Tournament Tables

Let’s explore how headline targets for measuring school performance have changed over time. This was discussed by George Leckie and Harvey Goldstein in their 2016 paper, The Evolution of School League Tables in England 1992–2016.

Since 1992, school performance tables have been published for state-funded secondary schools. Initially, they focused on a headline measure of school attainment, based on the percentage of pupils achieving five or more A to C grades in their GCSEs. The A grade* was introduced two years later.

In 2002, this system evolved to include ‘value-added,’ where the government introduced a measure assessing how well schools performed based on a pupil’s attainment on entry (measured by their primary school Key Stage 2 test scores). This was amended in 2006, requiring two of these GCSEs to be in English and Maths. At the same time, ‘value-added’ was replaced with ‘contextual value-added,’ which accounted for additional factors such as age, gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. However, in 2011, contextual value-added was scrapped and replaced once again with the simplified ‘value-added’ measure.

By 2016, the government introduced ‘Progress 8’ and ‘Attainment 8,’ which measured progress and attainment across English, Maths, and six further subjects. Then in 2017, a new GCSE grading system was introduced, replacing letter grades (A*–G) with a numeric scale (9–1).

The Cultural Impact on School Leadership
A key issue with Progress 8 and Attainment 8 is that they are reported against a national average for England, meaning that many schools will never meet the target. If all schools improve, the national average rises, making success a moving target. This reinforces a system of competition over collegiality, which is why I often refer to school performance tables as ‘School Tournament Tables.’

For school leaders, this creates an immense pressure to deliver results at all costs. The relentless focus on performance metrics drives a culture of data-driven accountability, often at the expense of broader educational values such as pastoral care, creativity, and holistic learning. Leaders are compelled to prioritize exam outcomes over long-term student development, not because they believe this is the best approach, but because the system demands it.

This culture shapes decision-making at every level. Schools are forced to strategically allocate resources to maximize Progress 8 scores, sometimes sidelining subjects that do not directly contribute to performance tables. Moreover, the pressure to avoid negative Ofsted judgments means that leaders must balance ethical considerations with the harsh realities of league table survival.

This constant evolution of school performance measures reflects deeper cultural values—particularly those of competition, accountability, and statistical benchmarking. Schools are expected to continuously adapt or risk collapsing under the statistical weight of performance tables and being effectively ‘knocked out’ of the tournament.

The question remains: Is this culture sustainable? And more importantly, does it truly serve the best interests of students, teachers, and school leaders?