This discussion is closed.
username9816
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#41
Report 16 years ago
#41
(Original post by meepmeep)
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).
yes, the GCSE Results r not good really, but at A-Level its pretty good.

saying that, a few years ago, lawnswood wasnt far off the "worst high school in city" tag - however, with investment, improvement etc it has now some respectability to it as an ok high school. kids from my school used to take the mick out of it, but thats because they dont realise how sad they are compared to normal high schools with normal kids from normal backgrounds, with normal tastes etc.

teaching wise, my school is one of the worst. really.
0
meepmeep
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#42
Report 16 years ago
#42
(Original post by bono)
yes, Lawnswood GCSE Results r not good really, but at A-Level its pretty good.

saying that, a few years ago, lawnswood wasnt far off the "worst high school" tag - however, with investment, improvement etc it has now some respectability to it as an ok high school

teaching wise, my school is one of the worst. really.
lol, Lawnswood's never had "Worst High School" tag, try City of Leeds for that. Has always had decent A-level results. We had a fairly poor head for a while about 5 years ago, but we've got a new one now who seems to be decent enough. Anyway, there's my two penn'orth.
0
Juwel
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#43
Report 16 years ago
#43
(Original post by meepmeep)
lol, Lawnswood's never had "Worst High School" tag, try City of Leeds for that. Has always had decent A-level results. We had a fairly poor head for a while about 5 years ago, but we've got a new one now who seems to be decent enough. Anyway, there's my two peneth.
It's "penn'orth", just thought I'd help you out there.

Not that any of meepmeep's school results indicate his/her/its (I forgot) own ability, he is a very decent mathematician.
0
meepmeep
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#44
Report 16 years ago
#44
(Original post by ZJuwelH)
It's "penn'orth", just thought I'd help you out there.

Not that any of meepmeep's school results indicate his/her/its (I forgot) own ability, he is a very decent mathematician.
Thanks. And it's he or it, whatever takes your fancy.
0
londongirl
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#45
Report 16 years ago
#45
not exactly helping an argument between comprehensives and private schools, but my school was given the title of Best Comprehensive without a sixth form in the UK by the Time newspaper
0
Harry Potter
Badges:
#46
Report 16 years ago
#46
(Original post by bono)
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........
That's exactly what I said.
0
Harry Potter
Badges:
#47
Report 16 years ago
#47
(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)
I am pointing out the faults with measuring the improvement from KS3 to KS4. Unfortunately that's pretty much all I can do, since I only have basic information about how the tables are calculated. Surely it makes far more sense to measure improvement from when students first enter the school, not halfway through it, since the rate of improvement ('adding value') is not likely to be constant.

Anyway, even if these tables were absolutely fair and still showed that grammar schools scored about the same as comprehensives, it certainly wouldn't spell the end for selective schools. Different schools are suited to teaching different types of pupils. I think most of those who have attended grammar schools would agree that they received a better education than they would if they had attended a comprehensive with very low-calibre students but a higher value added score.
0
yawn1
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#48
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#48
(Original post by Harry Potter)
KS3 to KS4 makes no sense.
Does it not make sense because it places comprehensives in a better light than grammars?
OK - at Key stage 2 the country has reached a plateau - i.e. results are not improving year on year. Therefore, when a child enters year 7 they will have plateaued (sic) regardless of level of ability. You would therefore expect a larger improvement to key stage 3 within those schools whose population has been academically selected and this hypothesis is actually proved with ks3 value added. However, it is not maintained and actually plateaus in grammars between ks3 and ks4 whilst picking up steam in Comps and secondary moderns. As I said in an earlier post, next year tables will show value added from ks2 to ks4 so the picture will hopefully be clearer.
When people talk of differences in 'levels' of qualification this does not make any difference to the performance table positions as schools are placed primarily according to:-
KS2 - numbers of level 4's divided by numbers of pupils (aggregate scores are of secondary consideration.
KS3 - same principle as ks2.
KS4 - Total of grades A*-C divided by numbers of entrants. (total point score is secondary - arrived at by adding value of each grade e.g. 8 points for A*, 7 for A etc. down to 1 for G and then selecting best grades of 8 gsce's taken - and then dividing by number of entrants)
You would therefore fully expect that the results from schools where all pupils are in top quartile would get top placings and this is what happens. But it does not support the presumed opinion that the top pupils do better at grammars - this can only be illustrated by value added. When inspected more closely, research has proved that the most academic pupils in comps, e.g. top 10% do better than top 10% in grammars!
I do not expect Blair to do away with grammars per se as that would upset too many of his voters. But I think that with the vast improvement of the results in specialist schools grammars will become obsolete and unnecessary over time.
0
LH
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#49
Report 16 years ago
#49
OK, but lots of people in grammars achieve, say 777 or higher (if possible) at KS3 becuase, presumably, the teaching standards are very high. They then go on to achieve As and A*s at GCSE, again due to teaching standards

In a comp, a pupil may achieve, say, 566 or therabout, pulls his/her finger out and doers well at GCSE, gaining As, A*s and maybe some Bs.

Surely all the new figure proves is that grammars are more consistent?

And Bigcnee - you said the value-added system was flawed in the other thread, now you seem to support it.
0
happysunshine
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#50
Report 16 years ago
#50
(Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
In a comp, a pupil may achieve, say, 566 or therabout, pulls his/her finger out and doers well at GCSE, gaining As, A*s and maybe some Bs.
Trust me that never ever happens. Expect around 2As, 5Bs and 3Cs.
0
yawn1
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#51
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#51
(Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
OK, but lots of people in grammars achieve, say 777 or higher (if possible) at KS3 becuase, presumably, the teaching standards are very high. They then go on to achieve As and A*s at GCSE, again due to teaching standards

In a comp, a pupil may achieve, say, 566 or therabout, pulls his/her finger out and doers well at GCSE, gaining As, A*s and maybe some Bs.

Surely all the new figure proves is that grammars are more consistent?

And Bigcnee - you said the value-added system was flawed in the other thread, now you seem to support it.
Where the hell are you getting your averages from LH?
I think you are confusing the figures of A levels with KS3 and GCSE's.
Each A at A level is worth 120 points.
Each A* at GCSE is worth 8 points.
Key stage 3 assessment is in English Maths and Science and the points scored vary to 27 at level 4 to 39 at level 6 and so on. How anyone can score 'say 777 or higher' is beyond me, but then again, perhaps the impossible is possible at a grammer
The new figures prove that grammars are INCONSISTENT because they annot maintain the impetus from ks2 to 3 to ks3 to ks4.
You accuse another of what you have done yourself - you supported the tables when they showed grammars added more value from ks2 to 3 and rubbish them when they show that comps do better from ks3 to 4.
Just remember that to be conmpletely objective about a subject we feel strongly about is not possible.
Now - get back in your box before I whip your ar...
0
yawn1
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#52
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#52
(Original post by happysunshine)
Trust me that never ever happens. Expect around 2As, 5Bs and 3Cs.
How could anyone trust you when you make such a ridiculous statement. Just have a look at the profiles on Oxbridge-info to see what applicants from non-selective state schools achieve. And they represent a miniscule proportion of those applying to unis.
0
happysunshine
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#53
Report 16 years ago
#53
(Original post by yawn1)
How could anyone trust you when you make such a ridiculous statement. Just have a look at the profiles on Oxbridge-info to see what applicants from non-selective state schools achieve. And they represent a miniscule proportion of those applying to unis.
I'm not disputing that state school applicants can't achieve good grades. However I am disputing that someone who gets 566 in their sats will get A*s/As and a few Bs 'cause it doesn't happen!
0
yawn1
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#54
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#54
(Original post by happysunshine)
I'm not disputing that state school applicants can't achieve good grades. However I am disputing that someone who gets 566 in their sats will get A*s/As and a few Bs 'cause it doesn't happen!
You can't get a figure of 566 from your sats. Read my reply to LH.
The results that one gets from their ks3 sats forms part of the PANDA that schools use to target the grades a student can achieve at KS4 (GCSE) so e.g. if someone gets say level 6 in all three disciplines it's a good bet they can get mostly A* to C in their gcse's. Schools also give a ks3 figure on all subjects, it's just that the results of the 3 main ones are the one's that are published.
So please refrain from disputing when you obviousy don't know what you are talking about
0
happysunshine
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#55
Report 16 years ago
#55
(Original post by yawn1)
if someone gets say level 6 in all three disciplines it's a good bet they can get mostly A* to C in their gcse's.
Yes and not all A/A* grades at GCSE. Except I don't need a stupid table to work that one out.
0
LH
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#56
Report 16 years ago
#56
(Original post by yawn1)
Where the hell are you getting your averages from LH?
I think you are confusing the figures of A levels with KS3 and GCSE's.
Each A at A level is worth 120 points.
Each A* at GCSE is worth 8 points.
Key stage 3 assessment is in English Maths and Science and the points scored vary to 27 at level 4 to 39 at level 6 and so on. How anyone can score 'say 777 or higher' is beyond me, but then again, perhaps the impossible is possible at a grammer
The new figures prove that grammars are INCONSISTENT because they annot maintain the impetus from ks2 to 3 to ks3 to ks4.
You accuse another of what you have done yourself - you supported the tables when they showed grammars added more value from ks2 to 3 and rubbish them when they show that comps do better from ks3 to 4.
Just remember that to be conmpletely objective about a subject we feel strongly about is not possible.
Now - get back in your box before I whip your ar...
777 at KS3 level

No, because grammars greatly improve their pupils up to KS3 but at KS4 they perform just as well - grammar schools dominate the GCSE tables.

I have never supported this 'value added' thing, I was just commenting on how anti-selection people said how brilliant it was, then it disproved them.
0
yawn1
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#57
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#57
(Original post by happysunshine)
Yes and not all A/A* grades at GCSE. Except I don't need a stupid table to work that one out.
OK - to give you a more definitive example that the school will ascertain your potential on:
Level 7 on English and Science and Level 8 on Maths (only subject you can get level 8 on - did you know that?) you will be targeted to get A*/A grades on those subjects. You are also targeted on the basis of the cognitive ability testing that all schools carry out as a requirement of the data they must keep, so say if you get 130+ you should get all top grades in all subjects.
The tables are not 'stupid' they are very reliable. Educationists have spent many years of these probabilities so don't mock them - I'm sure they are more knowlegeable than you about these things.
0
LH
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#58
Report 16 years ago
#58
(Original post by yawn1)
OK - to give you a more definitive example that the school will ascertain your potential on:
Level 7 on English and Science and Level 8 on Maths (only subject you can get level 8 on - did you know that?) you will be targeted to get A*/A grades on those subjects. You are also targeted on the basis of the cognitive ability testing that all schools carry out as a requirement of the data they must keep, so say if you get 130+ you should get all top grades in all subjects.
The tables are not 'stupid' they are very reliable. Educationists have spent many years of these probabilities so don't mock them - I'm sure they are more knowlegeable than you about these things.
But what if, like most people, you didn't actually revise for your SATs?

And when I did them, you could get an 8 in English.
0
happysunshine
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#59
Report 16 years ago
#59
(Original post by yawn1)
OK - to give you a more definitive example that the school will ascertain your potential on:
Level 7 on English and Science and Level 8 on Maths (only subject you can get level 8 on - did you know that?) you will be targeted to get A*/A grades on those subjects. You are also targeted on the basis of the cognitive ability testing that all schools carry out as a requirement of the data they must keep, so say if you get 130+ you should get all top grades in all subjects.
The tables are not 'stupid' they are very reliable. Educationists have spent many years of these probabilities so don't mock them - I'm sure they are more knowlegeable than you about these things.
I accept the way they do the tables, but I don't really care. The only point I made was that an average student wouldn't get a full set of A/A* at GCSE in a state school.

I still think they are stupid, people make their own future not the tables. And the stupid table which tried to say comprehensives where doing better than grammars was even more stupid.
0
happysunshine
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#60
Report 16 years ago
#60
(Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
And when I did them, you could get an 8 in English.
That's what I was thinking... and I thought it were the same in science too.
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 (219)
68.01%
No (103)
31.99%

Watched Threads

View All