results which are heavily impacted by demographics/selection.

I think the most important thing is to look the stats for the different levels of attainment, particular with regards to the level that your child fits in (picking a school that is great for low acheivers but poor for high achievers is a great decision if your child is a low achiever, but not so good for a high achiever).

I would ignore Ebacc. Some schools require all students to select the Ebacc subjects so will have high levels. My DC's school adopts the approach that students who are weak in English on entry in Year 7, have extra English lessons (on the basis that a basic level of ability in English is key to every other subject) and don't take an MFL at all. And it makes doesn't make an MFL mandatory at GCSE, even amongst those that take one, as it recognises that some students prefer to make different choices. Whether you think that is a good position or a bad one may vary, but it explains why the school has a lower ebacc score.

I think it's also important to factor in context. Were most of the DC at a primary school that is well known for being a SATS factory in Year6? Did lots of them have coaching for the 11+ (i.e. it is possible that Y7 entry levels may have been inflated compared to other students).

Thank you all for your answers.
Can you help me understand how to filter by subgroup, with a practical example, e.g. this school here (undersubscribed)
https://www.compare-school-performance.service.gov.uk/school/135762/saint-john-bosco-college/secondary

On attainment, I see that I can go to:

• Ebacc additional measures - achievement by subject group and see how many achieve English at grade 5 or above, maths at grade 5 or above, etc. 37% for maths isn't great - our favourite schools have > 70%
• value added by subject group
• progress 8 and attainment 8 scores by subject

Based on this, my interpretation would be that:

• progress is average, with a confidence interval including zero (ie the data is inconclusive on whether there is progress or not)
• ca 2/3 not achieving a passing grade in maths is really bad
• value added is low in science and humanities, but the average is brought up by higher figures for languages

On your link, scroll down to the filters and click "results by pupil characteristics" which brings up additional sub categories such as prior attainment, girls v boys etc

Not going to get too far into the P8 etc as others have done.

But on this one; yes those are the compulsories across all schools (pretty much). Some schools insist on one out of hist/geog/CS/MFL; others insist on hist or geog plus MFL for the ebacc measure. Tbh tho it’s bobbins; some DC don’t like those subjects (especially MFL, my subject, sadly) and taking them will not help anyone. Lots of DS2's mates got 2 in spanish or German, sat under protest, amid their much better other grades.

A low % entering ebacc obviously shows that the school does not insist on it (a good thing IMHO) and in addition that for whatever reason, lots of DC don't choose those subjects. There could be lots of reasons; MFL or hums are taught badly in that school (obvs a concern); the cohort has chosen more practical subjects (eg bc those teachers are great!); students had very few choices eg only 8 GCSEs altogether and didn't want to use them up on MFL/humanity.

I really want to challenge btw the easy/hard subjects narrative; there are subjects that some find easier and some harder – maths is an obvious one but I found art impossible and lots of DC love it; for me MFL was easy (obvs) but plenty disagree; DD enjoyed geog and I found it dull and difficult - and so on.

Anyway lots of good advice for you here @ParentOfOne - good luck with the pref form.

Remember that there won't be any P8 scores for the next two years as the current Y11 and Y10 cohorts never took SATS.

EBacc - a school with a very high score taking it is one that is inflexible and forces children to take subjects they either don't want to or would be better off not taking.

Attainment 8 - this one is important, along with the GCSE 5+ incl English and Maths scores.

Mainly you want to see how they would suit YOUR child. So work out if they are high, middle or lower and see what the stats are like for that group.

Discipline - I can't cope with draconian and needed somewhere sensible so ditched a lot of schools based on their policies. I also wanted flexibility and a 'Can Do' attitude from staff, not one size fits all.

Extra curricular and wide curriculum - very important for me, some schools eg, Michaela, have the smallest subject offer imaginable. Others have 30+ GCSE options.

I looked at so many schools in Y5/6 I reckoned I could work for the Good Schools Guide.

The most important thing was the school visit - I saw the short list ones at least twice.

Data was useful, mumsnet was very useful.

A GCSE pass mark is a 4, not a 5 - so the proportion passing is higher than you've stated.

Look at the more detailed characteristics data - at cursory glance for the school you've linked I would note that this is a comparatively small school - it looks like 135 in the year group, so each individual child is almost a % point in the results.

The school has a small number of high achievers (15) which will reflect in the poorer results. They also have a very high population of children with EAL, although it looks like these children outperform those with English as a first language. An unusual statistic is that more of the lower achievers are entered for EBacc than higher achievers.

You can also download the whole set of data by LEA (which you might find more interesting since you are comparing.

Thank you for starting this thread OP.

I posted recently about Harris Westminster, which is a highly regarded, academically selective state-funded sixth form college that my DC is considering.
A poster helpfully linked its progress 8, which is -0.17 (below average). Not sure what to make of it! Does it mean the pupils are, on average, not meeting their potential?

@Boredofthe11plus I see that Harris Westminster is 6th form only, and that it has specific criteria so that ca half of the intake will have been in receipt of free school meals.

I have been looking at secondary schools for the 11-16 year range, you would look at the last 2 years only.

It's a bit of a different beast because most 6th forms are by definition selective: even if you don't change school, your school will typically not let you do an A level in a subject where you did poorly at GCSE.

I am honestly not sure what metrics to focus on for 6th form.
I see that the % of AAB isn't bad, 48% but, as you say, progress isn't great.

There is also a breakdown by what they call "disadvantaged students".

Maybe it's a tale of two cities where the group in receipt of free school meals doesn't do that well, and the good results are driven by the other group? I don't know

Thank you for taking the time to reply @ParentOfOne - it’s a minefield!
Good luck with your school choices and allocation!

@ParentOfOne there is a link to some guidance on the website that might help you: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/school-and-college-performance-measures

One data point that stood out... 63/135 pupils are disadvantaged. That is a very high percentage, which could explain why other results are low.

Also girls are significantly outperforming boys.

Is this in reference to Harris Westminster? I think 50% of their intake is from disadvantaged backgrounds (receipt of FSM)

No from the OPs school.

Progress 8 is a bit of a red herring because it depends how good or bad the primaries are. The last school I worked in did well on progress 8 because the primaries made poor progress, I suspect they were busy doing the parenting in a very deprived area, many kids arrived and weren't secondary ready. Currently school is selective and so it takes the top end. Much harder to make progress on already high achieving kids, but results are generally excellent. You need to look at the information in context.

Yes. To take a step back, we have a pretty good view of which schools we like,
We are thinking that we should probably get a safe choice as 6th option.
In other words, if we don't get any of our options, then the council will choose for us.

If we put a safe option as last choice, we can decide.

But, understandably, these last schools are undersubscribed and they are so for a reason.

So it's basically about choosing the least worst option among these

The school you looked at has very high EAL. If those pupils take a home language GCSE then that will boost the progress score for languages but getting high grades in other subjects may be harder.
Echo another PP to look at the range of subjects taken at GCSE although can change over time. Some schools make RS compulsory.
Also consider whether there is high pupil mobility.

“It does have q good ebacc but that's partly because it's a larger school with more language provision.”

Definitely think this is a factor. My son is taking Latin GCSE (he goes to a comprehensive but they have a classics department) and that counts towards ebacc, which surprised me. The school encourages (literally they just say - please consider doing this mix of subjects) but absolutely does not enforce ebacc but they have a good range of language options so it’s surely more likely that pupils will get ebacc than if they only offered French and German.

By contrast, is it fair to say that a low "Entering Ebacc" but high attainment scores could simply mean that most students did well because they chose easier subjects?

I don't think this follows at all. A lot of pupils drop the language but pick something equally as hard to replace them, they have just not seen the point of language to gcse level.