GCSE league tables

Yet again a lack of communication. I thought you were referring to the actual League tables.

These new results show what was suspected by most experts. i.e. There is little difference in performance between the top Grammars and the top comps. However, the existence of Grammars causes many bog-standard Comps (which is why they should be abolished).

Of course, but my point is the other statistics show grammars add lots of value from KS2 to KS3 and, because they then go on to get 100% A*-c and loads of people with As and A*s, they maintain their high standards.

Most grammars don't get 100% A-C (which they should do).

A lot do, but I agree under performing grammars shoudl probably be comprehended.

How do GCSE points work anyway
well my school had 46% A*-C and Average GCSE/GNVQ point score per person 33.3.

What does that mean?

Wow thats pretty bad isnt it?

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.

My point is that my area has quite a few (three in Thanet) Grammars, in which they are doing badly.
Kent has the highest proportion of Grammars and is the worst performing LEA.

If Grammars are not suitable for wide-scale use (which they are clearly not) then their existence as a form of education is seriously undermined.

So kids at comps are 'very low-calibre' are they... So i'm taking it you think becuase you're at a grammar school you're better than kids who go to a comp? So would a 'low-calibre student' get a 7, E.P, E.P at KS3? Just because someone goes to a comp doesn't make them any less intelligent than someone at a grammar, but I guess you think otherwise...

I think Kent has too many grammars, an area should only really have one.

Even in areas with one grammar school disruption to others is caused.

I know there are some excellent grammars, and it would be a shame to see them go, but for the good of the majority, they have to.

That's what I was thinking... and I thought it were the same in science too.

you can get E.P's (exceptional performance) as well, in all 3 subjects by taking extension papers

David Starkey.

Would you feel any different if you attended a grammar school yourself ( I'm assuming you didn't attend one).

you can get E.P's (exceptional performance) as well, in all 3 subjects by taking extension papers

Maybe I wouldn't be as aware of their effects.
I did pass my 11+ in case anyone is thinking that i'm bitter, which is far from the truth.