"I could never send my dcs to grammar school....

[winkywinkola]

...because I think it's unfair on all those children who can't get in because they couldn't afford tutoring for 11+. But I will send them to prep and boarding school."

I was a bit perplexed to hear this from a mum at the school gate. Aibu?

[teacherwith2kids]

Primaries are somewhat easier to turn round than secondaries, in general - smaller, more manoevreable, fewer staff, primary teachers in much easier supply. Turning round a large secondary is a longer process.

[Lurkedforever1]

Exactly mango and well done to her. Problem is when you've got to the point there aren't enough decent staff to get on board.

I helped a local parent whose child wasn't seeing any of their individual funding, and the school were taking advantage of the parents situation to pretend they didn't have the money. When really they were using the funding for other dc, namely those in the close to pass priority group. As well as the head, I have no doubt that a certain staff member knew and was actively in favour. Except they are hod in a core subject that doesn't even have enough permanent qualified staff members for gcse years, let alone the whole school. What does the new vibrant head do? Get rid of one of the few teachers who can teach the subject, or let them stay despite being corrupt and with the power to put off new, potentially good teachers? Not an easy choice.

[MangoMoon]

Lurked, totally agree with your last post.

And as you say, which decent head would take on the career killer of 18 months to turn that round with just a handful of decent staff? Whereas if instead they'd been threatened with special measures for massaging pass rates years ago, instead of patted on the back for ticking boxes, it could have been done relatively simply.

Wrt this part, the primary school next to us did just this.
It had been rated 'satisfactory' for years (box ticking, basically); a new head was appointed after the old one retired - she had been the deputy head for a couple of years.

The first thing she did was to call OFSTED in and invited them to rip the place apart.
School was put into special measures straight away & she got all the parents and teachers on board and turned the school around well ahead of schedule (within the school year actually).
It was taken off special measures early & is under regular inspection now -it was rated 'good' across the board straight away.

She's now moved on to another school, and there's another headteacher who is equally as good as her - the school is amazing now.

[Lurkedforever1]

teacher definitely the latter. However I would also include schools with larger numbers of high achievers who neglect the needs of the lowest achievers. And schools that are good at progressing lower achievers whilst doing nothing for the more able.

I don't think overall stats and ofsted are what make a good school or a substandard one. If four schools have identical average intakes, one could focus solely on the group slightly below pass, one could focus on just the above average, one on just the below, and another could be doing a fantastic job of providing for every child.

In terms of average numbers reaching a pass, the former 3 would look better, even though they'd only achieved it at the cost of other pupils. Average added value for all 4 would probably be similar too, except when you broke it down individually the first 3 would just be adding a lot of value to some pupils and nothing to others, only the fourth school would have value added across the board.

I'd call all the first three substandard. They might be great if your dc fits into the priority group at the school, but only the fourth school is a good one.

With regards to turning round bad schools, it also doesn't help that the 'bad' ones have to be run into the ground first. The local dire school has got away with it for years, their average 'a-c or equivalent average per child' actually tends to come around national average. When you break it down, you can see they are nearly all c's, and mostly comprised of 'equivalent' not core. Not to mention they screw over everyone above or below that level. With the new targets, sooner or later it is going to get slammed, but when it does, it will be almost impossible to put right. It's already reaching a point where recruitment is a major issue, because although the school still attracts good teachers, even the most dedicated don't stick around. And as you say, which decent head would take on the career killer of 18 months to turn that round with just a handful of decent staff? Whereas if instead they'd been threatened with special measures for massaging pass rates years ago, instead of patted on the back for ticking boxes, it could have been done relatively simply.

[teacherwith2kids]

Lurked,
up to a point - but i do think that you - or rather everyone - needs to dissect out what you mean by a 'substandard' school.

Is it a school with a particularly difficult or deprived intake (these can be sited in what looks like very 'mixed' areas, so you really do need to dig down intot he actual %PP data)?

or

Is it a school with an 'average' intake that then 'removes value' from the children who form that intake (ie in the current data tables, added value

[FreshHorizons]

House prices are just as important in selective system. The ones that can afford to live in a 'nice' area get the 'nice' sec mod.

The 11+ system won't make a comeback - there would be an outcry in any of the towns that I have lived in if 3/4 of parents had to have their child in a secondary modern instead of a comprehensive. They wouldn't stand for it.

[Lurkedforever1]

I don't think the grammar system in the way it is currently provided is fair either. But popular opinion, always by those who only have experience of good comprehensives, is always that the current comprehensive system is the ideal alternative. When it is just as selective.

What we should all be focusing on is the fact it all needs overhauling, with faith criteria scrapped and either lottery or banding. If it's a substandard school, not meeting the needs of all its pupils, and writing them off as failures, then it makes no odds whether you call it a secondary modern or a comprehensive. And yet despite the fact the unfairness of the current comp system is far greater, given the numbers in it, so many people offer it as the fair alternative, without even acknowledging it currently isn't.

[BertrandRussell]

And whatever happens, in whatever system, privileged kids do fine and underprivileged ones are screwed.

And privilege attracts privilege.

[teacherwith2kids]

The point is that in a divided system, there are:

Some grammar schools: Ofsted will rate these well, because they have good raw results and few PP children in relation to the average of the community they serve.
Some 'non grammar' schools: whatever we choose to call these, Ofsted will tend not to rate these well, and they will have poorer reputations than the grammars, because they will by definition have poorer raw results and many PP children in relation to the average of the community.

In the comprehensive system, there will be:
Some really good comprehensive schools.
Some middling ones.
Some poor ones.
Much of this will be a function of their intake, raw results and number of PP children, though of course some do buck the trend (as I said in a post way back, I am impressed by the schools local to me that have 40-49% PP and yet are rated Good).

Both systems have some schools that are poor, so the mere existence of some poor schools does not mean that one system is preferable to the other.

It is also ALWAYS worth dissecting out the contribution of intake, community and school - by at least a cursory look at PP percentage, unemployment rates in the community etc - before leaping to nny conclusion about what is a good school, and what is an OK school with a naice intake in a naice area.

[teacherwith2kids]

Lurked, but the point remains that it provides more equal opportunity than the alternative. I agree that a utopia in which all comprehensives are equal - and, in my utopia, supported by excellent special schools to bring together those with special needs at both ends of the ability range in economic numbers - is not yet here.

But saying that 'some comprehensives are poor so we should revert to a divided system which is, in an absolutely best case scenario, no better at a statistical level' is not a way forward.

[Lurkedforever1]

teacher that was tongue in cheek, and in response to all the posters that think the current comprehensive system in its present state provides equal opportunity.

sandy everything mango has posted in response applies to me too. Knowing that I was good academically gave me no pleasure, it just left me bored and frustrated, and therefore incapable of utilising it at school for anything but disruptive purposes. I was an adult before I realised that being good was anything but a hindrance. And again whatever academic level a child is at, if you make it clear you have written them off by providing a sub standard education, you can tell them they are 'good' at whatever you like, and they'll know full well it is meaningless.

And for the record, it should be fairly obvious that the state of my own grammar and writing in general on here makes it very unlikely I was using shite to describe your own. It was the post, not it's construction I was referring to.

[MangoMoon]

Mango/Lurked forever. Were/have you ever been bottom of the class for everything ?. I certainly was bottom of the class for everything and my school education was very close to the children described.

It is quite evident that neither of you were, otherwise you would know that all the majority of these children want is to be good at something.

I wasn't bottom of the class for anything, no.

But, the people I knocked around with all left school at 15/16, mostly with no Standard Grades (Scotland).

They went into unskilled work, or had kids very young. A few lost their lives to drugs & a couple in prison.

Some of those people are now, 25 years later, still in low paid, unskilled work.
Some have gone on and done qualifications as mature students, and those that went into apprenticeships or blue collar skilled work from school are doing quite well.

What they needed at school^^ was not to be written off.
They may have been bottom set everything, but they weren't thick or stupid, they just didn't see the point in school & neither did their parents.

Rather than identifying them as low achievers at 12 when they started high school, they should have been supported in seeing/believing in their own worth & potential.

[possum18]

This is very interesting, I attended grammar school and passed the entrance exam with no additional schooling or tutoring. I was one of only two pupils from my small primary school to get accepted to the grammar, however the other girl had a lot of additional help through a tutor. Whilst she passed the test, she found it really hard to keep up once admitted. I really don't see the point in pushing your child through extra help just for the exam and then not providing further support once in attendance.

[sandyholme]

Mini. Thank you for acknowledging that some white working class children require something different than a conventional education.

Mango/Lurked forever. Were/have you ever been bottom of the class for everything ?. I certainly was bottom of the class for everything and my school education was very close to the children described.

It is quite evident that neither of you were, otherwise you would know that all the majority of these children want is to be good at something. This is something Bertrand will agree with me.

Mini . Like your DD i suffer from Dyslexia/Dyspraxia and ASD so perhaps that explains why my writing and grammar is 'shite'. Despite these fundamental educational difficulties , i finally achieved a social science degree with the OU at 47.

I see my class has advanced to somewhere between Hyacinth Bucket and 'genuine ' middle class. This is a great achievement for a child whose 'modern ' school (note use of modern, not the ones today that bear no comparison but are run down by those putting forward a comprehensive school agenda.) believed i was ESN not a pupil with unmet Special educational Educational needs.

[teacherwith2kids]

Lurked, while schools have geographical admissions areas, and where those who live in different postcodes are not identical, not can schools be identical. Comprehensive does not mean 'identical'. It means catering for the needs of its area, with the exception of SEN children at the high or low end of the scale (I mean 'children whose level of ability is so exceptional that they cannot be educated efficiently in the comprehensive system')

[teacherwith2kids]

"So why isnt it, with the schools near me?"

The difficulty is the amount of transformation required in a very short time by Ofsted, and the failure to factor context in successfully when all 'the powers that be' look at raw results.

There is a shortage of really good heads, s they can pick or choose the school they want to take on. A Requires Improvement school but with basically sound stats and intake, or a Good school with good stats and intake that aspires to be Outstanding, are good schools to take on - a really good head can set such a school on the path to its desired Ofsted grade in a year or two, especially if there are no 'honeypot' schools sucking large numbers of the brighter /children and more motivated parents away.

An Inadequate school, which has been inadequate for many years, is sited in a community with one of the highest rates of unemployment in the country (many families 3rd or 4th generation of worklessness), with very high Pupil premium numbers and a falling roll? That is a Headteacher's road to death through stress, whatever they do, because the problems are engrained and endemic, and take many years to turn round ... but the Ofsted / floor standard process only gives a new head 18 months - 2 years in that situation, historically much less, to completely transform results of children who have been in the school 4-5 years already.

I know a head who did the latter, for love of the job and desire to help the children. Despite heading the county's league tables for value added, they were still below the government floor targets - because such a very high proportion of their pupils came in at or below Level 3 (so at or below the level f an able Year 2 child) in year 7. Ofsted came in every year. The head came very close to death before having to leave through stress. Why would an able and committed head - a potentially brilliant head - want to put themselves through that, when there are plenty of 'Good' or 'Just slipped into requires improvement' schools looking for heads?

[Lurkedforever1]

Private schools do that with their bursaries already mini. Underachieving isn't exclusive to low achieving children. Highly able dc regularly underachieve, especially those from poorer homes.

How can anyone even pretend that anywhere has any form of genuine comprehensive system? Find one county that has close to avg fsm, avg Sen, similar social intake, similar results etc in every school. Oh yes, that's right, they don't exist.

[MangoMoon]

With respect, if immigrant children at the same schools are achieving much more highly it suggests the problem isn't with the school, it's at home.

YY, absolutely.

If a parent doesn't value education then there isn't much hope for the child. Schools can only do so much

This is where I disagree, I'm afraid.

To break the cycle, schools need to do more.
In areas where this sort of cycle exists, primaries should be funded & resourced to take on more pastoral support, as well as good teaching.
Also things like after school sports clubs or similar to keep the kids occupied & engaged as much as poss.

In secondaries in these areas, funding & resources to provide extra 'life skills' teaching should be available as well as good teaching & varied lesson options.

There is a multi-generational self fulfilling cycle that needs to be challenged properly - people who have been consigned to the scrap heap for too long.

[MintJulip]

The difference I think is a very very dynamic head and leadership team and a truly inspiring and no nonsense attitude to getting the kids on

Yes we have seen many examples of tough seemingly hopeless schools turned around in this way.

It can be done.

So why isnt it, with the schools near me

[Margrethe]

I am sure that private schools would happily provide more bursaries mini if the state would fund them. Private schools close every year because they cannot cover their costs.

[MintJulip]

and why would a secondary modern or a comp be better than a grammar?

my children's school and many other comprehensives are testament to that

But so many are not, ie the two in my town that have been failing dc for decades . We are not deprived here, good mix of housing not soley one or the other?

If a parent doesn't value education then there isn't much hope for the child. Schools can only do so much and where was that parent educated? and their parents and theirs and so on? The two failing schools near me will be on their second and third generations to fail now.

[Margrethe]

I disagree with you here mini.

My DC attended a really lovely CE primary. It's been great for them socially and emotionally. Academically, it fell far short. However, if you look at its stats, it compares very well to the national average.

It's not fair that DC are limited by their parents' ability and desire to push them forward. The answer isn't asking ambitious parents, like the immigrant families that you admire, to "sit on their hands."

Rather, better use should be made of the six hours that the state legally has them in school. This is the time we are all paying for in our taxes. This is the time legally set aside for these children to have a chance.

After over 10 years of being a state primary parent, I am all too aware of the time that is wasted on endless assemblies (everyday! often pointless adults enjoying the sound of their own voices and the logistics of herding 400 DC in and out of the hall), waiting for other students to settle down and get themselves together, patiently waiting through dull classes where the same stuff is covered again, and again, and again. Grouping DC with like needs and abilities together at key times in the day would be a massive boost to efficiency. And it would help children whose parents just don't care or aren't capable of supporting learning most of all. This wasted time is particularly precious for these children. And we seem more than happy to fritter it away.

[minifingerz]

"Mini has just proved the point (though she will deny it)that comprehensive schools do not work for white working class children"

Maybe this is the one group who would be better off in a different environment.

I suggest that private schools should lose their charitable status until they start using bursary funding to pay the fees of children who actually benefit most from individualised attention, wrap around schooling, a full extra curricula provision, mentoring, and exposure to a wider cultural context than is possible through their home background - namely under achieving white working class children.

[minifingerz]

"The fact is despite the good intended ' 1969 woodstock' type ideas of the liberal's everybody being educated together in perfect harmony does not work."

Actually it does work - my children's school and many other comprehensives are testament to that.

[Lurkedforever1]

Well said mango. Although I disagree on it being a middle class thing to say. Bourgeois Hyacinth Bucket is more applicable. Having any form of class is the last thing I would accuse the author of such ignorant shite of possessing.