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

V true lounge lizard

Back home we had a very diferent system (England but unusual nonetheless) where the only place to deliver A Levels outside private (and actually private meant a trip out) was a tertiary college. An excellent tertiary college, with decent results. On paper though they only sent say 0.01% (or whatever it was) to Oxbridge becuase their numbers of all abilities were so huge; however in actuality they still provably ahd the ability to develop good potential when it existed.

Which surely is what actually mattered?

And the fact that the children who weren't as academic still got good quality access to the things they wished to qualify in of course, becuase it is employment and eprosnal success that matters in the long term.

Pity there aren't league tables to tell you exactly how YOUR child is going to do. After all at the end of the day that's what parent's are really concerned about - their child not the other couple of hundred!

Definitely no to making exams easier, I don't think I suggested that.

I just don't understand how a school can be described as oustanding or excellent when it is turning out vast numbers of students without the qualifactions to get an entry level office job. It is not all GCSEs A-C, it is any 5 including maths and english. I mean GCSEs are easy, they are the most basic qualification. The people around here aren't all mind blowingly stupid or anything. It's not a school which has a difficult intake either. So it's not a "value added" type thing.

I don't get it.

some state schools don't have sixth forms so wouldn't feature in that table

It really is just so depressing that children whose parents can pay for their education end up at schools where they are more likely to get better exam results, regardless of their own actual individual intelligence. It is unfair and I think it shows us up as a country that doesn't value fair play or equality, but instead value those who stampede to the top, trampling over others, in order to ensure their child maintains and even extends the gap between them and the vast majority of the rest of the population in terms of income. If those who could afford private school fees paid just a tiny bit more income tax each, everyone could have small class sizes, orchestras, choirs and extra tuition at exam time. Wouldn't that be lovely? Not only lovely for them, but lovely for the higher rate tax payers too - imagine a society in which everyone is educated to a high standard. How great that would be, no one angry and frustrated because society has let them down, or because their lack of education means they cannot participate fully, no parents trying to raise their children whilst not really being able to read properly themselves, no one with absolutely no job prospects as everyone has had a decent education and has drawn self esteem from that. It'd be so much nicer all round if these snooty private schools were all closed down in the morning.

Loads of those private school graduates will go on to work in the big banks and financial institutes in the city, work 16 hours a day , often in a sexist, racist, bullying environment, have no time to themselves or for their families, and all explode from stress when they are 35, give it all up to become a poet and go and live in a wooden hut on the outskirts of glasgow.

Everyone achieves happiness in the end.

Amen.

"Not only lovely for them, but lovely for the higher rate tax payers too - imagine a society in which everyone is educated to a high standard."

Well no that would be disasterous for the higher rate tax payers and others who can afford to send their children private. Why would they want all that competition for the top jobs? Why would they want clever poorer people given the opportunities which are at the moment reserved for wealthy averge people?

Also many people from private schools do not go on to have super high powered jobs, or even city type jobs. Yes a higher proportion are from those schools, but its by no means a certainty. The personality of the child has a huge amount of bearing.

o i know it is not allof them, i agree, i was just stereotyping to make my point that even though it means you are more likely to get better exam results blah blah, it is not necessarily a quicker or better or more guaranteed route to happiness. Loads of my mates went to private school, love them all, clever, lovely, humane people who don't work in banks all day, but still, a fairer society would be a whole lot nicer for us all, not just those at the bottom of the heap!

It wouldn't be nicer for the rich and powerful if it took their privilege away though, I'm sure they wouldn't be keen on that at all.

But it'd be nicer for them if no one wanted to mug them, burgle their houses, be agrresive on public transport or play loud music in their houses all night. I know all of that wouldn't be solved by everyone going to a decent school, but I do think that the kind of anger at society that comes from being disenfranchised through poverty / lack of opportunities etc, does lead to a lot of the anti social behaviour that impacts on us all, privilged and not.

Or have those mean looking dogs in the park while we are trying to push little Tabitha and Oscar on the swings while dressed in Organic cotton clothes!

How is giving everyone a decent education linked to playing loud music?

Plus, giving everyone a super education, while admirable, isn't going to do much if there aren't super jobs for everyone to go and work in.

i know plenty of people who are very agressive and have good educations and good jobs as well. And lots of people mug others for money for drugs, having a decent education doesn't stop that.

I think you are looking to totally reorganise society, with wealth completely redistributed and everyone working towards the common good aren't you? Good luck with that

lostitnow I assume youa r4 aware that most of us who went to poor schools don't do any of those things?

And are indeed far more likely to be pushing our own little Tabitha (or indeed Sebastian) on the swings wearing nice clothes, even if it means we had to save up far ,onger for them to have them?

Just checking.

Giving everyone a super education sounds fine to me

And then if everyone had a super education, it wouldn't matter if your parents have lots of money or not and everyone who is reasonably bright could get top grades.

Then those in power would have to do something about the dumbing down of exams, because lots more students would get the top grades.

Then they could make exams harder so that only the most intelligent get the top grades (again regardless of their parents' income), and the vast majority don't get top grades.

Then something will have to be done about teaching more vocational subjects to those not bright enough to go to university.

Then you wouldn't have lots of students at university who shouldn't be there (again regardless of their parents' income). And so on and so forth

yep, as i said above, just stereotyping to make my point! no need for flood of 'well i am really poor and have no GCSEs and am actually a paragon of virtue' type posts - I am well aware that I am massvely generalising. But you've got to accept that most people engaging in anti social behaviour that impacts on others around them are not doing so from a position of having had a charmed life, good education, good job prospects etc. I'm not saying ALL people in that situation are like that, nor that ALL people who have had charmed lives are therefore utterly charming themselves. I am just saying, you know, there is a link.

Bottom line - we all benefit if everyone is ok.

I agree with your bottom line yes

trouble is I think those who cause the issues do tend to come from the ahrd to help groups; there seems to be a dual poor sector of society, one group that is very much part of the mainstream but with less money (that would be us) and anothe group that does seme to ahve a subculture.

I feel even less part fo that then the rather well off parents at the boy's school.

hard to help - yes - but not impossible, and best time to start is when they are little children, nice and malleable with the whole world out there waiting for them.

Instead loadsw of kids from sad backgrounds end up at underresourced schools with a high turn over of staff, unable to deal with disruption in the class room and sometimes even violence in the playground. it is so heartbreaking that is all set out for them, the inevitability of their lives, when they are only 5 years old.

HOw do we do it though?

I worked for homestart adn know that works but otherwise- with all the will in the world, sending them (as of course we absolutely should) to good schools and beleiving in their worth and potential will be thwarted when they go home to no [proper food and no contact with books, routine or any value palced on being repsonsible for oneself

Absolutely agree with reallylostitnow. Also agree with clarissimo as to how it can be implemented.

Drawing attention to league tables with already advantaged students getting top grades isn't really very illuminating.

(Disclaimer: my DC are/were at 'top' schools and 'top' universities...)

But plenty of those in good jobs love it too - just because you work long hours in a really interesting job doesn't mean you're fed up. That's much better than long hours plucking chickens or on the till at Tesco.

I don't think any society can be equal in that sense and we don't want it to be. It's good if children have access to a good education but most parents want to advantage their own children.

Also if a really good private school rejects 4 in 5 of applicants at 11+ because their marks are lower in the entrance tests and all those parents can pay (which is the case with the best private schools) it is not a question of being able to pay and then they get in. That is so with lower tier private schools but at the upper end it is the school choosing your child if their IQ etc is high enough not the other way round. Most children who apply don't get in. Most are rejected. Most don't meet the standard and that's why they're good (and same with state grammars) and it's how life is - the best do well those who aren't so good don't. We're made like that.

Xenia at least 3 children out of my dc's state primary school are going to cambridge this year ( dependent on A*)

bog standard NORTHERN state primary

maybe they are a little glitch of bright sparks that somehow avoided having their IQs diminshed by being born in the North of our tiny island

Soon that will be rectified when their bright little brains move south where they belong!

11.5% judging by the class photo < starts digging road to get to the south>

McBitchy you've given me an idea! I think these league tables could be used to compare the different ways for educating bright kids. After all the league table is measuring the success of individual schools - not the overall A level success rates of regions.

If we go with the FT explanation that long term economic decline has effected the number of very bright kids in northern private schools and, assume that intelligence is evenly spread over England - then we could we expect that state schools in the north to, on average, do better than state schools in the SE?

With the bottom end of the league table having proportionately more SE schools.

A suggestion for a Mumsnet PHD?

I think people confuse success and happiness with good exam results. Some of the people I know who are the most successful and people I know who love their jobs didn't come out of school with top exam marks.

There is so much more to life than exam results, so much more.

I agree a good education opens up more choices in later life but I don't think you need to even be in the top 100 schools for that. Plenty of normal state schools churn out well educated children. They may not feature in those tables because they aren't little exam factories and have other challenges like children not speaking english as their first language, greater special needs, non selection etc. etc.!

I agree with foxinsocks. I did well at school and am in a professional job but find my job very stressful and currently work just 2 days a week because that's all I can stand to do! I went to a state comp. but was very self motivated.

I chose subjects at school purely to enable me to do this job and not because I loved them.

My DD loves art and drama and actually I don't think these are worthless subjects.It is lovely to see her take such pleasure in schoolwork and she is very talented in both. She is doing a good range of academic subjects too at GCSE. When it comes to sixth form I suspect she will do a mixture of academic/non academic subjects-and I will encourage her to do this to keep her options open.

Obviously it is important to consider work after school/university but I regret my choice of academic subjects at school.