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

Grail - sodding autocorrect!!!

Surely the idea that people move house because of the reports is a good thing - it keeps the housing market ticking over, keeps removal men, decorators, and all the other associated businesses with moving house in business. If people want to put inappropriate store in them, that's down to them - it just gives you the opportunity to get a better deal by finding a school that does badly out of the report.

No reason to spend the money producing the reports if they're not publicised.

The trouble is that Ofsted is only one part of a very destructive, pernicious system introduced by the Tories in the late 80s, which combined parental choice in where to send their kids to school (previously LEA had basically assigned most kids to their local school), SATs, league tables and a national curriculum. The whole thing became very centrally controlled and target driven and parents became obsessed with sending their child to the "best" school.

And Ofsted is fairly useless. It's taken me years to appreciate the extent of their uselessness. The report is based on data (things like attendance figures and exam results), the school's own assessment of itself and a short two or three day inspection that looks at a very narrow range of indicators. A while ago I pulled my daughter out of a secondary school where the behaviour was appalling. A few weeks later it was inspected by Ofsted and received a "good". The report particularly praised pupils' excellent behaviour.

A good OFSTED report depends on a few things
-high attendance
-teachers producing a lot of paperwork
-books that are marked with heaps of useless notes, preferably in lots of different coloured pens
-children being sufficiently coached on how to respond to the questions inspectors might ask them (specifically "what's the learning objective of this lesson?")
-A low proportion of children with behavioural difficulties, SN or EAL.
-Teachers sufficiently coached in how to produce a song and dance lesson on inspection day
-Plenty of pointless things on the walls, to the extent that it gives you a headache to look at them
-The latest ill-thought out teaching initiatives in abundant evidence. They don't have to be taught correctly, there just has to be plenty of showing off done about them

Nothing worthwhile is actually looked at.

fredfred anything that prices people out of areas is a bad thing in my book. If you have a situation as you do in the SE where ordinary people on average salaries can't afford to live near their place of work, a few removals men earning a few extra bob isn't much compensation.

Hackmum

The trouble is that Ofsted is only one part of a very destructive, pernicious system introduced by the Tories in the late 80s, which combined parental choice in where to send their kids to school (previously LEA had basically assigned most kids to their local school), SATs, league tables and a national curriculum. The whole thing became very centrally controlled and target driven and parents became obsessed with sending their child to the "best" school

This has traditionally been my point of view but I thought I'd be shouted at by everyone on here for being a ridiculous leftie :o

headfairy The distances involved in getting into a school by distance around here in the SE is 1.1km, there are plenty of places to live within walking distance of jobs that aren't covered. If you are right that certain areas within a town are made more expensive because of the school then other areas must be made cheaper because they are less desirable.

Of course you need to publicised them. Middle class catchment doesn't ensure a good school and inner city doesn't necessarily mean bad school.

I take your point re:selection by house-price, but Ofsted reports are useful for basic info about a school, and not everyone wants the high achieving "naicest" middle class schools (well I didn't as my child had SN).

YABU in your whole post. The nearest school to us is on an extremely rough estate, that is not expensive to live near, and receives great comments on OFSTED reports. Their results are really good. I think that it is your attitude that creates a divide, not any report.

My reason exactly LoveHandles88. My DCs went to a school that took from a very mixed background. Some parents wouldn't send as it was, so they thought, 'rough'. It was lovely when they were the one school in the area to get outstanding from Ofsted. What use is that if no one actually knows?!

YABU, they carry a lot of important data that gives parents a good view of the school and like another poster says where else would you find the number of FSM etc.

They are not the bible though and should be used in conjunction with visits, the ethos of the school, other data etc.

headfairy: "This has traditionally been my point of view but I thought I'd be shouted at by everyone on here for being a ridiculous leftie"

Well, I am a ridiculous leftie, but am also old enough to remember what the education system was like before Thatcher got her paws on it. And of course it wasn't perfect, there was plenty wrong with it, but by God, by the time the Tories had finished with it, it was a mess and has been going downhill ever since. The irony is that people like Gove and the rest say, "Isn't it terrible! Standards have fallen! No-one can read or do sums any more!" and the whole reason is because of the bloody stupid system they introduced whereby teachers are trying so hard to get their students to get the magic five Cs so they can have a good showing in the league tables, so that parents will pick the school, that no-one actually cares about stuff like whether kids are being challenged or motivated or getting anything like a good education.

Lovehandles, I don't have any attitudes about it... I'm talking about it as an outsider looking in. How on earth have I managed to create some kind of housing bubble all by myself?

Rightly or wrongly the whole parental choice genie is out of the bottle now and we can't turn back time. Sadly. My own view on Ofsted is pretty sceptical. It seems to be about boxes ticked rather than teaching standards.

We had a local pre school net an outstanding award and the stampede of parents was hilarious. It's a pre school - they spend a few hours a week there from the age of 2 and a half. Perspective seems lacking. I asked one Mum with a daughter there what she found outstanding about it when researching places for DD and she said she didn't know and in fact they rarely gave any feedback on her DD as they were always so busy. Yet still they rush to the waiting list from birth. Madness.

The whole choice thing is largely illusory anyway. Where we live it's all about catchment - and threads on MN confirm this is the case in many places. I think parents and indeed chidren do have a right to have school standards assessed independently but given that the outcome will probably be the same regardless it all seems a bit pointless really.

The school my daughter went to was placed in 'special measures' when she was in year 8. The overall A*-C measure was poor, but there was a hugely mobile population (services) and very low levels at intake (eg other schools creamed off the higher attaining kids) plus large numbers of EAL students.

She got 12 A's and 2 B's. After a change of headteacher, the school tripled their A*-C rate in 3 years, and in the most recent Ofsted, had well over 60% of teaching good or better. The English Department are among the top 25% of Departments in the country when measured on progress.

Ofsted's rating? Satisfactory. What do schools have to do?

Balia, if the school still has high numbers of EAL students, then they will never get more than satisfactory.

The best thing is to visit the school and use Ofsted as a rough guide. Sadly it is quite true, however good the school, having EAL students means it can't get past satisfactory.

I think the divide is more in your head. Definitely agree that you should visit a school, and use Ofsted as guide.
I think you should always try to get your children into the 'best school', but the best school for them, not the school with the best report.

Also agree you need to visit school and use Ofsted as a guide. Personally I'm glad Ofsted exist. DD is going to upper school this year. She's going to a school that when she mentioned it as being good for art a couple of years ago I shrieked she wasn't going there as it had a bad reputation.

Gradually I started hearing good things about it and felt it was turning round. Looked at the Ofsted and saw the one area it received an outstanding for is the extent that pupils feel safe there or something along those lines. As a result I decided to go for a visit with an open mind. Looked at that one and 3 others and really feel it's the one for her.

Gosh, I didn't know that - how does that work? Why is having EAL students a bar to being 'Good'?

OFSTED generally mean jack all

However yes, yes, yes results should be publicised as it means the school has to keep providing the best education as they know it will be in the public domsain, and helps parents form a choice with clear and accessible information

As a student teacher I worked in schools with high EAL who had excellent OFSTED

Whether or not Ofsted reports ought to be publicised to everyone (or even written at all) I definitely think they should jack in that letter they write to the kids to summarise it.

Have you ever read one of those? They're awful. "We thought that sometimes your teachers didn't do a good enough job of challenging you, so we've suggested they work on that." They make me shudder. Kids do not need to know what Ofsted thinks of their school. Most of them couldn't give a monkey's anyway. I know I certainly couldn't when Ofsted rated my grammar school Outstanding yet again and praised the school's pastoral care and support and all that shit. Yes they get some fine results but the pastoral care was practically non-existent because the school was (and still is) run by a woman who quite straight-facedly told a group of us (politics students) she preferred autocracy to democracy. (Can you see I still have ishoos?)

I think the overall 'judgement' can mean nothing but reading the reports can be helpful in conjunction with visiting schools and getting to know as much as possible about them before making your choice. Ours has just had a 'satisfactory' which IMHO is not my experience of it. But it got a 'satisfactory' because of serious issues in a part of the school with which we have had no contact yet and their comment on this area is fair. Gaining a knowledge of the process of Ofsted assessment and the framework they are adhering to in making their judgement is also essential if you're going to use the report to make any choices - no parent should ever swallow the overall judgement whole.

As people have said Oftheball reports don't tell you eveything.

This is the internet age. If Ofsted reports were not published or didn't exist at all somebody would have set up a website reviewing schools and that would have the same effect. They might even call it schoolsnet or something equally imaginative....

There's always been a grapevine of preferred schools.

Surely only giving the reports to parents with children at the school would be unfair? What about family's with younger children who've yet to chose a school, wouldn't they effectively have an advantage. The details would be uploaded on to wikileaks anyway.........