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.

In answer to OP, including English and Maths GSCE A-C:

DS1's school got 45%
DS2's school got 43%

DD1 (currently in year 5) is hoping to obtain a place at the selective girl's grammar school in a neighbouring town, where they get 100%. If she doesn't obtain a place, she will attend DS1's school, and I have no doubt she'll do very well anyway.

duchesse - I'm interested to know your teaching experiences, because I can't believe any school these days confuses ability with achievement. Even if they tried to, the government wouldn't let them!

There is so much emphasis these days on assessing each child's potential, and carrying out formative and summative assessments, plus all the CVA stuff that it's difficult to see how many schools could ignore it!!

There's certainly a load of pointless admin in the state sector but it does so badly compared with the private sector one just wonders if it's just an expectation of low achievement but I don't need to worry about that as I can afford to pay. But I really don't agree with putting children in mixed ability schools or classes. it's not fair on anyone and doesn't work well. you only haev to look at the types of schools in private and state league tables and even to strip out results of those with the same IQ at age 11 to see mixed ability schools do not do as well. The private schools which cater for thick children do very well with their added value, better than the state schools in my view. Anyway all good fun.

Xenia ..... I love most of your posts, they make me laugh, but when you run out of funny things to say, you just get a bit silly!

I have taught in private and state schools and believe me you can find pointless admin in both. As in many other areas of life.

I'm glad you don't need to worry about it - many of us don't either because we can afford to pay, although I think probably a lot of us are more concerned about value for money than you are! Can't believe you actually are prepared to pay to sit in a bloody marquee on speech day!

State schools agree with you about mixed ability. That's why they set by ability. It's interesting though, that so many private school parents don't want to admit that though.... they would far rather state school children were all lumped together in mixed ability... maybe it's easier to feel you are getting value for money by slagging something else off inaccurately rather than looking at the positives of the choice you've made. I know one private school parent was quite put out when I told her my ds is in top sets with very bright children who are likely to all get A/A*. I think she would have preferred it if he'd been in mixed ability, because she's have felt better about her choice!!

Anyway, as you say, all good fun, and thankfully most of the 93% of children who are state educated do very well, and the Universities are recognising that they want bright kids with potential and aren't fussed about whether their parents have paid or not.

I know most state schools etc by ability. private schoosl do too. I think one my daughters was bottom set of 5 for maths and still got a An but it helps to be with children working at your level.

Certainly marquees were not the most important of the things I paid for although I always did enjoy nice grounds, lakes, sitting on pleasant grass, champagne, choral music on lawns, just the ambience of a lovely school and "nice" (i.e. clever / posh/ interesting) fellow parents to talk to.

I certainly think we need to reatin the choice to educate as you wish including at home. Don't like labour's latest examination of hoime education. Don't like the introductino for first time ever of set curriculum up to age 5 for children in privaet schools at all and there is no outcry on that on human rights grounds. You might want them to do all day latin at that age or the koran or entirely free play and by imposing the rules ont hep rivate sector parents lose a choice they've had for generaitons unless they educate preschoolers at home.

So what you're saying is Xenia, that in a highly selective school, the lower sets will probably have A/B candidates in them... well, quelle surprise... it's all relative isn't it? That's entirely what I would expect. And in a non selctive private or state school, then the bottom sets would get considerably lower grades. The higher sets would still get the higher grades though! I don't know what point you are trying to make really, other than the obvious. We all know that private school doesn't make children 'cleverer'.

I'm sure we all enjoy lovely gardens and interesting people to talk to.. maybe most of us aren't so hung up on doing all these things through our children's schools though. I have loads of interesting friends through work, where we live, church and so on, and yes, some through my children's friends but that certainly wouldnt be something I'd be wanting to pay for!

A question for teachers:
A few years ago, DD's school used to publish very detailed GCSE results as part of the Governors annual report. This gave the breakdown of GCSE grades achieved, subject by subject, so you could see exactly how many didn't get A* Maths (for example).
Since they scrapped the AGM, I haven't seen this table. I asked for it at the Library but they were a bit bemused and didn't have it. Are the details still published and do parents have a right to see them?

I'm a teacher and I have absolutely no idea!

Isn't it a legal requirement to have an AGM?

I would be asking some searching questions if it were one of my kids' schools

I don't know either, but when I was looking at local schools for this kind of information four years ago, they refused to provide it. They said they no longer published GCSE details by grade.

Don't know. Neither do I care very much. I care about my DS#s grades no-one else's.

Of course one cares about one's own DC's results but if you can see that, say, French grades were on a par with national average but no-one ever got above a B in German then don't you think that you would find that useful in chosing options. Or if, generally, there was a disproportionally high percentage of C grade but the opposite at A/A* then you would want to know why?

I know the level of GCSEs at my son's school. And I know that it isn't that good. But I also know that it's an 'outstanding' school according to Ofsted, and so far he has done really well and had a good time. It has an poor intake from a very deprived area and has a VA score of 110. So my reasoning is that if my son (level 5 in yr6 SATs) gets the sort of teaching and support I know the school offers to all it's pupils, I can hope for good things. Which is why I personally don't care about grades tables. IYSWIM.

One option got 100% and one got 38%

Orm - there's caring and not caring isn't there?
Not too worried if the VA score is brill and teaching good...would care very much if everyhting was shite.

Undoubtedly litchick! I'd be very worried. But I was trying (clumsily no doubt) that GCSE levels alone are a crap indicator.

I know, Orm. I agree with you. That's why I said in one of my earlier posts that I had graver reservations about my local school (40% A-C, CVA 987) than about the one in town which is in special measures (32% grades A-C, CVA 1013). Figures off the top of my head, but accurate afaicr.

Anyway, cross-referencing to the other Education thread about secondary schools, those of us with children heading for these unremarkable comps can see it as a plus for their Oxbridge application forms

Got to think ahead and all that....

I think you could make a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for that data by the way. Go and have a try. It's certainly on my chidlren's shools' web sites.

And it is a tiny tiny possible advantage to be at a bad comp to appyl to Obxridge. the 1 or 2 a year who are steallar bright yes might help but the vast middle lot who as teenagers only work if those around them do aren't advantaged at all.

Dear me Xenia, your teenagers seem to have given you a very jaundiced view of what everyone elses's kids are like!

I love marquees

My friends are nice and clever

Some of them are posh

I dont pay for these things though

My children are at school with a braod broad social spectrum and believe it or not some bloody 'bright' really'interesting' and incredibly'nice' young people are far from 'posh'

There is no longer a requirement on governors to hold an AGM- probably because so many of them were so poorly attended.

To answer OP - 75%. And it's a comprehensive.

I work (teach) in a state school - we are allegedly doing brilliantly - of course it's all down to our fab teaching and much cleverer kids than before, nothing to do with the fact we enter them for as many BTEC's as possible - which are worth between 2-4 GCSE's, a single distinction at BTEC equates to 4 A* GCSE's in some government quango's mind - except it doesn't really - the work is much easier, there are no exams, and while we don't do the pupils work for them, i am told to eg spend 20mins teaching about subject x, then they spend 30 mins doing part of their assessments while i wander round the classroom answering their questions and reminding them not to quote me verbatim (except i don't use that phrase).
wheras a number of independent schools do iGCSE's whcih are not counted in the league table - so a school with a 100% pass rate in the iGCSE maths - generally regarded as a better prep for A level than the regular variety would get a 0% of pupils with 5 A-C GCSE's inc Maths and english.
In short - don't judge by the tables when picking a school.

Sounds like a very poor school entering all the kids for BTEC just to look good in the league tables.

Would frustrate the hell out of me teaching somewhere like that - never mind the kids!

As long as parents cvan work all that out I suppose but would be better if league tables were purer. i do think there is a legal right to get this raw data to find out if the results aer all in easy subjects.

My teenagers? I don't think they were any worse than most. I think until youv'e had a real live teenager and got it through ato age 20 you can't really know what they are like but at times it's more like a survival exercise and getting out the other side in one piece and their peers are the greatest influence on them. Perhaps that is most of what I paid fees for - the right kind of peer pressure.