Grammars v private schools: Who did better at GCSEs?

Teenagers did better than ever in their GCSEs, if yesterday's results are to be believed.

But, according the Joint Council for Qualifications, which speaks for all exams bodies, grammar schools turned in a better performance than selective, fee-paying independent schools (surely begging the question - what is all that money for?).

JCQ said grammar schools got more grade As this year than last (51.5% versus 50.9%), as did comprehensives (15.3% from 14.8%). And the percentage that got A grades at independent schools dropped, slightly - from 51.2% to 50.8%.

Comprehensives and grammars also got marginally more grade Cs at GCSE too and independent schools a percentage slightly fewer, according to JCQ's analysis.

A squabble ensued, with the Independent Schools Council disputing the JCQ's findings and accusing it of touting misleading tables.

But what do these and the government's league tables that everyone seems obsessed by (yes, including the media, before you leap to accuse us of hypocrisy) really tell us?

Not much about the situation as it really is, it would seem. Do areas with grammar schools do better than others? Not really.

And is it any wonder that exam results have improved? It is always bandied about that exams are getting easier. But far more pertinent is that children are now taught specifically to pass tests.

Teachers have ever more information from exams bodies as to what will help a child pass or fail and who can blame them for trying to teach children to pass exams when schools now stand or fall on how they are placed in the league tables?

The government has created this game and schools, and children, are now paying for it.

But what do you think of tables? Are they valuable to you? Would you rather see the back of them? Or are they an essential part of the schools system and impossible to live without?