in thinking that the results of Ofsted reports shouldn't be publicised to everyone?

[headfairy]

I don't have any children in education yet, so I'm probably out of order saying this. Feel free to throw rotten vegetables at me and roundly ridicule me but it seems that publicising the results of Ofsted reports has created a two tier education system. Ok so that's a cheap cliche, but I can't think of another way of phrasing it.

It seems to me the publicising of Ofsted reports only helps those who can afford to spend the money to live near a "good" school. Those children will come from at least middle class background with enough money to make that move.

I appreciate being middle class isn't going to automatically make children brighter, but there's a lot of evidence to show that children from better off, more middle class backgrounds perform better at school, and achieve a higher level of education overall than those from worse off families.

I know the quality of teaching is a really important factor in a school's performance, but the background of the children is just as important. A school full of children from well off middle class backgrounds, with parents in white collar jobs who themselves have reached a high level of education is going to do better than a school with a higher proportion of children from poorer households or children for whom English was not their first language. And that will show in it's Ofsted report. If that report is widely available it creates a situation where you have to be increasingly well off to get your children in to that school, thus perpetuating the situation.

It's important to monitor a schools performance, but AIBU in thinking that making those reports widely available means parents actually don't have a "choice" when they are applying for school places. You can only send your children to the school you can afford to live near, if it's not a great school it's tough.

If you live 900m from an amazing school, but the competition for places is so great they can only take children who live up to 600m away, and houses at that distance are at least £50k more than the one you live in it's tough.

There's no real choice is there?

Or have I got it all wrong?

And is this post faaaar too long? :o

YANBU. But only because Ofsted reports aren't worth the paper they're written on. The idea that parents actually move house because of them boggles my mind.

My DS used to go to an OFSTED "outstanding" Primary.

I have no idea what it was outstanding at - certainly not anything we found useful.

I actually agree with you to a point. I used to work in an estate agents and the main reasons people moved were 1. Jobs and 2. School catchment areas.
The fact they were moving to a much smaller house didn't seem to matter as long as they were in the right catchment area.

Oh I'm glad it's not just me. I thought because I have no experience of education yet I wasn't really in a position to think like this, but it just seems really really obvious to me that publicising Ofsted reports isn't really creating choice at all. Not real choice for everyone, just choice for those that can afford it.

I'd be very interested hearing from anyone in education who works in a school that has become one of the desired ones...

Ofsted reports only exist to promote the marketisation of the education sytem. Nice to see someone who has actually seen through them and recognises the fact that they are an unrealistic and divisive tool. As my mother use to say you can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear.

Seriously they mean zip. I worked in an "outstanding" school that was like a concentration camp and a school just on the edge of special measures that was like heaven.

The thing is, if a school is really good then it's going to be oversubscribed whether you move to the catchment area or not.

Also, there are always children even from outside the area who will 'jump the queue' if their needs are greater than others...ie looked after children or those for whom it can be proven the school can provide for their needs greater than another school.

But Ofsted ratings aren't worth the paper they're written on really considering the inspectors spend approximately 1 and a half school days on the premises, before typing their report.

Ofsted look at a lot of factors though - they don't just look at attainment. Current inspection framework is here. From it - they look at:
the achievement of pupils at the school
the quality of teaching in the school
the quality of leadership in and management of the school
the behaviour and safety of pupils at the school.
the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils at the school
the extent to which the education provided by the school meets the needs of the range of pupils at the school, and in particular the needs of disabled pupils and those who have special educational needs.

If your intake is broadly below average and by the time they've gone through a Key Stage they've become broadly average, Ofsted will recognise that. Conversely - you get an intake from the Outstanding Junior School down the road of significantly above average pupils and at the end of KS3 they're just above average - Ofsted will reflect that too. So it's achievement rather than attainment, IYSWIM. It's about progress. The league tables show the attainment bit.

And yes, you do have a point about wealthier families being able to move closer to an outstanding school thus creating a wealthy family ghetto, but unless the school maintains improvement and achievement, that's not enough to keep the school outstanding on its own.

If I was thinking about moving to area X I'd rather know before I exchanged contracts on a house that the local school was shit. I do think this information should be public - and in any case, Ofted reports aren't a substitute for the feel of a school.

YABU.

Comments from Ofsted are professional findings, they look at all areas of each school, and are published for all to see. And in general when looking at the reports I've found them helpful, informative, and on seeing the schools accurate too.

Ofsted are not perfect of course (which organisation is?), but I would far rather have this impartial information openly and equally available, than have to rely on hearsay from parents or be somehow "in the know" about what schools offer.

If Ofsted reports aren't worth the paper they're written on why on earth do people set so much store by them? Would schools that get glowing Ofsted reports still be as sought after, or would everyone just send their kids to the nearest school as in the days of yore?

long before the days of ofsted everyone knew which were the good schools and which were the schools to be avoided in their area. There is nothing new in parebts cherry picking schools.

doubleglazing and hassled you both make very good cases for Ofsted reports, I'm sure you know much more than me. I do see that improvement on the previous years results is much more important than last years results taken in isolation. So the question is, do we as parents use Ofsted reports wrongly? Do set too much store by the headline figures and not really read between the lines - which would probably tell us how well a school is improving on previous years results?

YABU.

Parents with any sense know that OFSTED reports are just a report based on a two day, prepared for visit and will make a judgement on a school based on more than an OFSTED report alone.

They have a place, and they can every useful. I disagree that they are not worth the paper they are written on, and without wanting to offend anyone, I think people that say they haveno value whatsoever are probably trying to make themselves feel better that their children go to a satisfactory or below school.

OFSTED is the only way I have of knowing what percentage of children are EAL or on FSM, they sometimes highlight areas of weakness that can be built on by teachers and parents, but most importantly, they are only one factor in choosing the right school for your child. They do have benefits.

Any parent that would choose to move house based on an OFSTED report alone needs their head testing.

For me the really important thing in a school is its culture. Are the teachers kind and dedicated and happy in their jobs? Are the children encouraged to respect each other? Is there plenty of fun?

The outstanding school I worked in had an empty staffroom - no one ever went in there because of the backstabbing that went on among the staff. The staff were expected to be in at 7 every morning and were criticised for every little thing. The children were extremely well behaved and hardworking, but incredibly stressed and unhappy.

The school that was on the edge of special measures was there because ofsted expects ESOL children to be at the same level as their peers after learning english for only two years, which is ludicrious. Because the school had an extremely high percentage of immigrants that really stood against the school. I actually looked forward to going in there every day. The behaviour wasn't top notch but the children were so happy. I cried leaving :(

Absolutely they should be made public. The reports haven't changed anything, there has always been local knowledge of the 'good' schools

Oh and the second school I mentioned was avoided by non-immigrant parents because of the "problem" of high numbers of immigrant children which of course is the perfect way to segregate a community. There was one child of British descent in the whole school.

I agree you need your head testing if you use Ofsted reports as a guide line when you're choosing a school, but when people are moving to an area with a view to sending their children to a particular school in a couple of years time that's all they have to go on isn't it? Or does everyone visit local schools before making a decision about a house move? I know I didn't.

Jins is that true (genuine question)? I have no idea what schools were like before Ofsted reports were made public because that was back in the days when I was single and childless so it really didn't register on my radar.

I was talking to someone at a play group last week who told me of her friend who was paying through the nose for rent near a school just to get her child in there. It was round the corner from my old flat so I know the area well. Three bed terraced houses with tiny gardens go for £700k, the school catchment area was down to three roads, and competition to get in there was very very high. This friend is paying an insane amount of rent to get her child in to the school, when she's in, after a few months they will move back to their real house half a mile away. That's what got me thinking about all this.

It's true wherever I've lived. I've always been aware of the 'preferred schools'.

Although to be honest it's usually been secondary schools that people have talked about rather than primary

YABU... In the bad old days, schools could do as they pleased and let down a lot of kids as a result. Publicly published reports mean there is nowhere to hide. Education determines life-chances and our children only get one shot at it. We could ignore all the league tables etc. and hope our DCs do well at any old school, however good or bad on paper, but that's risking their futures. If all schools were identically good - and there is no reason why they shouldn't be - there would be no need for anyone to move house. Until that day, I don't blame anyone prepared to go to those lengths.

I don't share the disenchantment with Ofsted - my experience as a Chair and a parent, as well as other schools I've had involvement with, is that they're usually an impressively accurate portrayal of the school. Don't be fooled by the 2 days thing - the inspectors have done a load of research and looked at a lot of data before they step foot in the school, and they are efficient with their time in those 2 days.

Re Jin's point - true, but local perceptions aren't always up to date. One local school was shite 10 years ago, and is still perceived as shite locally. If you look at Ofsted you'd see it's actually doing pretty well. But it's stuck with this reputation, so of course people jump through hoops not to let their kids go there.

YABU. State schools are funded with public money and are therefore accountable to the public. People should be able to find out how schools are performing.

YANBU to think that an Ofsted report does not actually tell you what you need to know about how a school is actually performing and they are not worth the paper they are written on. Half the time they are more interested if the kids are having too many crisps in their lunchbox than what they are actually learning and how effective the teaching is.

Oh, see I'm learning loads here. I KNEW I would :o

cogito I agree that parents are naturally inclined to go to great lengths to see their children get the best start in life, I felt that possibly Ofsted reports heightened that competitive element to a much greater degree.

I'm not against Ofsted reports at all, I just think they should be available to the parents of children already at the school, rather than to the wider public.

I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise though :o

Could you just imagine the playground rumours and mud slinging that would go on if there was an element of secrecy to the reports.

I do think OFSTED reports are useful tool to use to select schools, but so often with these things they are very subjective and should be seen for what they are and not some holy Gail they are made out to be. I think the blame is firmly on the doorsteps of the estate agents ....