I still see comments about how exam results are a determinant for judging a school yet the playing field isn’t an equal or even one nationally.

Some musings....

Key Stage 2 data on entry has been used to benchmark GCSE performance. This data is averaged against performance in Maths & English at KS2, yet this bares little resemblance to how pupil X may perform in history, geography etc. It presupposes a flight path approach to data

There are regional differences in funding, eg a school in the Midlands May receive £5200/pupil, whereas an outer London school may receive £7500/pupil. That’s a significant difference & money ultimately helps.

There are regional recruitment differences, with some areas that seriously struggle relative to others.

Not two schools are the same. One school may be undertaking a journey of transformation, doing all the right things & results will be the last thing to follow.

By comparison another school may be coasting, serving an affluent catchment but achieving at face value good results.

What of parental attitudes to schools? Support for education & the education of their child? Some parents spend extensively on private tutors, which helps to inflate results in some schools.

What of safeguarding variances eg drugs, county lines, gangs, DV etc. Some schools are harder hit on this from than others.

What of gaming to maximise results. There’s less chance/scope to do so now?

What of curriculum models that essentially teach to the test, ignoring the wider brevity of the curriculum as a vehicle for educational enlightenment & change. I do appreciate pupils achieving 4s in Maths/English is critical but the curriculum shouldn’t be debased.

These are some of the many musings I have as to why results alone shouldn’t be the key determinant to judge a school