This discussion is closed.
yawn1
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#21
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#21
(Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
You know me too well!

I think value added between KS3 and KS4 is flawed for some schools, as they have very high standards in both.
From next year tables will show from KS2 to KS4! This will still not give a definitive picture of achievement so apart from Foundation stage (aged 5) to KS4, the next best thing would be my suggestions of separation of types of school and measures employed on league tables (If we MUST have them) Wales and Northern Ireland have stopped publishing them incidentally precisely because of the points we have all raised.
0
Harry Potter
Badges:
#22
Report 16 years ago
#22
(Original post by happysunshine)
Are you a stater, grammar boy or an independent lad?
Grammar.
0
happysunshine
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#23
Report 16 years ago
#23
(Original post by yawn1)
From next year tables will show from KS2 to KS4! This will still not give a definitive picture of achievement so apart from Foundation stage (aged 5) to KS4, the next best thing would be my suggestions of separation of types of school and measures employed on league tables (If we MUST have them) Wales and Northern Ireland have stopped publishing them incidentally precisely because of the points we have all raised.
A table with the average points per pupil would be good. That'd really show the bad schools as the bad schools aim towards 5A*-C and give up.
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#24
Report 16 years ago
#24
(Original post by Harry Potter)
Grammar.
YOu failed to notice that two of those three categories apply to you.
0
Harry Potter
Badges:
#25
Report 16 years ago
#25
(Original post by Bigcnee)
YOu failed to notice that two of those three categories apply to you.
Ah, yes. Very observant.
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#26
Report 16 years ago
#26
(Original post by yawn1)
So after a bit of glory for grammars (Key stage 3 value added) the true picture of secondary education emerges. Comprehensives are better! Of the top 100 school, 76 are comps. Is this the death knell for selection?
Indeed!
0
Harry Potter
Badges:
#27
Report 16 years ago
#27
(Original post by Bigcnee)
Indeed!
(Original post by Bigcnee (in the grammar school thread))
The tables are basically flawed.
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#28
Report 16 years ago
#28
(Original post by Harry Potter)
I was referring to the "Value-added" tables you moron.
Please don't quote me completely out of context.
0
Harry Potter
Badges:
#29
Report 16 years ago
#29
(Original post by Bigcnee)
I was referring to the "Value-added" tables you moron.
Please don't quote me completely out of context.
What? You agree that these value-added tables spell the death knell for selection, but the other value-added tables are statistically flawed?
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#30
Report 16 years ago
#30
(Original post by Harry Potter)
What? You agree that these value-added tables spell the death knell for selection, but the other value-added tables are statistically flawed?
I've looked at both methods of statistical representation (which I always do before reading into anything) and the new tables are far more satisfactory than the previous ones.
0
Harry Potter
Badges:
#31
Report 16 years ago
#31
(Original post by Bigcnee)
I've looked at both methods of statistical representation (which I always do before reading into anything) and the new tables are far more satisfactory than the previous ones.
It seems to me that there are a multitude of reasons why these new tables are even more biased against grammars than the other ones.
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#32
Report 16 years ago
#32
(Original post by Harry Potter)
It seems to me that there are a multitude of reasons why these new tables are even more biased against grammars than the other ones.
Such as?
0
nikk
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#33
Report 16 years ago
#33
(Original post by yawn1)
So after a bit of glory for grammars (Key stage 3 value added) the true picture of secondary education emerges. Comprehensives are better! Of the top 100 school, 76 are comps. Is this the death knell for selection?
Well after all the money that is being poured into the education system, I should think so too!
0
Harry Potter
Badges:
#34
Report 16 years ago
#34
(Original post by Bigcnee)
Such as?
1. Hard work doesn't lead to good SATs results, but will generally lead to good GCSE results.

Intelligence leads to good SATs results but not necessarily good GCSE results.

Grammar schools have more intelligent but not necessarily harder working pupils, therefore do much better than comps at KS3 but not quite as much better at GCSE.

This is the reason girls' schools dominate the top of the table.

2. Grammars help students reach their full potential sooner than comprehensives.

3. Comprehensive schools are less of an acedemic environment and so students do not try as hard at KS3 when the results don't count for anything.

4. Because comprehensives have less exceptiopnal pupils, the school is much less likely to arrange for extension papers to be sat and for any extra material to be taught.

I have no doubt that I could think of many more reasons given time and/or more detailed information about how these are calculated. Essentially, for various reasons, grammars do better than comps at KS3 but not quite so much better at GCSE. It makes far more sense that they should be measured from when they enter the school to KS3 or GCSE (KS3 makes more sense because they are similar tests). However, this is still biased, as grammars are likely to get a lot of people who were drilled to get in or developed early and so got good KS2 results, but aren't that intelligent.
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#35
Report 16 years ago
#35
(Original post by Harry Potter)
1. Hard work doesn't lead to good SATs results, but will generally lead to good GCSE results.

Intelligence leads to good SATs results but not necessarily good GCSE results.

Grammar schools have more intelligent but not necessarily harder working pupils, therefore do much better than comps at KS3 but not quite as much better at GCSE.

This is the reason girls' schools dominate the top of the table.

2. Grammars help students reach their full potential sooner than comprehensives.

3. Comprehensive schools are less of an acedemic environment and so students do not try as hard at KS3 when the results don't count for anything.

4. Because comprehensives have less exceptiopnal pupils, the school is much less likely to arrange for extension papers to be sat and for any extra material to be taught.

I have no doubt that I could think of many more reasons given time and/or more detailed information about how these are calculated. Essentially, for various reasons, grammars do better than comps at KS3 but not quite so much better at GCSE. It makes far more sense that they should be measured from when they enter the school to KS3 or GCSE (KS3 makes more sense because they are similar tests). However, this is still biased, as grammars are likely to get a lot of people who were drilled to get in or developed early and so got good KS2 results, but aren't that intelligent.
Most of your points aren't to do with the tables, which we are referring to.
The other points you made could be successfully solved with the abolition of Grammar schools (which is inevitable)
0
username9816
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#36
Report 16 years ago
#36
(Original post by Bigcnee)
Most of your points aren't to do with the tables, which we are referring to.
The other points you made could be successfully solved with the abolition of Grammar schools (which is inevitable)
u need intelligence for sats but no gcse's?

thats a new one.............. :rolleyes:
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#37
Report 16 years ago
#37
(Original post by bono)
u need intelligence for sats but no gcse's?

thats a new one.............. :rolleyes:
The person doesn't seem to be well-versed in the dynamics of our education system.
0
username9816
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#38
Report 16 years ago
#38
(Original post by Bigcnee)
The person doesn't seem to be well-versed in the dynamics of our education system.
SATS - intelligence i think not. Commen sense at most with any slight bit of knowledge.

GCSE'S - Possibly a bit of intelligence, need to work fairly hard to do well - i mean as in A*'s/ A's........

A-Levels - hard Work Definitely needed, intelligence needed to moderate level, variates from subject to subject though.........

thats what i think anyway....
0
Juwel
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#39
Report 16 years ago
#39
My sixth form is the best FE institution in Tower Hamlets, each student achieving on average 200 points, beating the borough average by a good 60-odd. The school isn't great, even bloody Morpeth beat us! Damn them!
0
meepmeep
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#40
Report 16 years ago
#40
My school (a comp) has mediocre GCSE results but A-level is there or thereabouts the best sixth form in the city (pipped by Maskall's school this year by a point or so).

And value added is a superior way of tabulating the performance of schools, If you have a "selective school", by it's nature the students there are likely to be of higher ability and so should get higher grades than their comprehensive counterparts. Value-adding merely takes this imbalance into account (although fails to take into account other influences which are more contentious like average household income etc, also partly because it would take ages to compile such a table).
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (532)
66.67%
No (266)
33.33%

Watched Threads

View All