Back to comparison

City of London School · 1996

AS-level · published record · 1996 · AS-level

Check what this figure counts, where it was published and any limits on comparing it with another result.

Original-publication checks are recorded for 6 fields. This does not verify every field or every interpretation of the record; inspect the field-specific checks below.

Report a problem with this figure

Opens an email to corrections@theschoolsrecord.co.uk with this record filled in, or prepare a fuller report.

What does this figure tell me?

Published school results passage in the original archive publication.

Type of result: Examination results.

The reported values

Values keep the precision of the source. “Not recorded” does not mean zero. One pupil may have several subject entries or university offers.

% a
30.6
% b
27.8
Published basis
Published school results passage in the original archive publication.
% c
22.2
% d
13.9
% e
5.6
Qualification
AS-level
% combined N/U grades
0
Note
Historical Advanced Supplementary qualification; published rounded percentages.
Year
1996
Publication note

Primary

Back to this school’s records · Link to this source record

Where was this published?

6 publication checks are recorded for this figure. The 4 most recently accessed are shown; the rest are one disclosure away, not removed.

Read the other 2 publication checks
Research context, reference history and record codes

Historical Advanced Supplementary qualification; published rounded percentages.

These references may support other years or fields in the same dataset. They do not replace the observation-specific checks above.

Original record identifier: new:city-of-london:1996:gazette-archive:as-level:grade-percentages:bee2ac28f655. Source codes are retained for reproducibility.

Evidence
P
Record Id
new:city-of-london:1996:gazette-archive:as-level:grade-percentages:bee2ac28f655

Result period: 1996. A source-check date records when the publication was checked; it is not a new results year. Something wrong here? Report a problem with this figure.

Source evidenceOpen full record ↗