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

It's a good point though that if the Government wants to even out unfairness at 18 the greatest unfairness is taht more girls get into university than boys as their A levels are better but boys then who do get in apparently get better degrees (just like the supposed studies that say children at rubbishy schools who get good A levels for where they are tend then to get better degrees). If the sex difference is much bigger than the rubbish schools difference the Government should be ironing that out as much as the 7% of private school pupils issue.The gender difference is much better. But they won't because they are politically motivated on the class issue.

Have looked for my old school and sadly it doesn't score (bog standard comprehensive type). Does get people into Oxbridge. Although many due to the efforts of two of the maths teachers (who did happen to be my parents ).

All the schools round here don't score either. Am hoping DS and DD will be all right wherever we are.

It's just the top 1000 or something. Individual chilren do well in lots of different schools. One advantage in moving to this bit of the SE is we have a choice of loads of those top schools. You would have thouight that would dilute their places but the schools still do well may be simply because people who are the best at whatever they do in some professional career congregate in London and SE.

this thing about state schools and oxford entry is depressing

ds is hoping to study genetics - when he is rich and famous I shall ask him if he and Darwin agree on a correlation between wealth and innate intelligence ....

Actually, the FT collected results for nearly 2200 English schools. Only the top 1000 are presented on the league table. But if you want a regional view the FT have this interactive map which shows results of all 2200 by county.

As I suggested in my earlier post - it would be interesting to see if those regions with no 'top performing schools' had better performing comprehensives than those regions with several top schools.

The link Xenia posted had an interactive map but that one only went up (down?) to the 1000th school. The others were listed but didn't have a number. Would be interested in seeing the ones further down as it is obviously more likely that it would be of interest to more people, given the percentages going to state and private schools.

Noah - try the PDF file 'Schools by county' it gives raw scores (but not positions). At least you can compare your local schools with each other. Scrolling down through the counties is a bit of an 'eye opener'.

Wealth and intelligence? Not sure. Traditionally the British aristoracy were rich but very thick. Look at Princess Diana's A levels or indeed Prince Charles' or Harry's etc. IN other words you might get rich if you're clever - very bright child in sink schools leaves at 126 with no qualifications but builds up from his job as refuse collector big waste dispoal business and makes millions whereas refuse collector with IQ of 80 is unlikely to do that. But son of successful refuse collector who goes to leading school because father is now rich might still be a bit thick so might not make his own wealth. Also genetically IQs dumb down which is why two high IQ people won't always keep having chidlren with higher IQs although mroe likely to have IQs above average.

It's not just IQ though. I was interested in being successful may be because I'm an eldest child or just because it's fun. I'm not sure that's because of my IQ (and I didn't go to Oxbridge).

xenia I would LOVE to know more about your own background/attainment and why being 'top' of the academic/social ladder has become such an important aspiration that you have for your children.

I have all kinds of speculations but would be interested to hear what you think.

ooo DS1's school is number 647.

I don't want to be outed. In fact the aspiration for the children is to be happy (mentally content) and not make career decisions they regret later and to pick work they delight in as much as I do and have happy balanced family lives. But why not do all that at a top 20 school? Mostp arents pick the best local school for their chidlren rather than the worst. I don't think i realy differ from anyone except I've children most who are bright enough to get into these schools without any pushing and happen to live near a lot of good day private schools.

If I wanted the chidlren to be posh I'd have them at very different schools. I'm not a social kind of person. There are posh boarding schools for the posh and thick and the posh and clever but I think boarding school can be psychologically damaging and you don't get as much chance to cuddle your children either if you send them away. I just had a normal middle class upbringing and went to a fee paying school. Like most people I've replicated that for my children. Very few parents awnt their chidlren to do worse, have 5% of their income, have harder lives, have none of the things they had as children. Most of us want our children to have what they are used to.

Thank you jackstarbright . Have found it now and will spend some time looking at it. If I ever find any spare time

Noah - you are welcome .

647 is a little low but if the pupils who go there do much better than they would have done at other schools then that's absolutely fine. These are just academic league tables.

lol, I don't care, its one of the better state schools here, if you saw some of the schools here you would understand

The geography point again - why so many of the best results/best schools in the SE of England?

Why do you think Xenia?, go on..... tell us, you know you want to.

Most of us don't really care though, especially those of us with DCs in perfectly good schools in different parts of the country.

Ds1's school had an outstanding ofsted report and I quote 'Pupils enter the school in year 7 having reached standards that are above, or well above the national average. BY the end of Year 11 they reach exceptional standards'

It is a high achieving school and is very very oversubscibed (over 900+ applications for 178 places). It is a normal state school but TBH one of the best, and believe me I looked at loads of schools for Ds1 who has disabilities but is very bright.

I know this is the right school for DS1

and we are in the SE

Sparkly - your Ds's school is, by my calculation, in the top 25% in the country academically. Pretty good! And, as you say, a successful school in other ways too!

Ity's all relative. I just think if you can get children into the top 20 or 50 that's probably better than lower than say 600 but if that's the best around you don't have much choice unless parents think it's actualy better for children to move to areas with the better schools and more prosperous areas like SE where chidlren will have more jobs and opportunities too as they get older.

I agree so much with foxinsock about not equating happiness with exams results. I would be disappointed if either dd wanted to work in a city law firm - saw first hand the high percentage (surely disproportionate to most other professions) of unhappy lawyers affected by the work culture.

Interestingly, neurologist dh has made his own observations when teaching on courses and in hospital practice - he says he can often tell which medics have been privately educated by how they do or don't deal with tasks and their ability to think for themselves.

yes because we can all just move to be in the catchment for the top 50 schools, and we all have the money for private education too

maggiethecat - shouldn't your neurologist dh be basing his opinions on evidence??? what a silly, sweeping generalisation

Basil, he was not publishing in the Lancet. This was merely talk around the dinner table.