A school is not 'good' on the basis that it's high in the local league tables

[Minifingers]

...if its results are simply a reflection of the fact that the school is full of children who are bright, middle-class, and well supported at home?

Really sick of people locally talking about particular schools, which they haven't visited and don't know anything about, in these terms.

A 'good' school IMO is one where many children make progress above what might be expected when they arrive at the school. Such a school might actually be quite low in the borough league tables because of having a disadvantaged intake.

It's all about what schools do with the children they have.

YANBU, judging a 'good' school from the sea of published data is still hugely difficult.

DDs secondary looked good in dashboard, GCSE results compared to other local schools and yet Ofsted threw it in special measures for a year (I too suspect a local agenda, possibly because we have out of catchment pupils, other schools would like back)

For primaries the local largest housing estate can be the most telling factor for results.

Here you can't meaningfully compare primaries, of my nearest 4 -
2 are too small ever to report SATs results
1 is normally too small
1 is occasionally too small
Oh and all are CofE, so no choice there either.

agree with Kate

My dc's secondary school was failing 10-15 years ago. Its gcse results were just 18% for getting 5 gcses. The school has improved year on year and was one of the most improved schools in the country and that figures is now in the 90s%. However each year it is attracting brighter and brighter. DC's math's teacher said they ds's yr 13 class is the brightest they had, current year 12 not so bright but then dd's yr 11 class is on par with ds's.
I remember reading in the newspaper that their result was 21% back when dcs were starting school and thinking no way would my dcs go there. It was unlikely as it was 7 miles away. But by the time we got round to choosing, someone mentioned the school at the last minute and that it had an aptitude test. We realised how much the school had changed and my dc's have positively thrived there. It has excellent pastoral care as well. It does get an Outstanding ofsted but we are now waiting for the results of an Ofsted from a few weeks ago.

Thanks Baby Jesus that parents are finally seeing the light about Ofsted their 'agendas'.

They did a hatchet job on our school. Nothing we could say or do. Made their minds up before they came. Our school is brilliant with happy pupils and thankful parents. OK so not top in the LA but the 'whole child' matters more, doesn't it??

Doesn't it?

The kids at our school are happy and the parents like the place well enough. But the kids are happy because they do bugger all work. I sometimes feel my job is more akin to being a children's entertainer.

I'd rather be allowed to get on and teach them to read and understand properly tbh. That's a lot more useful than them learning how to drum and sing songs.

I'm in Wales and my experience is that the schools rated 'Excellent' by Estyn are those in which the children do well, comparable for how the children develop based on entry level.

Unfortunately, I think that is just as misleading. A school very close to mine has recently been rated 'Excellent'. The children on entry level are typically significantly below what would be expected of Reception aged children. It's an area with over 55% FSM, well above the local and national average (a debate in itself, but it does make a difference). By leaving, they are much improved...but on a results basis, still below that of other nearby and comparable schools that are only rated 'good'.

I'm not knocking the school...they do a fantastic job in a very disadvantaged area. BUT, saying that, 'Excellent' though they may be, I would not send my children there. Because their results and rating are based on bringing significantly disadvantaged and 'underperforming' children to slightly-below what's 'expected'.

My dc's school which is 'only' rated good does much better on a results and extra-curricular level. BUT because they have 'more to work with' on entry (not selective by any means, but not a disadvantaged area), they don't get near the kudos of an 'excellent' rating.

When making my own decisions, i'd choose the 'good' school every time.

But Singmore, obviously the school near you which is graded Excellent is a better school, because the children taught there make more progress than the children at the 'good' school? It is exactly as the OP says. How can you argue otherwise?

But the school who go from below average on entry to average [are doing an 'excellent' job by the children. Sounds like they do deserve their rating. I bet too an able child would do well at that school too...

It's the opposite of the op.

Op is arguing that schools are usually higher rated because they have a 'good crop' to start with...middle class, intelligent kids.

In my area it seems to be that those who have disadvantaged kids on entry get the higher ratings...even though in the end results, they don't do as well.

Seriously...which would you choose.

School 1. In a very, very disadvantaged area. High % of FSM, meaning that extra-curricular activities and trips are very limited due to lack of income. Consistently rated excellent due to the high level of disadvantaged reception children achieving 'expected' status, or nearly that, on leaving.

School 2. In an economically average - slightly better than average area. Very low % of FSM...lots of extra curricular activities and opportunities because typically, parents paying for them is no problem. Consistently rated 'good', Children entering are slightly above what is expected of typical reception children. On leaving are generally all still above what is expected of them, with some exceptional examples of academic/extra curricular prowess.

I'm not knocking school 1 at all. They are doing an excellent job. BUT because they are constantly 'catching up' the huge proportion of disadvantaged kids, those that are 'ahead' don't really get the chance to shine. School 2 have the easier job...kids that are on target at entry. Meaning those kids that show a talent for something can be nurtured and encouraged to full potential.

I chose school 2. My point is that there is so much more to consider than 'just' the rating.

As you say- school 2 have the much easier job and that Ofsted see that is good.
Extra money going into school one should help them with subbing extra curricular a bit though parental engagement important here too.

Interesting reading.

My child's school has just been downgraded to 'inadequate' across the board.

It's a Junior school. Amongst other things I was shocked by OFSTEDS comments that children enter the school with above aver eave results and leave below average. And that the school fails to prepare them for secondary school.

We're now looking at private tutoring and switching schools. I can't gamble my child's future on the hope that her school will get better, fast.

I have similar experiences to streaky and amber.

The school with a good reputation and which considers itself to be 'outstanding' imposed a high number of illegal exclusions. These were then 'hidden' so nobody i.e Ofsted found out about them and asked questions. I realise that most schools wouldn't act in this way but it does go on and gives a false impression to parents.

Tempting to report school to Ofsted MrsDisillusioned...

I know where you're coming from, Sing. I've worked in 'that' school. And OfSTED have in the past graded schools as good based on CVA despite attainment being poor. One of the problems with the CVA was that it allowed schools to get away with lower expectations for certain groups of pupils (certainly in primary, not sure about secondary).

Children were making progress but no where near enough to bring them up to age related expectations. In the school I'm talking about many of the children would have been capable of doing so and in other schools with similar intakes would have done so. But because they were making better than average progress and the CVA was higher than average nobody was looking at how better teaching/better schemes of work or better interventions could have made that better and helped these children to catch up. There was very much an attitude of 'we can't do anything more. Look at the background they come from'.

Interestingly, that did get shown up on the OfSTED Dashboard and they did go from Good to Special Measures in their last report.

Yes yes yes. I completely agree with you and could have written afterthought's post. I also work in a good with outstanding features school. It is an amazing school. We have a reputation for working very effectively with children with special needs that the schools around us wont take as well as children without. I would not want to work in a school that didn't accept all children.

sapphire......