THERE is always controversy around the publication of league tables based on exam performance alone.

Opponents argue they are misleading because they focus only on one measure and do not inform parents about the wider context of education in the school or, crucially, how much it helps pupils improve.

It can also be argued league tables reward complacency in schools that appear to be doing well, having started with the advantage of high aspiration and parental support, but that fail to add as much as they could to pupils' attainment.

However, supporters of tables argue that, in a system run by local authorities, there can be a lack of accountability at school level and publishing performance indicators forces headteachers and directors of education to get to grips with poorly performing schools.

They also argue parents have a right to information, including how a school performs in exams.

Professor James Conroy, from Glasgow University's School of Education, believes league tables are misleading.

He said: "League tables can never be anything more than a rough guide because the starting point of different schools in so different.

"If you start out with pupils from highly educational supportive backgrounds it is not clear what the contribution of a school is to that. At the same time, teachers and schools working in very difficult circumstances might be making a much more significant contribution, but yet go unrecognised.

"However, there is no doubt schools with high number of pupils on free school meals who are also delivering exam success are performing well."

Brian Boyd, emeritus professor of education at Strathclyde University, said better baseline information about pupils when they arrived at school was required.

He said: "If you were trying to measure what a school does you need to measure what level a young person is when they enter the school and compare that to where they are when they leave – exams do not do that."