The Real School League Tables

[Xenia]

Only using subjects Cambridge accepts (top 1000 are ranked in all sectors). I like the fact they give earlier rankings too so you get to see the history rather than just a blip year.

www.ft.com/cms/s/0/53840c30-327e-11df-bf20-00144feabdc0.html

"The FT?s school league tables focus unashamedly on academic achievement defined by ?core? subject A-level results, as set out by Cambridge University in 2006. Subjects such as drama and media studies are not included in our analysis.

By contrast, the government?s summary scores for schools at GCE/VCE, A-level and AS-levels this year (for 2009 exam results) again included various other qualifications in subjects such as animal care, and make-up, which we feel give little help to students and parents aiming for places at top universities.
...

Apologies to readers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but the devolved assemblies (education is devolved) have decided that school performance data is not a public good and have made school level data nigh-on impossible to access. Sadly we cannot include their schools.
...

Like the government?s, our analysis uses the QCA points system, as follows: grade A A-levels = 270 points, grade B = 240 points, C = 210 points, D = 180 points and E = 150

I wanted my children at schools in the top 20 because I think those are better than the top 250 and also because surely you agree it CV enhances a bit if a recruiter has heard of the school etc

I noticed the other day that just about every school in the top of the table is in the South , whether state or private. Why is that?

Xenia - the FT (yes, I read the paper version) suggested "the relative long term economic decline of much of the north" has an impact on private schools - With less applicants they are taking a wider ability range.

JackStarBright, I, too, am intrigued by the fact that the super selectives are outperformed by the top private schools in A level league tables.

It just proves that the private sector have got very good at ensuring their pupils get the top grades at A level, even the very 'average' ones.

Luckily the super selectives still have many pupils who do get the top grades, many of them without even breaking sweat. Also the Oxbridge entrance system seems to test more than just getting As at A level and so they are very successful there too.

Getting 3/4 As at A level now is no longer the best indicator of the top brains, more how good the school is at getting those grades. The private schools have got it down to a tee, presumably with smaller classes, lots of re-takes of modules etc etc, not particularly due to the pupils being spectacularly bright to start with IMO.

I think I remember my daughter's school - North London C not allowing Jan AS etc or early A2 when she was there at least in some subject so you were not getting the chance to improve a grade that some state schools etc but I do think the teaching in some of the better private schools is good and the parents are paying and motivated, surroundings nice etc etc so if you can afford to pay and have a child who might get into those top 20 schools I certainly always thought it was worth the money.

I suspect you educate the overall individual better too in some of these good academic schools because even things like the orchestras and choirs seem to be of a higher standard and you're not just teaching to an exam.

May be you get better teaches too as it can be a nicer environment in which to teach even than state grammars.

It's interesting that there are so very many in London/SE in the private sector which do well (and state). You would assume if you have North London, St Paul's, Westminster, Haberdashers boys and girls, Merchant Taylor's all competing from often much the same pool of children then you'd get fewer bright children than the few who compete to get into state grammars in Bucks but perhaps you just have a higher concentration of clever parents who earn a lot in London/SE with bright children and that that's not the case out of the SE. We do have more people in London than the whole of Scotland I think for a start.

Xenia - we used to send our DSs to a private school in Oxford and it was very clear to us that the main reason why so many of the Top 20 schools in the South East /London are high up in the league tables is because it is this area that has the highest influx of young people who then eventually have children. It reflects the economy. The top schools in the South East /London can therefore afford to be super selective and very choosy. It does not mean they are necessarily better than a lower positioned school in the North.

Schools in the North have declined because the economy there supports less influx of people with families. They have to choose from a smaller pool and so cannot afford to be so choosy. There are still highly positoned excellent schools in the North like RGS Newcastle and St Peter's in York and Ermysteds in Skipton but many fewer than when I was young.

I would also say that the prevalence of single sex schools in the South East / London is much higher because again the demand is so high. Many former single sex private boarding and day schools in the North were forced to go mixed in the last 30 years because of declining numbers. Ampleforth in Yorkshire s a very good example of this. It has declined in the league tables and now gone mixed. As did my old school.

So you mean tehre are fewer children? Or that thick people stay in the North where I am happy to say I'm from and clever ones gravitate to where the money and power is in the SE?

Xenai - as you know, over the last 30 years a large financial services economy has grown in the South East while there was an old declining industrial economy in the North. Young people have therefore tended to gravitate to where jobs are in the South East. They have had their children there too.

It is not about people in the North being intelligent or not. Its just that net migration of young people is into the South East (who had children) and net migration of older (childfree) people back to the North.

Sorry for mispelling Xenia

You are naughty Xenia.
I think that it is fair to say that people who are motivated by power and money gravitate to the SE because that is where the power and money are.
There tends to be a correlation between intelligence and earnings but that is all it is - a correlation, not an inevitability.

Yes, I'm very bad.

If there are fewer children in the North that would explain worse exam results. If good teachers want to teach in SE that would also explain differences.

But there are parts of the North where people of wealth congregate, quite a few in Cities etc so why are no Northern Schools on those league tables?

15 Manchester grammar
23 - King Edward WVI high school for girls birmingham is the first northern-ish one

But it's interesting none higher. Perhaps it's just there are fewer children.

Very interesting, thanks for the link Xenia

Since when was Birmingham in the North?

North of Watford, I suppose.

There are more people and more people with money and more people from the middle classes in the South. So they can afford to pay the ( eye watering ) fees. So the schools thrive and can afford to be very, very choosy.

Just have to hope your child can make the grade.

Xenia, one northern girls' grammar I know of is pretty selective at year 7, but then has a large 6th form entry on the basis of GCSE results. That, in addition to its offering the discounted subjects such as drama, drops it down the FT table though it comes pretty high up the usual all-subject ones.

Its probably something to do with lower population density that it (a) has to serve as a wider 6th form college and (b) offer a wider range of subjects.

DH, being an over-analyser of data will in due course take apart the results to find the grading just for the (academic) subjects we expect our DD to be interested in. Frankly its irrelevant to me if the school comes lower on the FT table because some of her peers want to do drama along with their English and History, for instance, so long as they get solid results in sciences and maths.

I thought these FT ones were the ones with 'non hardcore academic' subjects removed, so that it's a better comparison (supposedly). All makes my brain ache.

They are. I've always preferred the FT tables. In a sense parents in the know haev never needed league tables. the parents they've helped are children who don't know what schools have good reputations, get pupils to Oxbridge etc so I've regarded the league tables as very helpful for lots of parents who don't have inside knowledge and fair and helping ensure a level playing field but not if they're fixed.

What point are you trying to prove Xenia? Yes we all know, thank you very much, that tables are fixed and that many don't include Maths and English etc.

People with lots of money in SE England get their children into 'top performing' schools. Of course they do!!! Doesn't make them any more intelligent than many children in other areas of the country at many other schools.

Did your children get into Oxbridge??? Plenty do from other schools too you know....

I really can't be bothered to inform you, yet again, that most people (i.e 95% or whatever of the ppopulation) can't afford private school fees, but luckily some people can manage to get into Oxbridge and other top universities by their intelligence alone.

I'm not sure any of the tables really give a good picture - you need the raw data to see how they are doing in relevant subjects. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will xenia ) but from what my DH said they are including the pupils who've done a mix of academic/other subjects which is bound to lower the averages of schools which offer such subjects. If you exclude those (on the assumption that your child won't be making those choices) then you get a different answer again.

My DH has entertained himself for hours with GCSE results of the schools we considered for DD this year. I can see he's going to be doing the same five years hence with A levels/leavers destinations to check 6th forms!

My point? Just to draw attention to the fact that the FT table is one of the better ones so parents who don't have that information have it. I have no other point. I have seen some misleading results suggesting a local comp which has everyone getting As in basket weaving is much better than the local grammar or independent school and some parents are taken in by that. That's all.

It is also a table which includes state schools too so it is certainily not just about the 7% who can afford to pay or get scholarships.

Well, that's very kind of you.

Personally, I think it only serves the purpose of showing the two tier education system that exists in this country. Those successful people with money are able to buy their children better results, and thus places at top universities, better careers etc.

Unfortunately some people are fooled into thinking that 10 GCES in basket weaving etc are equal to 10 in proper academic subjects.

However, most people don't have a choice as to where they send their children to school, and many reasonably bright children would be just as capable as getting the same top results were they able to attend those 'top' schools.

Luckily, the Oxbridge admission system, plus other top universities seem to be taking this into account these days, by setting their own entrance tests which really sorts out who is a seriously academic student and who has just be taught very well.

It would be absolutely dreadful to think that some pupils would be put off applying to the top institutions as they haven't attended those schools, imagining themselves some kind of failure for not having parents with enough money to pay for their education, even though they are equally intelligent.

*been

You need to look at this table differently. Obviously the top 20 or so schools are not taking in very average children and churning them out with these results, they are highly selective. If your child fits the bill for a highly selective school (private/state) then check the table to see that they are getting the best out of these kids.

If your child needs a school which is not quite so pressurised but is bright, check the ethos of the school (no table will show this) and then see that a good percentage of kids are doing well in these academic subjects. And so on. No table can be looked at in isolation, but at least this one gets rid of all the non-academic subjects so you can see the specific results.

Don't bother with this table if you have a child gifted in art and drama etc. Horses for courses.

Surely it is useful

if you have a child who wants to do more "traditional" subjects, so that you can see which ones are good at those

the table includes the top 1000 schools, it's not like it's the top 10 and they are all private. there are loads of state schools to look at on there.

I took very "traditional" subjects for GCSE and A Level - if I have a child who wants to do those things and be taught well (and teaching some of those subjects is a real skill) then it makes sense to see which schools get good results in those areas

exactly as if I had a child who wanted to go to stage school I would look at all of them, see what people ended up doing etc.

Or sports

Or whatever.

I have also recently realised that OFSTED is a bit random - there was me thinking that the local comp was good given that its OFSTED was excellent or outstanding. Then I saw the GCSE results and realised that nearly 50% of children are leaving without 5 A-C passes including maths and english at GCSE. That is not excellent or outstanding by any stretch.

Thus the more information available the better. What people choose to do with it is up to them. If these tables show a big disparity in the results between private and state education then that is useful to know surely as well? As if you have a set of stats which says "everything is fine and state schools are just as good once you factor in the selection at private" then you don't know to get irate about inequalities. Because you won't know they're there.

if you have a child who wants to do more "traditional" subjects, so that you can see which ones are good at those

You can see those, but you may miss schools which are equally good at traditional subjects but which also offer some of the others, thereby buggering this particular statistical treatment.

So what that article tells me yet agin is that people in Wales don't exist

Re the outstanding comp with only 50% getting A - C or whatever. There are ALWAYS going to be children who are less bright than others. Lowering the standards so that more pass these exams is not the solution.

The bright can all now pass these exams with the highest grades with minimal effort. The schools who select the brightest children (whether private or state) would be doing a very bad job if all of them DIDN'T get the very top grades (especially as many of the pupils tend to be very self motivated, often have extra tutoring, parents paying lots of money for results, successful parents etc etc)

What is alarming is the difference in results between an average child at an average comprehensive and one at an average private school. But that's going off topic a bit .

It is hardly surprising that the schools listed in the FT are top of the league tables, due to their intake and the relative ease of the examinations they are taking.