Pass Rates by Bucks LA Schools

[Lillie]

As suspected, the data also shows the usual dichotomy in pass rates among schools as well. Primary schools in more affluent villages tending to fare better than some of the urban schools. Some schools not getting any children qualified through the test.

These inequalities in our educational system persist. I can't see that CEM has done anything to address this. The myth of grammar schools being great ladders of social mobility is evident.

[guest666]

Interesting to note that there is a substantial difference between the number of male and female qualifiers; 1447 and 1336

704 Slough residents entered. How many take the Slough consortium test ?

[Sally-Anne]

I can't see that CEM has done anything to address this.

Did you cross-post with me, Lillie?

Interesting to note that there is a substantial difference between the number of male and female qualifiers; 1447 and 1336

That goes up and down like a yoyo (sorry, yoyo! ) every year, and really isn't of any consequence.

Boys are, on average over the last 10 years, fractionally more likely to qualify than girls (51%/49% or similar), but I've always put that down to some parents being more ambitious for boys. I suspect there are probably more boys at private schools as well.

704 Slough residents entered. How many take the Slough consortium test ?

No idea, but part of Slough is in Bucks catchment. In 2014, there were 73 allocations to pupils living in Slough, of which 21 were in catchment.

I don't think anyone is worried about the impact of Slough or the other Berks tests - people have always taken both, and there really hasn't been an appreciable rise in Berks resident pupils taking the Bucks test. The number doing so was actually lower this year than last year.

[Sally-Anne]

704 Slough residents entered.

To clarify that:

- 704 Slough pupils registered to take the test ("the overall cohort", a phrase that is meaningless beyond Bucks state school pupils.)

- In the end, only 650 actually sat the test (with 216 qualifiers.)

[Lillie]

Yes I did cross post with you, Sally Anne. You have been a busy bee!

My gut feeling from local schools is that the test last year affected some of them badly. How can a reasonably large school have no qualifiers? Is this just down to differences in cohort? Your analysis obviously shows there is some levelling effect, esp in Wycombe. However, differences are still quite dramatic between schools. I hope this levelling effect has taken place this year as well.

[drummer]

Well, this is something that I really didn't expect to find. It appears that the test has had a levelling effect.

I've taken the data for each of the three areas, and analysed it as follows.

I ranked the schools by their 2013 results, and compared the top 50% with the bottom 50%. (Fractionally less in Aylesbury Vale because we don't have data for all of the top 50%.)


Chiltern/South Bucks (38 schools)
2013
Top 19 schools: 351 qualifiers (79%)
Bottom 19 schools: 93 qualifiers (21%)

2014
Top 19 schools: 149 qualifiers (73%) Edit: Typo. Should read 288 (Still 73% though)
Bottom 19 schools: 80 qualifiers (27%) Edit: Typo. Should read 107 (Still 27% though)

The CSB results are shocking though - what an extraordinary fall in passes at the top 19 schools

[Sally-Anne]

Ooops! Sorry - a typo crept in through C&Ping.

2014 qualifiers were 288 for the top 19 in CSB.

Still a big drop though.

I'll edit my original post and your quote from it ...

[southbucks3]

11.9% of the total cohort from Aylesbury vale passed prior to review.

Not sure where you get 11.9% from? I make it 13.5%. (1693 tested, 229 qualified outright.)

You can't calculate the percentage as part of the total (tested & untested) cohort either, because we have no way of knowing the reasons for withdrawing a pupil from the test.

As an example, quite a number of children were withdrawn from testing at Halton Junior School. That could very easily be because their parents were off to a new posting, and have nothing to do with schooling.

When you are looking at the picture as a whole you cannot remove untested, if you did the children that were not tested would be simply unaccounted for, whereas they are not, they are assumed to be, in the majority, those that would not have passed the test and will be taking places in upper school or specialist learning centres. I do agree however that the children that are in temporary residence shouldn't be included.
I suppose what I am really getting at, is if you stood in market square on a Saturday morning made everyone stand still and you mark AV on the heads of all Aylesbury vale residents, as it stands only about 12% of the children you see with AV on their head will sit and pass the 11+ test outright.

Great news that the passes between top and bottom achieving schools have levelled though, amazing in wycombe area, scarily amazing, hope it carries through this year. What data is used to sort schools into top/bottom is it the sats or some whizzy figures ?

[Sally-Anne]

I do agree however that the children that are if temporary residence shouldn't be included.

Although I agree, there is no way of discerning why children were withdrawn.

What data is used to sort schools into top/bottom is it the sats or some whizzy figures ?

Much simpler than that! The top 50% is the schools that performed best under the old GL test, the bottom 50% is those that didn't.

I then just added up the number of qualifiers is the same two groups under CEM.

Not sure if there is any correlation with SATs - may get on to that at some point.

[LeprechaunQueen]

2014 qualifiers were 288 for the top 19 in CSB.

Still a big drop though.

But not in the same order of magnitude as the disparity between 'top' and 'bottom' schools!