What do we really mean when we say a child has done "well?"

[Guest55]

mike1880 - do you have to express your comments so rudely?

[P's mum]

Well I'd not seen these tables before and have previously taken the various published tables with a very large pinch of salt because they foucsed on outcomes with virtually no information on the input in terms of pupil mix (though I know that there was single value added measure). Whilst I'm willing to accept that there may be a large range between the top and botttom of a level four or five it makes a big difference seeing some split of intake particularly when comparing a supposedly non-selective school with a selective school.

However, I have a some questions that perhaps guest55 (or someone else) can answer. What does 'expected progress' mean? Is this refering to some expected national standard e.g. 5 GCSEs A-C to progress to be expected given the starting point? In other words would you expect this to be the same for low, middle and high acheivers or would high acheivers normally be expected to do better on this measure?

With 'value added' if a grammar school is particularly successful with the middle band is this likely to be because actually they probably only have the top of the middle band or does it genuinely reflect the fact that being in a minority these children do better than might be expected?

Thanks

[ToadMum]

Well I'd not seen these tables before and have previously taken the various published tables with a very large pinch of salt because they foucsed on outcomes with virtually no information on the input in terms of pupil mix (though I know that there was single value added measure). Whilst I'm willing to accept that there may be a large range between the top and botttom of a level four or five it makes a big difference seeing some split of intake particularly when comparing a supposedly non-selective school with a selective school.

However, I have a some questions that perhaps guest55 (or someone else) can answer. What does 'expected progress' mean? Is this refering to some expected national standard e.g. 5 GCSEs A-C to progress to be expected given the starting point? In other words would you expect this to be the same for low, middle and high acheivers or would high acheivers normally be expected to do better on this measure?

With 'value added' if a grammar school is particularly successful with the middle band is this likely to be because actually they probably only have the top of the middle band or does it genuinely reflect the fact that being in a minority these children do better than might be expected?

Thanks

Does this help?
http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/per ... s_2012.pdf

I may be completely wrong, but re the Value Added score doesn't it mean that the higher the value over 1000, the better the school has actually done with regard to the baseline,so to speak? Therefore if they have a relatively high score for the middle band, they could actually have more who came in low in the band, but the results were more what would be expected of an intake higher in the band on average.

[aliportico]

I'd heard about these tables, but not actually looked until reading this thread. They're fascinating and really do give a far more insightful picture of a school.

I've previously been of the opinion that - for GCSEs anyway - an individual bright child is likely to do basically the same wherever they go. Well, possibly not wherever (!) but comparing grammar and good comp. This is mostly based on my two eldest daughters, one at a grammar, one at (an offically Good) comp - I can't see that they are going to get very different GCSE results (will let you know next summer - dd1 is y11 and dd2 is y10). But lately I've been thinking about the disadvantages that the comp-attender is at compared to her sister - frequent (mostly) low-level disruption in lessons, no textbooks to bring home and use, etc - and thinking that if she ends up with as good GCSEs as the grammar girl, then that's at the least testament to her being far more hard-working, and it could be argued that it shows she's *more* able.

So I'm starting to doubt myself, tbh. Or at least start adding several caveats to my opinion.

[Okanagan]

I'd be more interested in hearing why the percentage making expected progress correlates closely with attainment band pretty much across the board - here's an example I picked at random (Redden Court School, Romford, for the curious):

% making expected progress in English: low attainers 50%, middle 75%, high 76%
% making expected progrss in Maths: low attainers 46%, middle 76%, high 85%

That's a fairly typical distribution.

Isn't expected progress measured in National Curriculum levels? IIRC it's a fixed rate of progression - progress of 2 sublevels per year? In which case it's hardly surprising that those who progressed at this rate or better at primary school's continue to do so, whereas those who didn't also continue to do so. All the figures are really doing is telling you that quick learners continue to be quick learners, and slow learners continue to be slow learners. No surprise there then.

[mystery]

I think the way the primary tables are done expected progress is two full levels progress from KS1 to KS2 i.e. a level 1 to a level 3, or a level 2 to a level 4, or a level 3 to a level 5. I'm hazier about expected progress at secondary. If this is not all explained properly in the notes to the tables themselves I would be tempted to contact the DfE.

Certainly I will be looking at these tables again when working on choosing secondary schools. Yes, I'm afraid the platitude that an able child will do well wherever they go is not strictly true. The fact is though that no school is perfect all the time and you could pick a great school from these tables but then find, for example, that your child gets a particularly weak maths teacher in years 10 and 11. The good school will move this teacher on ultimately quite fast but there's always a time lag and your child could be one of the minority that suffered in the meantime.

The proper statement is, I think, that with vigilant parents an able child will do well wherever. If a vigilant parent spotted the maths teaching was poor for a period they'd do something about it - tell the school and do some catch-up at home etc etc.

It's like investment information - past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance. You can make a profit or a loss. Your child's school can improve or get worse compared with the day you selected it, or your child could be unlucky in getting an unfair share of the weaker teachers during their time there.

[P's mum]

Does this help?
http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/per ... s_2012.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks yes. Though the level of prgress expected, especially for high attainers (I assume level 5 at key stage 2) doesn't inspire a lot of confidence - a B at GCSE. I would hope that grammar school children and indeed top set at a reasonably comprehensive comp would be acheiving this as a barest minimum.

I'm still interested to understand the value added if any knows the answer.

[mystery]

Yes, I think "expected progress" is the bare minimum. So if a school isn't managing to do this it's really not doing what it should. No-one has to bust a gut - school or child - for a level 5 child to get a B at GCSE, in the same way that no-one has to bust a gut for a level 3 primary child to get level 5 by the end of KS2. It's just "what's expected" - anything worse than this is dismal.

[Amber]

I long for the day when someone suggests that maybe children have some responsibility for their own learning and it isn't all down to the school. Children at GS are more likely than their 'comprehensive' counterparts to be the offspring of the type of (largely middle class) parents who are going to d amn well make sure that little Johnny does well. They will buy tutoring, get all the glossy revision guides, go up and moan to the school if they think a teacher isn't doing the job of ensuring Johnny 'fulfils his potential' (my pet hate phrase). That Johnny might be a lazy little toerag who spends all his spare time on his Xbox and shows no interest in school work is deemed immaterial. And some parents, in the face of overwhelming evidence that the child is not doing a stroke, will still try to rubbish the school and blame poor teaching for not 'motivating' their child.

By contrast, many children at non-selective schools, maybe not even entered for selective school exams, will not have such sharp-elbowed parents. A small minority will be the 'disappointed few' who didn't get into GS - these will have all the 'advantages' of the GS crew; in fact their parents may even try harder to compensate for the injustice of their child not being in the school they 'should have been' in, and buy tutoring, books galore and help with homework to compensate for the educational 'disadvantage'. These children will be among those who 'do well' at non-selective schools. Many,many bright children will not do so well as they and their parents don't have the cultural capital to play the system in this way. They don't know about tutors, they may be afraid to challenge the teachers, it doesn't occur to them to go and get extra books. There is a (to me) very interesting paper* which illustrates what happens to middle class children whose parents make 'counter-intuitive' choices, often motivated by ideology, to send them to low achieving schools. (In short - they do jolly well). So will a bright child do well anywhere? No, but a bright middle class child probably will, and a bright child from certain ethnic and social groups probably won't.

While you have selective education, you will always find that attainment is higher in the selective sector, with some minor exceptions. The only way to raise attainment across the board is to have a truly comprehensive system, such as will never ever happen in this country.

*James, D., Reay, D., Crozier, G., Beedell, P., Hollingworth, S., Jamieson, F. and Williams, K. (2010) Neoliberal policy and the meaning of counterintuitive middle-class school choices. Current Sociology, 58 (4). p. 623. ISSN 0011-3921)

[Okanagan]

Many,many bright children will not do so well as they and their parents don't have the cultural capital to play the system in this way. They don't know about tutors, they may be afraid to challenge the teachers, it doesn't occur to them to go and get extra books.

Or of course they may just not have the financial resources to use tutors and buy additional books - even if they are aware of them and would be motivated to do so.