Are comprehensives really 'failing' their ablest pupils?

[Amber]

I am sure you will have seen the 'news' this week that that comprehensive schools are 'failing' their ablest pupils (thanks, Daily Mail)

Just to offer a little balance to this story, I am posting part of a response from Chris Husbands (Director of IOE), who points out that 'all is not well' in grammar schools either.

in comprehensive schools, 35% of those who secured level 5 or above in both English and Maths went on to secure an A or A* at GCSE, whereas the figure was 59% in grammar schools. But this means that 41% of those who secured a Level 5 at age 11 and went on to selective secondary education did not secure an A or A* at GCSE.

His conclusion is interesting too, I feel:

And there’s a further point: over the same period, policy and press discussion has tended to divide schools into “successful” and “failing” schools. The OFSTED report on higher attainers demonstrates that it’s a lot more complex than this: it turns out that “successful” schools are often no more successful in meeting the needs of very high attaining pupils than less successful schools. And, for all the difference between comprehensive schools and grammar schools, if grammar schools are not securing the highest grades for two-fifths of their most able students, the observation holds there. Put slightly differently, it does not matter much which school you go to, but it may matter a great deal who teaches you when you get there.

Not exactly grist to the mill of those who say that bright children will do well anywhere, but perhaps a little light cast on the nuances of that argument. And maybe also a little support for those who believe that children pushed to get into selective schools may actually not be the academic hot shots their parents wish them to be.

[wonderwoman]

Put slightly differently, it does not matter much which school you go to, but it may matter a great deal who teaches you when you get there.

Completely agree with this.

But back to failing the brightest. The problem with all these statistics is that the NC levels are far too wide - a 2 year spread - for this sort of comparison at KS4 to be fair. So the school I teach at is very successful at getting Y6 to level 5 and it looks very good in league tables (as do a number of other nearby primary schools). But many Y6 pupils just scrape into the level 5 bracket, so I as a teacher might say they are really a very capable level 4 not a level 5, but they should have started level 5 work. However their ability / knowledge / whatever will be very different from those who get a high level 5, you would expect them to be 2 years ahead and ready to begin level 6 work. All these pupils are then set the same target of trying to achieve the highest grades at GCSE. It doesn't make sense.

[ToadMum]

Aren't the "equivalent" (i.e. "meeting expectations") GCSE grades B / A / A* for those who left KS2 with at least level 5? Cannot remember which source this is from but there is a discussion and link somewhere on the Forum. This would make sense when considering wonderwoman's comments about the spread of actual abilities covered by "level 5". However, the current fuss is about the ones who fail to get A or A*. How many of the remainder actually do get a B?

[SteveDH]

How does this equate with the fact that supposedly exams are too easy and too many people are getting As and A*s.
if not enough level 5s are getting the As and A*s who is getting them?

Steve

[Amber]

As part of our reforms to the national curriculum , the current system of ‘levels’ used to report children’s attainment and progress will be removed. It will not be replaced (DFE, 13 June 2013).

It's OK - we can all breathe easy. The answer is to abolish the levels, which is what the Government did the day after the 'failing' report came out.

Oh, if only all things in life were so simple.

http://www.education.gov.uk/a00225864/a ... out-levels" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[scary mum]

As part of our reforms to the national curriculum , the current system of ‘levels’ used to report children’s attainment and progress will be removed. It will not be replaced (DFE, 13 June 2013).

It's OK - we can all breathe easy. The answer is to abolish the levels, which is what the Government did the day after the 'failing' report came out.

Oh, if only all things in life were so simple.

http://www.education.gov.uk/a00225864/a ... out-levels" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm sure they will change their minds several times anyway. Interesting to know how they will devise their league tables for primary schools. Or will they keep the "levels"?

ETA (RTQ scary mum) - it is primary schools & they can report "whatever measures they decide to use". Hmmm. Useful for comparison purposes

[Kingfisher]

Whoopie! I have been banging on about this for years. Now maybe we can get back to some proper teaching!

[Tree]

but what about this seems to be saying the opposite:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/201 ... :Position7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[magwich2]

Yes, but if a pupil from a good private school ended up at Cardiff or, heaven forbid, as a Brookite they would not have been the brightest or the most hardworking at their school. Therefore these figures are not exactly surprising.

[Guest55]

heaven forbid, as a Brookite

Magwich2, Oxford Brookes has an extremely good reputation. Have you looked at the employment statistics? Pick on somewhere else!