Wilsons results - please add comments here from the 1st

[Ladymuck]

Yes, the figures are for the previous year SET, but as noted, the data for 2015 will be published soon.

Whilst the SET is just the first hurdle for some of the schools, it is nevertheless an important bar, especially given the evidence that many who pass this test still aren't actually taking places at Sutton grammars. Whilst your school gate may have overinflated the number of candidates, I still come across many parents of bright children who don't realise the extent of the competition for this first round - and let's face it, a multiple choice exam almost always favours the more practiced candidates, not necessarily the most able.

In some respects I look forward to seeing the GCSE and A level outcomes following the 2 stage process, as I assume that candidates who pass are both bright, and well-prepared. Unfortunately such a combination means that it would be hard to make an assessment of the value added by the school, as these would be the type of candidates who will probably do well certainly to GCSE regardless of the quality of teaching.

[PurpleDuck]

In some respects I look forward to seeing the GCSE and A level outcomes following the 2 stage process, as I assume that candidates who pass are both bright, and well-prepared. Unfortunately such a combination means that it would be hard to make an assessment of the value added by the school, as these would be the type of candidates who will probably do well certainly to GCSE regardless of the quality of teaching.

On that note - I remember a post somewhere on here talking about a teacher who decided to move from a grammar to an average-performing comprehensive (I am not suggesting all comprehensives are average in performance; that particular one was), simply because he felt his top-set students didn't really need him, they nearly 'taught themselves', and he wanted to teach somewhere where he could see he was making a real difference. Would that sort of thing be a rare occurrence, or relatively common?

[loopylou]

Value Added can sometimes be hard to achieve or to demonstrate at grammar schools because many children will be very nearly GCSE standard in maths or, less commonly, English years before they sit the exams. It probably isn't the case at A Level though and may well change anyway once the current GCSEs are fully overhauled and a new grade 9 introduced for only a very few top performers.

[Ladymuck]

On that note - I remember a post somewhere on here talking about a teacher who decided to move from a grammar to an average-performing comprehensive (I am not suggesting all comprehensives are average in performance; that particular one was), simply because he felt his top-set students didn't really need him, they nearly 'taught themselves', and he wanted to teach somewhere where he could see he was making a real difference. Would that sort of thing be a rare occurrence, or relatively common?

IME teachers move schools for a variety of reasons, but often to gain different experience or for advancement. It is sensible for subject teachers to teach in more than one type of setting if that is an option.

[PurpleDuck]

IME teachers move schools for a variety of reasons, but often to gain different experience or for advancement. It is sensible for subject teachers to teach in more than one type of setting if that is an option.

Thank you, it does make sense.