What do we really mean when we say a child has done "well?"
Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 1:29 pm
Ok, so I've noticed on several threads there has been a discussion about whether a child can do "well" in any school. This may or may not be the case, but it will always presumably depend on what you mean by doing "well."
People often throw around the A-C grade % at gcse to say whether a school is doing well, but surely if you think your child is academic then you don't necessarily care that 100% of the children in one school got 5C grades? In the same way, if your DC is less academic then you may be overjoyed that he or she has achieved 5Cs
I think what I'm trying to say is that whether your child is doing "well" is subjective and really depends on whether you think they will achieve or are achieving their potential (however one judges potential )
I was looking at the Department of Education statistics in relation to a couple of schools and it struck me that one of the most interesting statistics on there is the average grade at gcse achieved by high, middle and low achievers. At my DDs grammar school, the average grade for high achievers was A+, whereas the average grade for middle achievers was a B (10 girls out of 174, the rest being high achievers.) In contrast at our well respected comp which has a fast track, the average grade for high achievers is a B and for middle achievers is a C -. High achievers are those who achieve a level 5 in KS2 SATS and middle achievers are those with level 4. Can you say with any certainty, therefore, that the average high achiever at the comp is going to do less "well" than at the selective and with even more certainty that those who come out of primary at level 4 will do much less "well" on average at the comp than at the selective?
The statistics for high achievers don't necessarily give all the information, however, as many at the selective may go into that school closer to level 6 than 5 and that isn't reflected in the figures. However I'm not sure that the same argument is justified for middle achievers as these are all capped at level 4. Presumably this shows that for these two particular schools your average level 4 student is much more likely to do better at the selective (gaining an average of B grades) than at the comprehensive (gaining an average of C- grades.)
I know this is all about averages and there will always be exceptions to the rule, but I wonder if others agree that these statistics give a pretty good indication of how "well" your child is "likely" to do at a particular school (factoring in all the stuff about hard work and exceptions etc )
Any views?
People often throw around the A-C grade % at gcse to say whether a school is doing well, but surely if you think your child is academic then you don't necessarily care that 100% of the children in one school got 5C grades? In the same way, if your DC is less academic then you may be overjoyed that he or she has achieved 5Cs
I think what I'm trying to say is that whether your child is doing "well" is subjective and really depends on whether you think they will achieve or are achieving their potential (however one judges potential )
I was looking at the Department of Education statistics in relation to a couple of schools and it struck me that one of the most interesting statistics on there is the average grade at gcse achieved by high, middle and low achievers. At my DDs grammar school, the average grade for high achievers was A+, whereas the average grade for middle achievers was a B (10 girls out of 174, the rest being high achievers.) In contrast at our well respected comp which has a fast track, the average grade for high achievers is a B and for middle achievers is a C -. High achievers are those who achieve a level 5 in KS2 SATS and middle achievers are those with level 4. Can you say with any certainty, therefore, that the average high achiever at the comp is going to do less "well" than at the selective and with even more certainty that those who come out of primary at level 4 will do much less "well" on average at the comp than at the selective?
The statistics for high achievers don't necessarily give all the information, however, as many at the selective may go into that school closer to level 6 than 5 and that isn't reflected in the figures. However I'm not sure that the same argument is justified for middle achievers as these are all capped at level 4. Presumably this shows that for these two particular schools your average level 4 student is much more likely to do better at the selective (gaining an average of B grades) than at the comprehensive (gaining an average of C- grades.)
I know this is all about averages and there will always be exceptions to the rule, but I wonder if others agree that these statistics give a pretty good indication of how "well" your child is "likely" to do at a particular school (factoring in all the stuff about hard work and exceptions etc )
Any views?