GRAMMAR LEAGUE TABLES-2007
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
GRAMMAR LEAGUE TABLES-2007
Does anyone know how the 'Bucks Grammars 'did this year for GCSE/A 'LEVEL.
Which Topped the tables overall? Is there a table just for the 'GRAMMARS'.
Thanks.
Which Topped the tables overall? Is there a table just for the 'GRAMMARS'.
Thanks.
-
- Posts: 12817
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:51 am
- Location: The Seaside
-
- Posts: 12817
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:51 am
- Location: The Seaside
forgot the link!!
stressed ... see North Yorks posts!!!
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schoolt ... 44,00.html
stressed ... see North Yorks posts!!!
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schoolt ... 44,00.html
They all did very well.
Beyond that, t depends which league table you look at, because they calculate differently. I enjoyed comparing them when published in different newspapers etc a few months back, but didn't keep them because I think they're of limited usefulness.
For instance, some rank on average total points per pupil (so sitting an extra non-academic subject or two can boost league table position), but others work on average points per pupil in, for example, their best 8 GCSEs (so schools where they all do more than that, don't get any credit for it). And some put the partially selective (~30% of intake) schools in Watford as grammars, some as comprehensives, neither of which is true.
League tables are fine for contrasting the very good and very bad (but you invariable know which those are anyway). But they not good for making meaningful comparisons between similar schools. In Bucks, the grammars get high points, the uppers less so, but if you're comparing one single year's results at one grammar with one single year's results at another grammar, I don't think you can infer much at all.
All the grammars are good academically, what probably matters more is the general culture of the school and how well that matches your child.
That's meant to be helpful, but apologies if it doesn't sound that way.
Beyond that, t depends which league table you look at, because they calculate differently. I enjoyed comparing them when published in different newspapers etc a few months back, but didn't keep them because I think they're of limited usefulness.
For instance, some rank on average total points per pupil (so sitting an extra non-academic subject or two can boost league table position), but others work on average points per pupil in, for example, their best 8 GCSEs (so schools where they all do more than that, don't get any credit for it). And some put the partially selective (~30% of intake) schools in Watford as grammars, some as comprehensives, neither of which is true.
League tables are fine for contrasting the very good and very bad (but you invariable know which those are anyway). But they not good for making meaningful comparisons between similar schools. In Bucks, the grammars get high points, the uppers less so, but if you're comparing one single year's results at one grammar with one single year's results at another grammar, I don't think you can infer much at all.
All the grammars are good academically, what probably matters more is the general culture of the school and how well that matches your child.
That's meant to be helpful, but apologies if it doesn't sound that way.