The voodoo art of ranking schools

When I wrote about reforming accountability measures a few months ago, I promised I’d follow up by explaining why I don’t support any methods for ranking schools from the very worst to the very best, regardless of whether it is an attainment measure, a value-added or ‘progress’ measure or some sort of voodoo ‘contextual value-added’ …

Continue reading The voodoo art of ranking schools

Don’t let ‘perfect’ become the enemy of ‘better’ in the revision of accountability metrics

Last week, Ed Dorrell wrote a strange editorial in TES called ‘Why attaching excluded pupils' results to their school won't work'. I say it was strange because he failed to address the major impediment to including off-rolled pupils in accountability metrics (i.e. finding them... for that, read on). There is no doubt that there are …

Continue reading Don’t let ‘perfect’ become the enemy of ‘better’ in the revision of accountability metrics

The social mobility challenge is not impossible

Schools-datajournogenius Christopher Cook of the FT wrote a nice blog post this week showing how forcing academy conversion for low performing schools probably wouldn't do much to fix social inequalities in educational achievement. I agree. But I want to show some (quick and dirty) data to help keep alive the dreams of school reformers. This …

Continue reading The social mobility challenge is not impossible

Reporting GCSE performance by groups is fraught with problems

This month the government is publishing school GCSE attainment data separately for groups of low (below L4 at KS2), middle (L4 at KS2) and high (above L4 at KS2) attaining pupils. This approach is to be commended and we recommended it in academic papers here and here because it provides information to parents on how a …

Continue reading Reporting GCSE performance by groups is fraught with problems