Sustaining excellence - grammar schools

[Tolstoy]

I have compared value added between Grammar and Comprehensive school in the past and the Grammar school had a higher score. An Upper school I researched last year had higher VA than a highly regarded Grammar for 6th form results but the highest of all was a less prestigious Grammar in the same area. Often the VA scores are marginal but it disappoints me that despite adding this section to assist schools that will always lose out when it comes to straight academic results due to their intake, Grammars are still coming out on top.

If anyone else has done the same research and got different results would be relieved to know my small sample was not the norm.

[Guest55]

There are a number of ways of calculating value-added.
One of the problems is that using KS2 levels underestimates the base-line of GS students - many were high level 5 and some probably edging into level 6 but all 'level 5s' are treated in the same way. So the base-line for the calculation is artificially lower than the pupils ability on entry, does that make sense?
In addition, we expect four levels of progress as moving a level 5 to a grade A GCSE is 'expected' for us - nationally three levels is the 'expected progress' as moving a level 4 to a grade C is harder.

[Tolstoy]

Yes that does make sense G55.

[mike1880]

One of the things I've noticed is that the stats for "making expected progress" appear to depend mostly on the pupils' prior attainment. In other words, almost without exception any school's percentage for low attainers making expected progress will be lower than that for average attainers, which in turn will be lower than that for high attainers. Which basically shows that the entire underlying methodology is fundamentally flawed (i.e. low and middle attainers are expected to make more progress than they are capable of - unless teachers in the UK are only capable of competently teaching pupils with high prior attainment which I find somewhat implausible).

Since added value is based on progress, it automatically follows that a grammar school, which selects mostly high attainers, should have a high added value figure (in fact, any that doesn't ought to be under severe scrutiny) while a school which has a disproportionately large proportion of low prior attainers will almost automatically have a low added value.

The late and unlamented "CVA" (Contextual Value Added) used to be used to try to fudge round this fundamental flaw in the methodology by adding a layer of misinformation and dishonesty on top (by "marking up" schools with a historically bad record and "marking down" those with a good past record - you really couldn't make it up, could you?).

The obvious solution would be to get the methodology right but no one seems to want to talk about that.

[Tolstoy]

I think you make a valid point there mike1880. I have experience of schools with high proportions of low attainers and know how much effort has to put in just to maintain rises in sub-levels let alone whole levels.

[cleo]

Cleo, when did I write the quote being attributed to me?

Cleo, when did I write the quote being attributed to me?

I really don't know how your name got associated with that quote But when I'm on a computer anything is possible!

[Tolstoy]

I sense your pain cleo, I have similar issues with Ipads

[LostInTheShuffle]

Interesting discussion but I am surprised that no one has mentioned a distinctive approach/culture, visionary head teachers, dedicated and inspiring faculty, active parental involvement, etc as contributing factors to these schools' continued excellence.

[JamesDean]

Not sure any of those features are exclusive to grammar schools - surely their selective intake is their unique advantage?

JD

[mad?]

Not sure any of those features are exclusive to grammar schools - surely their selective intake is their unique advantage?

JD

+1