Top Comprehensives Measured by Ebacc Percentage

[zanzibarmum]

Is there a table showing top comprehensives in English measured by the proportion of students achieving the Ebacc?

[TalkinPeace2]

By LEA on the BBC website....
But take the raw data with a rather large handful of salt

[Kez100]

Remember these are retrospective. For example, our school had a really good take up, by coincidence, of the ebacc subjects in 2008 and we managed top in county last year. However, in 2009, there was a fall off in MFL uptake and so this year - even if our 5 A to C (Inc E and M) is better than normal (which we think it will be) we will be stuffed with an ebacc % of possibly half of last year. None of the children in either year knew the ebacc would exist when they took their options. Nor did next years children, the children of 2012.

[zanzibarmum]

Kez100 - that's right but if you look at it as a measure rather than a target the league table can tell interesting results; after all teachers have been saying how much they are against targets. Indeed, now that Ebacc is a target is will become progressively less meaninful as schools cram students to hit a particular percentage.

Talkingpeace2 - thanks but my question was about list of top comprehensive for England and Wales not by LEA. Anyone know if such a list exists?

[circular]

This shows top 100 schools by Ebacc for 2010 results. All schools, not just comps. though

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/leaguetables/8254332/GCSE-league-tables-2010-school-by-school.html

[senua]

I can't find your league table (so far!) zanzi.
In fact, all I can find are negative results. For example, this table shows the best 100 schools but (a) it is all schools, not only comps and (b) it ranks them on GCSE percentage passes. Thus the lowest school on the list, with an ebacc of 44%, gets listed whereas our school, with a higher ebacc but lower 5A*-C, does not.

[circular]

whoops, readt thar wrong.
Senua you are right it goes bt 5A*-C incl. Eng and Maths. The Ebacc is just a tiebreaker. Not obvious when looking at the top 100 overall.

[senua]

Aha!
If you are really that interested, you can create your own league table. If you go here you get full details of all schools GCSE results (go to the page called KS4 results, double-click on the column-header and it will sort them). You would have to go through, region by region, but the 'advanced options' facility (bottom left, below the search boxes) allows you to search on comps-only.

Hmm, I've explained this back to front. It's 'advanced options' first, go to regions and then KS4/double click.

[senua]

haha, circular. You are not the only one reading incorrectly.
Sorry: hadn't twigged that you had already linked to that list!

[zanzibarmum]

Thank you circular - while the top 100 (all schools) exclude some high perfroming comprehensives which have better Ebacc scores than the selective/grammar and private schools it is nonetheless interesting.

It seems there is as much variation amongst the grammar and private schools in Ebacc than there is in just A*-C measure - same for the comprehensives - suggesting all schools game play on the league tables and all were caught by the new Ebacc measure.

If there was a top 100 for England on Ebacc I think some comprehensives might do considerably better than some private/grammar schools.

[zanzibarmum]

Actually, here are just the London top 100. Focusing on just the ebacc column/scores it is clear that many comprehensives beat some of London's grammars and private schools hands-down on ebacc performance

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/leaguetables/8254332/GCSE-league-tables-2010-school-by-school.html

[Lancelottie]

Surely it doesn't show that schools 'game-play', but that not all children want to take History or Geography? I certainly didn't!

[meditrina]

There are confounders in the tables - some high performing schools do not feature because they use the IGCSE which isn't counted, and have more pupils sitting three singles sciences (which crowds out the required humanity). When this cohort of pupils was making its GCSE choices, the EBAC didn't exist - now it does, there will be a knock on effect on what subjects are offered/recommended. This year's cohort will also have made their choices and started the courses pre-EBAC. For good comparisons, the first results will be those of 2012.

In the meantime, the magic 5 (A*-C including English and Maths) is probably the one to watch.

[LondonMother]

Zanzibarmum, that league table doesn't take into account that independent schools that enter pupils for iGCSE Maths and English get a score of 0 on the 5+ GCSE A*-C measure. My son's school falls into that category and I think they would otherwise have beaten every comprehensive in their borough hands down. They wouldn't have got 100% on the ebacc as at GCSE one out of History, Geography and RE was compulsory - so a pupil who chose RE and didn't take H or G as another option wouldn't count towards the ebacc score. The science and MFL would have been no problem, though.

[Kez100]

Ebacc measure isn't catching anyone out. It is such a restrictive calculation, as others say, that schools can look good or bad for no really good reason.

Most capable children take triple science. Thats one useless option block for ebacc measure because you only need two sciences.

Many children take an art or music. Thats another useless option block for ebacc measure.

So, children now have two options left and have to take history or geography in one and a language in another. If they don't they won't have any chance of nailing an ebacc.

And all this when no one even knew it would be taken into account!

[wotnochocs]

it doesn't mean anything retrospectively.

[circular]

meditrina - wont 2013 be the first year when options were taken knowing about the Ebac - ie. our current yr9s.

I'm not even convinced that those will see a drastic change.
DD's school have not made the Ebac subjects compulsory, just recommending. Their take is that the effect on Uni entrance is still unknown, so they will review again next year.

[thetasigmamum]

My DD1's super selective Grammar School isn't forcing the kids to select EBACC subjects this year. They only get three options as it is and they aren't being forced to choose either History or Geography in those three. That having said, there is a suggestion on the options forms that students shouldn't select all 3 of art, music and drama in their 5 picks (the school perms 3 out of 5 using rinky dinky software apparently) in order to 'ensure balance'. This actually made me furious, since they are forced to do triple science and where is the balance there? DD1 has selected all 3 arty subjects in her 5 choices, although she would prefer to do history and geography with music, rather than Art and Drama.

[meditrina]

circular: you're right. This year's year 9s will be the first cohort to make their choices knowing the EBac requirements.

[meditrina]

Sorry year 8s, for year 9 starting Sept 11.

I clearly can't count today!

[TalkinPeace2]

No they won't
All they will know is what the ebacc requirements were in summer 2010.
What they will be by summer 2011 let alone summer 2012 is anybody's guess.
If the May elections are a disaster for the coalition or the AV referendum goes pear shaped we could have a new government by the time current year 8's sit their GCSE's.
Ignore ebacc.
Read what the Russell Group have to say. They are the ones who really matter.

[zanzibarmum]

Surely educationalists should aim to provide children are provided with a breadth of educational opportunities - what the ebacc data shows is that many comprehensives, grammar and even private schools (notwithstanding the valid iGCSE point that some though a small minority of private schools provide) are offering perhaps a rather narrow choice of GCSEs, with some so-called top schools having as few as 2 or 3 out of then kids do the 5 subjects.

If schools are getting 90+% 5 A*-Cs but fewer less than 50% ebacc that doesn't look good to me (notwithstanding all the caveats). What is encouraging is the outstanding performance of some schools.

In an ideal world there would be no targets, measures etc and of course not all ebacc subjects are suitable for all ebacc subjects but what the ebacc shows - not least because it took everyone by surprise - is that there is an element of league table game playing by some schools.

[LittleCheesyPineappleOne]

I don't think it's a surprise that targets = gaming. There are always predictable and unpredictable responses to measuring and publishing data like this. It is quite revealing, though, that league tables have encouraged schools perhaps to encourage pupils into less academic GCSEs.

I do think it's a real shame that the ebac might mean that some children don't get to study the best combination of subjects for them. I am in a professional occupation, oxbridge etc, and I wouldn't have passed the ebac having not studied a humanity at GCSE level. Sciences and languages were my strong points.

[wotnochocs]

what skills do History and geography show that RE or English lit don't?

[zanzibarmum]

littlecheesy.. - I agree but if teachers were doing their job they would ensure their students did the most appropriate courses for them. Teachers complaining about the ebacc because "they weren't warned"... or "!it is retrospective" suggest they can't defend their student choices on educational as opposed to league table grounds.

I say, abolish targets but each year to pick a measure and shine a light on what schools are doing... % doing 3 sciences; % doing a vocational GCSE... -so that the measure exposes what is happening. A strong teaching profession should be able to justify what they are doing not complaining that "the goal posts have moved"

Ebacc score is only interesting in so far as it calls the bluff of many so-called top schools - it is not a perfect measure but it does shine a light in places where some might not want illuminated

[wotnochocs]

Why don't they just decide which GCSEs are acdemic and then count the %age getting 5 academic GCSEs