School choice - a possible compromise?
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/cgi-bin/performa ... =b&Num=916
This is the link to the data for GCSE for Cheltenham Ladies on the DCSF website.
If this differs so much from whatever data was quoted in the Times for CLC for 2007 and prior years maybe someone who is interested in the school's performance e.g. Silverflora, might be best advised to contact both the school and the DCSF to find out why there is a difference.
It could be a technical reason (e.g. iGCSEs are excluded, or it makes your results look worse if some children sit early etc), or it could be that the information that is submitted by the school to the Times has some inaccuracies in it, or is treated in some way differently from the DCSF method.
When the newspapers produce their own tables shortly after the results, these are just based on info sent in by the schools that choose to submit results. Then in Jan the following year the DCSF publishes all the data. At this point some of the newspapers have a second bash at producing tables. I would have thought that if CLC data was incorrect on the DCSF database year on year they would have complained by now and had it corrected.
Any 2008 data that newspapers have used to produce their own tables with is not yet complete, or fully checked.
This is the link to the data for GCSE for Cheltenham Ladies on the DCSF website.
If this differs so much from whatever data was quoted in the Times for CLC for 2007 and prior years maybe someone who is interested in the school's performance e.g. Silverflora, might be best advised to contact both the school and the DCSF to find out why there is a difference.
It could be a technical reason (e.g. iGCSEs are excluded, or it makes your results look worse if some children sit early etc), or it could be that the information that is submitted by the school to the Times has some inaccuracies in it, or is treated in some way differently from the DCSF method.
When the newspapers produce their own tables shortly after the results, these are just based on info sent in by the schools that choose to submit results. Then in Jan the following year the DCSF publishes all the data. At this point some of the newspapers have a second bash at producing tables. I would have thought that if CLC data was incorrect on the DCSF database year on year they would have complained by now and had it corrected.
Any 2008 data that newspapers have used to produce their own tables with is not yet complete, or fully checked.
-
T.i.p.s.y
Perplexed, it is well known that in order for many state schools to appear to be doing better than they are the league tables are either constructed to omit facts or mislead parents.
If a child sits a GCSE early (as many independents and some GS do in some subjects) then it is classed at 16 as a fail in these league tables. The same applies if a child sits an IGCSE.
I'm not sure if it is still the case, but a GNVQ in a subject including flower-arranging
was classed as 5 A*-C in the governement league tables, so a child only needed one GNVQ to raise a schools league table position.
When the Pre-U comes in to some independent schools I fully expect the government to ignore these and schools such as Westminster will plummet down their league tables. The best indication of any senior school is its university entrance. If close to 100% are going on to higher education then it would be impossible for the vast majority to be accepted into university if they did not have 5A*-C. In fact the school would not even allow them to sit A'levels if this were the case.
If a child sits a GCSE early (as many independents and some GS do in some subjects) then it is classed at 16 as a fail in these league tables. The same applies if a child sits an IGCSE.
I'm not sure if it is still the case, but a GNVQ in a subject including flower-arranging
was classed as 5 A*-C in the governement league tables, so a child only needed one GNVQ to raise a schools league table position.When the Pre-U comes in to some independent schools I fully expect the government to ignore these and schools such as Westminster will plummet down their league tables. The best indication of any senior school is its university entrance. If close to 100% are going on to higher education then it would be impossible for the vast majority to be accepted into university if they did not have 5A*-C. In fact the school would not even allow them to sit A'levels if this were the case.
It's true that all league tables can be manipulated and parents just need to do their homework (no pun intended).
My daughter's school (King Edward High School for Girls) achieved 0% of girls gaining A*-C lst year, but current (and prospective) parents know full well that the reason was because they chose to switch to IGCSE in some subjects.
However I'm not sure that using University Entrance as the criteria works either because this :-
(a) is subject to the year 11 cull (ruthless in some schools, Grammars and Independents)
(b) Takes no account of students that choose a non academic route.
The key thing is surely is does the school provide a top quality teaching environment and support to enable students to achieve their full potential, including stretching them well beyond the National Curriculum if appropriate.
I don't particularly mind if a school has a few poor results at GCSE or A levels (there are always lazy kids in all schools) but if it provides opportunities for the majority then that's important.
I don't think the government regulatory bodies are anti Pre-U at all, but it just takes a long time to conduct reviews. Also the views of the regulatory bodies and Government often differ. Not sure if you read the presentation by Ken Boston Chief Exec of the QCA:-
http://www.qca.org.uk/qca_20534.aspx
Regards
My daughter's school (King Edward High School for Girls) achieved 0% of girls gaining A*-C lst year, but current (and prospective) parents know full well that the reason was because they chose to switch to IGCSE in some subjects.
However I'm not sure that using University Entrance as the criteria works either because this :-
(a) is subject to the year 11 cull (ruthless in some schools, Grammars and Independents)
(b) Takes no account of students that choose a non academic route.
The key thing is surely is does the school provide a top quality teaching environment and support to enable students to achieve their full potential, including stretching them well beyond the National Curriculum if appropriate.
I don't particularly mind if a school has a few poor results at GCSE or A levels (there are always lazy kids in all schools) but if it provides opportunities for the majority then that's important.
I don't think the government regulatory bodies are anti Pre-U at all, but it just takes a long time to conduct reviews. Also the views of the regulatory bodies and Government often differ. Not sure if you read the presentation by Ken Boston Chief Exec of the QCA:-
http://www.qca.org.uk/qca_20534.aspx
The A-Level is spoken of as the gold standard, by some with nostalgia. There are some who will claim it is tarnished, if not become base metal. In Karachi, Cairo and Singapore the view is somewhat rosier: the awarding bodies continue to build their international businesses on the cachet of British qualifications and examinations. But at home, consideration is being given by many schools and parents to alternative qualifications - the International Baccalaureate, the Cambridge Pre-U and so on – not simply because they might be better mechanisms for allocating the positional good of higher education, but because they might provide a better education overall.
Unfortunately the next 14-19 review is not until 2013!The first is the proliferation of other qualifications which are submitted successfully for accreditation by the regulatory authorities. The International Baccalaureate is the longest standing of these: more recently the Cambridge Pre-U and the international GCSEs. It would seem that there could be further growth in the number of these qualifications: decisions on whether they are then funded for teaching in the maintained sector is a matter of course for Government, not the regulators.
The policy question for Government is whether we are to have a limited and managed suite of qualifications (GCEs, GCSEs, Diplomas and Apprenticeships), or whether there is to be a fully competitive market, with each qualification having its own niche and price point.
Regards
-
Kent99
It's pretty obvious from the full breakdown of results on the CLC website that the actual percentage of girls getting 5 passes including English and maths was 100% in both 2007 and 2008. The reason that this is not reflected in the tables appears to be that some girls sat GCSE maths a year early; the government tables count this as a fail.
The state grammar which my daughter attends also does very badly in these tables because the top maths set do GCSE a year early and then sit AS level maths in year 11. The large majority get an A* in the GCSE and an A at AS level. They are all counted as failing to get any maths qualification at all. The school has complained, but the dcsf aren't interested. League tables really aren't worth much when you are trying to assess how well able children perform. And any school which actually implements the "personalised learning" pushed by the government is heavily penalised.
The state grammar which my daughter attends also does very badly in these tables because the top maths set do GCSE a year early and then sit AS level maths in year 11. The large majority get an A* in the GCSE and an A at AS level. They are all counted as failing to get any maths qualification at all. The school has complained, but the dcsf aren't interested. League tables really aren't worth much when you are trying to assess how well able children perform. And any school which actually implements the "personalised learning" pushed by the government is heavily penalised.
Well that's a relief. I'm glad that CLC is better than it looks from a brief read of the DSCF stats. Tipsy, your last post on this thread is kind of addressed to me, but it sounds kind of cross and I don't know why. I have several times written that perhaps the GCSE results don't look great perhaps because of iGCSE or when they sit their GCSEs.
I don't expect to have to comb the CLC website for an explanation as this wasn't my thread. I thought that someone with great knowledge of the school would quickly and politely respond saying that they do sit some GCSEs early, or they do a mix of iGCSE and GCSE or whatever ..........
But never mind. Perhaps as the product of an independent school and Oxbridge I expect people to be too polite (and by the way that was supposed to be humorous ..... don't like doing those funny little yellow alien faces)
It has been interesting so far, wonder what Silverflora is thinking. And how does the cut-off IQ for a CLC girl compare with the cut-off for Pate's I wonder?
I don't expect to have to comb the CLC website for an explanation as this wasn't my thread. I thought that someone with great knowledge of the school would quickly and politely respond saying that they do sit some GCSEs early, or they do a mix of iGCSE and GCSE or whatever ..........
But never mind. Perhaps as the product of an independent school and Oxbridge I expect people to be too polite (and by the way that was supposed to be humorous ..... don't like doing those funny little yellow alien faces)
It has been interesting so far, wonder what Silverflora is thinking. And how does the cut-off IQ for a CLC girl compare with the cut-off for Pate's I wonder?
-
T.i.p.s.y
Perplexed, I was not cross in the slightest, that is the way I write. You may now understand how some misinterpret your posts when it is easy to misinterpret mine. 
After apologising to Silverflora, I have no intention of debating or venting my thoughts in the way I did on two of my posts on this thread.
After apologising to Silverflora, I have no intention of debating or venting my thoughts in the way I did on two of my posts on this thread.
-
Loopyloulou
- Posts: 878
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 5:20 pm
If your priority in life is to impress "those who matter", and if that category excludes everyone who was educated at a grammar or comprehensive (and I assume by analogy, also excludes such lesser forms of educational life as academies, faith schools etc.) then I don't see that you have a choice to make.
Mike
Mike
