How did your DCs school do in the GCSE tables?

[LadyGlencoraPalliser]

DD1's got a crummy 38% on the 5A-Cs including English and Maths.
This pisses me off for several reasons.
Results have been declining for several years and this is the first time the figure has dipped under 40%.
The school is utterly complacent about its results and doesn't see them as a problem - they explain them by pointing to the supposedly difficult intake.
This is entirely disingenous - there is only one local primary among their feeder schools that could be said to have a lower than average SATs score and they account for only 10% of the intake. Many of the primary schools in the area, including the one my children attend, have very, very good results, well over the national average.
I do not understand why the school feels it is acceptable to fail its pupils in this way.

We are 13th (top 4 were Ind girls schools)in the county with 65% ( including English and Maths) but actually gor 89% overall. More useful by far is the CVA - we were 5th with a score of 1008. Ofsted have also just classed us as outstanding in all areas - but then again what do they know about teaching

Can I just ask the MN collective for their opinion on something?

I have just had a quasi argument with my lovely neighbours about our local school. They say that the presence of the grammar schools in the area means of course the results will be lower.

I pointed out that there is one grammar school, with an intake of 115, vs 27 state schools, in Devon. They mostly have roughly the same size year groups- 120-150.

Our local school got 40% grades A*-C, for a value added of 987.5. I think that's pretty rubbish for a school that is supposedly one of the top performers around here, and that actually by value added alone, it is doing worse than a school in town that is in special measures but still achieved 31% (CVA 1009).

Can I just check that 40% for a VA of 987 is not all that brilliant on a country wide basis?

87% at the school dd will go to in 7 years time. Obviously, it can all go tits up by then

duchesse, it doesn't sound great, but then again it's better than our local schools.

I do agree that if the grammar school is taking its children roughly equally from across all 27 other schools it won't make much difference to any of them. If on the other hand most of the grammar children would have otherwise gone to just a very few of those schools (usually the leafy suburbs ones) then it will make a bigger difference to those schools.

With CVA, is it possible that because there is an 11+ that some children cram work hard for & fail, this could have a local effect that some children (enough to skew the figures) are scoring higher than their intellect might predict at 11 and so the secondary school's figures are depressed?

Generally, I'm not sure it's altogether fair to compare CVA of schools with different ability intakes, as ceiling effects etc mean that it is easier to get a good value add for some children than others (I know it's not supposed to, but it does), so if your special measures school has a different intake profile that could make a difference.

100% including English and Maths for DSs' school - but it is a selective independent, so I would be concerned if not, frankly.

Completely anecdotally, the children who fail to get into the grammar school tend to go to the higher-achieving schools if they can get in (catchment areas are diabolical around here), or into the independent sector. I don't know of any grammar school 11+ "failure" who has gone to their local comprehensive instead, but plenty in the local independent sector.

Also the grammar in question is the first in the league tables nationally, and attracts applicants from all over the country. The children who are successful then move into the area for their secondary schooling. This means that fewer still of the pupils there are likely to be removed from the local system. The grammar school itself has a catchment circle of 50 miles, extending into the neighbouring county.

DC's school got 70% which was best in the City. However down 8% from last year, but it's consistently good so no worries.

Duchesse, I must live in the same area. It's not just the grammars (there are several, children are bussed out eastwards from here to the grammar you talk about, and they also go by train westwards to the Torquay grammars).

The area has at least double the national average of children in independent schools too, that makes a difference to the stats. And it has one or two church schools creaming off more of the middle classes.

hence the lack of high-performing comps in the area, in overall grade terms.

Also, the value-added scores are going to be totally independent of the overall scores, that's the point of them. And you'd expect a school in special measures to start improving fast, it'll be having a lot of changes to ensure this.

ltjkk dds school is excellent 98% bit friendship wise she got in with an awful group

i agree that this can be of paramount importance

Fennel i did once go and look round the school to which you refer.. LOVED it

supremly impressed all round although if i remember correctly there was some issue with dual award science dp and I felt they were 'number crunching' to maintain their position

LOVELY LOVELY though

co ed is the deal maker there i think

Oddly - looked round torquay boys and girls at the same time and LOVED the girls - on a otally different level it warmed my heart

the boys was not so impressive - only my personal view on one day though

Fennel, yes indeed. I must confess that mine go to independent schools, having failed to get into that grammar (which is a biiig shame).

We are too far from any of the grammars for the journey to be viable. Anyway we are keen on children going to their local comp. But I do think the local comps round here really do suffer mainly from the middle class flight from them. I know so many people who won't send their children to them, that's why all the local comps are doing very well on the value added scores but are unimpressive on overall scores.

(the one my dds are likely to go to is 4th in the county for value added this year, which does suggest it's doing something right).

"Can I just ask the MN collective for their opinion on something? Can I just check that 40% for a VA of 987 is not all that brilliant on a country wide basis?"

Have you looked at the DCSF statistics, instead of the BBC table. This shows details for particular schools, the whole LEA and the national average for GCSE and CVA. (Sorry if I got the wrong region: I'm sure that you can find the right one.)

I agree that your stats don't look brilliant but don't forget that they are only an overall average. What you really want to know is what happens at your school to pupils like your DC ?you make have the crappest school in the country but if they can make your DC happy people with a string of A*, then who cares!?

you may have

Thank you for that link, senua. I'm the next county along! It was most informative- our local school still not looking that well. Below average % of SEN, below average truancy for county, well below average CVA. This area is not particularly run down or poor. There is a certain poverty of aspiration though, I think on both the children's and the teachers' side. I know some very bright children who have gone there, got Bs and As at GCSE, and left school straight afterwards for nothing (ie no further training or school). I know others whose parents feel that not enough was expected of them. I also know that they put a fair proportion of their year 10s, into GNVQs in Leisure and Tourism, which I personally think is an abomination, but counts for 4 or 5 GCSEs.

I'm not sure which your local school is Duchesse, though I get a vague idea. But even if the schools don't expect that much, there's loads of evidence that parental expectations are the main driver of children's expectations.

I do agree Senua, I am very confident that my children can acheive their potential at any school in the country (and we won't be encouraging any leisure and tourism GCSEs). But it would help if everyone around use was also sending their children to the local school instead of avoiding it like the plague.

Very well thank you

I tink 98% A and A* at GCSE never mind A - C! But at selective private schools, the better ones, that's as normal. The state system is different.

dd school 100% -state

Just seen this thread. As a teacher in an inner-city school in one of the most deprived areas of the country, knowing how hard myself and my colleagues work and considering that our CVA scores are very good, I have to say that League Tables stink.

But they do help parents who don't have much other information to know at which school they are likely to get AAA at A level and where even getting into the sixth form is unlikely. Obviously they just show the information but parents have a right to know it as they pay for the whole thing through their taxes. The only alternative would be to keep the results confidential and that just seems wrong to me.

I assessed schools my 5 go/went to in the private sector on all kinds of grounds but would start by wanting a school only in the top 20 in the country in state and private schools for A level results as a base line given I am lucky enough to have bright children. if the results were not available it would be harder. I could do it on the basis oif % of the sixth form getting to Oxbridge I suppose but even then I would need that information. And I could ask around which the poor find much harder to do without connections or knowledge thus I see league tables in the state sector as very fair and open and in the spirit of open Government. My all means haev tables showing GCSE results in cooking and studies type subjects and numbers keeping out of jail and all kinds of other thigns and numbs with an IQ of 90 at entry who get XYZ but preserve the raw figures too.

I agree that league tables are useful provided you interpret them intelligently.

I totally disagree with your first sentence Xenia - they cannot show you at which school your child is 'likely to get AAA' at A level. There are so many factors which will determine the grades your own child will get. I'm not really that interested in what other people's children get - so long as children are in a good school, then they should achieve their potential.

I also think more information should be added to league tables. I've said this before - it's not just the overall figures that count, but the actual classes your child is taught in. For example, in my ds's school, the overall 5 good GCSEs pass rate is usually around the 70% each year. However, in the top sets which he is taught in, at least 90% of the students will get A/A*. As these are the actual lessons he is in, surely it's a more accurate representation than the global school figure, given that the global figure will include all the children in bottom sets who aren't very bright?

It would be very interesting to see things like Oxbridge/Russell group success rate too. I know these things are accessible, but within the same tables would be good. I know our local state school, which has a slightly lower points score at A level than the local private, gets more into Oxbridge.

Finally, it would be useful to have fees listed for the private schools. It just gives a quick view of whether people are getting value for money. EG if the A level points score is, say 830 for the local state, and 860 for the private, and the fees are, say, £12000 per annum, is that points difference offering a good return on the money spent? One thing that strikes me is that the differences are often fairly small, particularly at A level, and I think parents are becoming increasingly canny at sussing out whether they get value for money.

One of the biggest factors in the success of a teenager is surely peer pressure. If 100% of the sixth form go to Russel group universities it is unlikely they will fall into the wrong crowd and leave school without any GCSEs.

I think schools like Habs and North London where my daughters went are some of the best value for money there are but depends what you're buying. If you want to business network amongst the other parents ( I had a very lovely but pretty working class friend at school who I am sure was partly sent to our school to generate business for her parents - she even handed out business cards, it was very funny at the time), if you wan t achild who in 10 years time can call up Jonny to give him a job in the travel industry or work experience on the FT or whatever then what you pay for might be as much the connections as the A levels. if you can get both so much the better. And for me sport and music were very important and I would pay to esnure the orchestras and choirs were the right standard as much as for A levels. I would have liked thir accents to be better but I didn't want them at a boarding school under any circumstances and we can sort out accents at home I suppose but that's something else parents may want to pay for. Confidence too and being able to sit in lovely grounds or join as a paernt the school choir and find the standard is high etc etc

Obviously peer group is very important, and I think the general culture the child is working in is crucial. 100% of the peer group going to RG Universities wouldn't bother me at all though, in fact if anything, it might turn me off a litte, as it smacks of following the herd.... often the really interesting kids are the ones who have a different persepctive, or a great entrepreneurial idea etc. But yes, definitely a good proportion of kids who are goint on to higher education at good Universities.

I think there are so many variables that it's too simplistic to think that if you fork out lots of money, then your kids will turn out fine and happy and successful. For a start, getting into a good University isn't the end is it... in many ways it's just a beginning....I bet we've all known young people who went to expensive schools, jumped through the required hoops, got into a good University but then found themselves unhappy, or unable to cope with the level of independent thinking required, or just not 'fitting the course'. I certainly came across a few types like that. And then of course there's all the other areas of life that are hugely important in determining well being... being able to relate to other people well, having self belief (and I mean, genuine self belief, not a glossy veneer of confidence that is bred into the worst private school types), having the insight to pick a good partner for marriage and parenting.... all these things contribute hugely as well as academic achievement.

I agree that music, orchestras and other interests are very important too, and I think if you value these things as a parent, then you have a duty to instil these values in your offspring.

Sitting in lovely school grounds doesn't cut any ice with me I'm afraid... my own garden is lovely, or I'd use my National Trust card to sit in a stately home garden if I feel the urge... can't be doing with paying school fees for that. And the thought of joining a school choir as a parent would be the kiss of death...

Overall, of course it's up to individual parents to look at what is on offer in their locality, and I'm sure if I lived in some parts of London I wouldn't consider I had any choice but to pay, which is very unfair and bad luck on those in that situation.

I do think the value for money is an interesting thing though. If you don't qualify for scholarships or discounts, you're looking at around £1000 per month per child at private school (and that's before extras such as uniform, trips and that dubious textbook charge for using the school text books!!) which for many parents is a lot out of taxed income, and many of them want to be sure they are getting a good return

Xenia- I mostly agree with you about peer pressure. In my experience of teaching, in any unselected year group, there will 2-3 who will do brilliantly no matter what is going on around them. There will be many many others who will do as well as their peer group, which may be way below their ability level. The problem that many school have is in confusing ability and achievement. Because they often view achievement as the proof of ability, they often fail to stretch precisely those children who need stretching the most- those from unsupportive or difficult families, those living in poverty, young carers, etc etc. In my view this does them a grave disservice.

As a child brought up in France back when their education system was more aspirational and idealistic (vs now when it is turning into an imitation of our penny pinching one), I cannot agree that social background is the most major influence on a child's achievement. That would be social determinism, and is rather what I thought New Britain didn't believe in.