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

Why is having EAL students a bar to being 'Good'?

They are unlikely to get good SATs results.

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

Was that recent-or some years ago? Did they get good SATs results?

It was 2008 and yes, excellent. Very bright kids in school

I may be wrong but I think that it goes on SATs results. Maybe if they were very bright they got the results.

I don't think OFSTED created a two tier system - I think they exposed that one existed.

Another who agrees that cut and paste OFSTED reports mean nothing.
Having read a fair few reports and taught in a range if schools, I can honestly say that they bear very little relation to the schools I know!

DD1 has been to 2 outstanding primary schools which were very different. The first was in a village on the edge of the city with a majority middle class population. The school had very good results but as DD1 finds learning difficult she started to struggle.

In year 1 we moved to the city centre so changed her to the local C of E school. They don't have nearly as good results but the progress the children make is much greater and they also had very good pastrol care. DD1s reading improved greatly at the second school.

The point of my very long post is that both these schools were classed as outstanding by ofsted but you would have to send your DC to the right school for them to get an outstanding education.

IMO quality of pastoral care is the most important thing. If DC are happy and safe, they will do well.

You need to visit the school. It is possible to get outstanding if the Head is brilliant at paperwork! I know 2 Heads who got 'outstanding' for leadership and they are hell to work for and make for a very unhappy school.

Ofsted is one strand of decision making that helps parents to make informed choices. Others include:

What do other local people think of the school
How do the children appear to behave locally outside school
Public examination results
How long has the head been there and his/her reputation
What are the strengths of the curriculum
Did you like the school when you visited
Does the school's ethos fit with your own views
Do you think your child would be happy there

Ofsted is a very good tool for monitoring the effectiveness of schools. It is far better than having nothing at all. I understand the inspections are moving towards 45 minutes notice and that I think is one of the most positive pieces of news I have heard for years.

Other tiny point. As a parent you can't assume that the same school will be the best place for all your children. Our local primary was fabulous for dd and disastrous for ds. DS's local indy has been fantastic for him and approaching his 10th year at the school, he will be very sad to leave. We made a dreadful mistake with dd's secondary school and pulled her out at the end of Y8. She is now much happier and flourishing socially and academically at what was originally our 4th choice of school.

Sometimes it just doesn't work out as you expect it to and listen always to that tiny nagging doubt in the pit of your stomach that you just can't put your finger on or don't want to admit to because you are trying to be principled.

Trust me when I say on OFSTED report doesn't mean very much, and if people want to attach so much to a document that takes only 2 days (or less) worth of data, that's sad. Insiders see some very, very surprising results. And all schools aren't good for all kids. Home makes a much bigger difference than school does in terms of behaviour, academic achievement, social development etc. A school which does amazing SEN work will be heavily penalised because there results are below national average, gets rated satisfactory. A school that selects 25% of its intake in a very well-off area gets outstanding.

A school can change alot in the 3 years between reports. The only way to see how good a school really is for a child is to send them there for 5 years and see how it goes.

local knowledge tells me our local secondary school is a bear garden that sees more of the local police force than their spouses do.

If anything, a mere '4' rating from ofsted and a read through the report wasn't quite enough to capture this in formal language. But it was a fair enough assessment.

the primary rated '2' is a good solid school and both Ofsted and local knowledge confirm this, the one rated '3', is - as it has been for years - the one that children still manage to come out of illiterate, and its Ofsted report is, if anything, slightly on the generous side.

the good secondary over the hill gets a '2' rating and is, again, thought of in the area as the desirable one to get into if you can. (though Mumsnetters may say otherwise, i'm guessing they aren't just choosing between state comps...)

I liked the Ofsted rated 2 primary school over the hill too - and thought it much better than our local one with the same rating - evidently there's plenty of range within bandings if you have only 4 grades for every school in the UK!

but frankly, if you chose your house based on Ofsted, you wouldn't be far wrong. Walking round, the catchments of well rated schools tend to have nicer houses in too... surprise surprise.

Ofsted reportd certainly have their faults and shouldn't be the only consideration in choosing a school but I don't think it's fair to say that they're useless.

I also disagree that a high proprotion of EAL students debars schools from higher ratings:

Quoted from a 2010 report of a secondary school in Tower Hamlets:
Almost all girls are from minority ethnic backgrounds, predominantly Bangladeshi ... An above avergae proprotion has a statement of Special Educational Needs.The overwhelming majority of studentsspeak English as an additional language, and a higher than average proprotion is at an early stage of learning the language.
This school is rated Ofsted Outstanding.

Quoted from a 2011 report of a secondary in Lewisham:
is a larger than average, oversubscribed school ... Over 60% of students come from ethnically diverse origins .. over a third of students have special educational needs and/or disabilities
This school is rated Ofsted Good

Quoted from a 2010 report of a Primary in Birmingham:
There is a high proportion of pupils from minority ethnic backgrounds and a much higher proportion than usual speaks English as an additional language. The percentage of pupils identified as having special educational needs and/or disabilities if higher than in most schools.
This school is rated Oftsed Outstanding

Quoted from a 2012 report of a secondary in Moss Side:
A much higher proprotion of students than is usual starts the school after year 7, with many of those arriving from overseas. Over 85% of students are from minority ethnic backgrounds ... over 65% speak English as an additional language.
This school is rated Ofsted Good

Quoted from a 2012 report of a primary in Mitcham:
A very large majority of pupils are from minority ethnic heritages, most of whom speak English as an additional language.
This school is rated Ofsted Good.

These reports weren't hard to find at all and certainly don't seem to be exceptions to any rule.

Having a large number of eal doesn't stop you getting a good - we've just got good and have approx 60 percent eal. In fact ofsted commented that our eal children do significantly better than the national average of all children. Most of our level 5s in year 6 sats have eal.

The only time it can be an issue is for those children who have been in the uk for 2-4 years but are still counted in the schools sats results, as they haven't actually developed the fluency of a native speaker even if the government thinks they should have!

I'm just saying it's certainly possible. I understand the need for inspections, in fact, I support it, and I am going to be pleased when it becomes no notice in September. But a school being OFSTED good isn't what makes it 'good.' And the converse.