Number of underperforming schools doubles

blog 1 300115 255x255

The number of state secondary schools underperforming has risen from 154 to 330 according to DfE figures, following changes in exam rules and league tables. 

School performance data based on exam results from last summer show that on average 56.6% of pupils in state schools achieved five good GCSEs, down from 60.6% in 2013, the BBC reports.

The dip comes in the wake of government changes to make exams more rigorous; now only a pupil’s first attempt at a GCSE is included in the league tables and the list of qualifications has been restricted to those that the government thinks are of the highest academic quality.

ASCL has warned against judging schools on one set of exam results. “It is not possible to use this year’s performance tables to make accurate comparisons with previous years. Too much has changed in the way the tables are calculated. Both the Department of Education and Ofsted have confirmed this,” said general secretary Brian Lightman. “It is comparing apples and pears..”

Education Secretary Nicky Morgan said: “By stripping out thousands of poor quality qualifications and removing re-sits from league tables, some schools have seen changes in their standings. But fundamentally young people’s achievement matters more than being able to trumpet ever higher grades.”

Top private schools including Eton, Harrow and Cheltenham Ladies’ College have ended up at the bottom of the league tables because pupils are entered for IGCSEs, which have been dropped from the tables. This made the tables a “nonsense”, according Richard Harman, chair of the Headmasters’ and Headmistresses’ Conference. “Several of the UK’s most highly performing independent schools and others offering this excellent qualification will now appear to be bottom of the class in the government’s rankings,” he said. “This obviously absurd situation creates further confusion for parents as they cannot compare schools’ performance accurately and transparently.”

Meanwhile, Wales has introduced a new colour-coded system for rating schools, with the best performing schools rated green and those that need the most improvement rated red. Out of 1,332 primary schools assessed, 206 were judged green and 58 as red.

How has your school performed in the latest league tables? Do you agree with the changes to the tables or are they now “irrelevant”? Share your views with the Eteach community!

2 thoughts on “Number of underperforming schools doubles

  1. The changes make a lot of sense but it is puzzling why IGCSEs were not included.

    The previous league tables encouraged schools to play the system and encouraged numerous retakes, which devalued the achievement of those who had only one attempt. I know we certainly did.

    As for the soft subjects I have been always irritated by those schools which took subjects with a bias towards heavy coursework. Some of those schools achieved amazing results, as brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, aunts, uncles and teachers all piled in to produce a combined effort for the individual student. These subjects were a disgrace to the qualifications system and allowed it to be perverted. Whilst students gained in the short term, once at university many of them struggled with courses demanding more academic rigour, producing higher drop out rates for such students.

    League cannot easily be compared with the previous year but we have a more robust system for the future. Unfortunately, for schools that played the system, their false league position will change.

  2. Well you don’t say………..

    I would have had more respect for Michael Gove had he had the balls to say that in raising standards. schools are going to find that their statistics will drop. But then Ofsod gets confused by figures going down.

    Sir Bruce I salute you. ” Good game. Good game!”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>