to think that this HT should not be so openly criticising parents?

[AllTheLightWeCannotSee]

I am really quite cross about this.

You get the gist of the article without having to go through the paywall.

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/citys-schools-highlight-a-world-of-difference-between-rich-and-poor-63m6hb677

Within half a mile (google maps says 0.2 of a mile, in fact) there are two more schools, and their results are significantly higher. Given Scottish admissions, the catchment areas will overlap (esp. with the Catholic school).

I think she is very wrong to go to the papers in this way.

I come from there and I am quite protective of the area. I know there are problems, but I really don't see the need to blab (as another poster said) about the area.

Agreed cherry. I once heard a head refer to an ( unamed) parent in a public presentation and I was very offended on this unknown person's behalf! Don't do it heads.

Drug and alcohol abuse among parents are problems at every school, she said, but many on her patch have also been targeted by loan sharks in the run-up to Christmas.

I think she sounds pretty supportive and realistic.

There is no point in pretending this stuff doesn't put families under enormous pressure - and has a massive impact on educational performance.

What that school (and other schools in similar positions) needs is investment. That's the think that makes the biggest difference in closing the gap.

What she is indicating is true. If nearby schools get the middle class, socially ambitious parents sending their children there, of course they will get better results. Children's performance in school is influenced more by home than anything else. If they grow up in households where there is poverty, unemployment, drugs, low aspiration, poor levels of parental education, they are deprived in all kinds of ways and a good school can not overcome that. I have taught in both types of schools, middle class and deprived intakes. The biggest factor in how well children do is where the children live in terms of family, poverty and attitudes. Parents who stink of cannabis and stand at the school gate smoking and swearing and not supporting the school are not ever helping their children. The houses often have no books, the children have no cultural or social capital and everything is harder for them.
The school DH works in is n a poor area, more and more children are starting their primary schools not toilet trained, unable to use cutlery, very low levels of vocabulary. The secondary school funds a breakfast club every day at one of the primary schools because so many children have no breakfast. The Head at the primary school regularly calls rhe police gecause of parents drug dealing or fighting at the gates. Of course their children do worse at school.

Investment needs to be at baby and toddler age.

Mmm! I only read a supportive and understanding HT who even went as far as correcting a misconception. She didn't criticise parents... the journo did, the Ed Sec did! She protested the simplistic view a reliance on statistics gives.

And yes, a couple of hundred yards can make huge difference in catchments and achievements.

Also, it didn't sounds as though she went to the papers... it read more like the journalist wrote a piece starting with "Oooh they smell of weed!" and asked her to comment!

I agree Soggy in an ideal world, but schools which have more money to spend per pupil, and spend it on well targeted interventions can make a difference.

Yes but she talked about someones personal circumstances. I would not be comfortable with that if I was the parent OR if I were just another parent at the school. Perhaps because I come from a "rough" area? Don't know, maybe it's cultural?

It reduces you to a case study imho.

I can understand why you're offended if you come from there. I have family nearby and I didn't recognise the broad brush description of parents and their lifestyles. I also think it's difficult for a school to work together with parents if they're stereotyping them.

YY, it is painting the picture of the Easterhouse that everyone thinks they know.

Why didn't they talk about the working parents dropping their kids off at the breakfast club?

I don't see a difference in the A.P. families and the families who go to the 2 other schools tbh.

IME curriculum for excellence is a problem....since its introduction the attainment gap is widening.
Yes social deprivation plays a huge part in children's learning and development -but CfE IMO does nothing to overcome that -in fact does the opposite.
CfE is based on child led learning. It requires IMO the children to have a broader life experience outside school.
If you have children who come from a background with less well educated parents with a low income they won't have the same life experiences as children with a more educated and wealthier (not necessarily wealthy) background.
I am most familiar with what is happening in early years so nursery age.
Currently the teachers are not allowed to direct learning at all - eg if a child asks for a story they can have one and others can listen but they can't have a defined 'story time' . If no child asks for a story they don't get read to - and children from deprived backgrounds are less likely to be read to outside nursery - so they are less likely to ask for a story. (I worked for a while in an inner city school a long time ago - we had children starting Nursery at 3 who didn't even have the concept of how a book worked - you start at the beginning, turn pages and it tells a story)
If a child does nothing but play on the climbing frame every day they can't suggest they try the puzzle or art areas.
The idea of funded places from 3 (or even 2 in some cases) is to try and lessen the gap. Catch children from deprived backgrounds early before the gap becomes so wide they have no chance of catching up with their peers from less deprived backgrounds. Of course if they are then mixing with less deprived children (even with child led learning) they will make progress - the problem is that in deprived areas most of the children will have a similar background. And the 'teachers' can (officially) do very little to help except have the resources available for any children who do show an interest.

The CfE has been and still is a fuck up by the Scottish government - the SNP.

To help deprived children once at school age, schools don't need testing etc - even better teachers - they need more in classroom support to overcome the 'damage' done in the early years when deprived children are being let down, the gap has already formed. More money spent by councils but with the council tax freeze and budgets squeezed these schools are getting less not more money.
I don't blame that head teacher at all - if anything she should have been more vocal. (I know lots of experienced teachers and early years workers who disagree with the current 'hands off' approach -especially in the early years. Most are trying to keep their heads down so they can do what they can to ignore the stupidity....)

It doesn't make me think anything about the area, but I guess that's because I'm in education, so I focused on those bits.

I agree about CfE for wee ones. It worries me.

You ask why the other schools have got better results, as others have said, it's about the level of parental interest.

Sandaig has a lower level of deprived pupils (70-75% in 20% rather than 90-95%) so probably more engaged parents, and whilst Our Lady of Peace has a similar level of deprivation, many catholic schools have better standards of behaviour because they may have been brought up to know they have to confess to the Priest so perhaps there is more time to spend on teaching rather than managing the behaviour of kids from dysfunctional families and that's a reason for higher results.

My partner is a head to two schools in deprived areas, and some of the issues his kids have to live with astonish me. There was a parents evening for year 11 in one of them this week and only 51% of the pupils parents bothered to turn up, so imagine what kind of support many of those kids will get to prepare for their GCSE's?

I never know how much faith (pun not intended) to put in the Catholic schools = better behaviour argument. Unless all that praying really works

I was very frustrated with my child's experience in nursery under CfE. I really felt she was not prepared for school with the free-flow experience.

The CFE grades are decided by teachers and there is no testing, or centralised scrutiny. So, they are basically worthless. A school could be cautious in deciding, or over award. There are no checks.

So, there is little to say.

I might award a Level 3 to a child, another teacher give them a 2. Given that the Levels are very broad (Level 3 is an average child, and covers S1-3.

So, whatever your opinion, the evidence is unreliable.

Faith based schools tend to get parents who are more invested in their child's education. You may have to attend church regularly or get your child christened in order to get into the school. Parents willing to do this are likely to be the ones interested in their child's education.

Something else to consider with small distances between schools is how comparable the data is. One school might have a much smaller or larger cohort. In a small school each pupil's result can make a bigger difference to the outcome.

And the teachers just decide the results.....

hamlets that might be the reason national testing is being brought in....
However I know in our council area all the children are already assessed using a computer program - it doesn't decide the CfE levels but is a measure of how much children know and how that is improving.
If for eg the school said they had a 90% achievement of Level 1 by the end of P4 and the tests didn't bear that out that would be picked up on.
I live in a naice area with a good primary - the pupils meet their targets well in advance (as they did pre CfE) but the school still comes under pressure to illustrate that the (already doing well) children's education is progressing at an acceptable rate.
Also if children were turning up at secondary way off their assessed levels at primary, the secondary schools would be making a fuss -as it would effectively show a slow down in a pupil's progress.
(I know of a school in England that went down from outstanding to needing improvement - the reason was that the main feeder nursery was exaggerating the children's abilities to make themselves look good...and that made the school look like it was failing - the children were not progressing as expected ...and yes there was a big fall out over it...)

Unlucky has it been ever been suggested to have all council areas do that testing? Or will national testing involve inventing a new wheel?!

I can't read the whole article but I get the gist.

I suppose this will always be the issue with the way the catchment system works in Scotland. (Not that I like the English system any better).

Langside primary has a catchment area with a large number of houses in middle class price bracket. Easterhouse still has large areas of social deprivation, social housing, high unemployment etc.

Most people in Scotland will send their children to the catchment school, so of course schools with a middle class catchment will have better results than those with in catchment area with high unemployment/ social housing /FSM etc.

I know placing requests can be made but this creates the further issue of:

1. Good schools in high demand so placing requests are often rejected 2. If finances are already tight then the cost of travel to school outside catchment area can be an issue. Some funding can be given but usually not if catchment school has a place which parent had rejected in favour of another school.

We live in an area in Glasgow that has had vast amounts of money spent on regeneration (previously socially deprived area). I would say our school has a good mix of parents and children (working home owners/private renters and unemployed social housing) and achieves average to good results. My friend lives in catchment for a really good school with mainly middle class families and the school gets top results. However my DD and her DD are both learning at a similar level and I don't think my DD would be doing any better if she went to a 'better' school. My friend and I have similar parenting approaches WRT education so I suspect that's why.

Not sure what the answer is but if the parents don't place importance on homework, attendance and learning in general then of course this will have a knock on effect on the child's education. Similarly if the parents own knowledge and level of education isn't great then they they won't be able to help as much as they would like.

Oh and the other issues with areas like Govanhill (just 1 mile down the road from langside primary) is that there are a large number of children who don't have any English when starting school or their parents are still learning English themselves won't have the knowledge the help with English or spelling homework. This will also have a huge impact of the attainment levels for reading and writing in particular.

I agree that if more was done at the baby and toddler stage then that would help. I believe that is why the nursery funding for some age 2 children was introduced.

For secondary schools and behaviour I think the best people to ask are bus drivers. DSF is a bus driver and he can tell you which local schools have the best and worst behaved children as he picks them up every day.

Article is posted a few posts in.

the catholic school may be drawing in kids from a woider area, and maybe more involved parents if it needs to have church attendacne baptism certificates etc as proof of entitlement.

the other school may draw from a better off area and catchment extending out towards the suburbs while the school featured may only draw from the worst area.

The line that angers me is that parent saying that a bad teacher "wouldn't be tolerated" at the middle class school.

That's not the case, and suggests that the primary in Easterhouse, and similar deprived areas, do in fact tolerate it.

I've worked in vastly different schools, the difference. thanksforallthefish is spot on: it's the parents that are the massively deciding force in how well a school "performs". If they are supportive of education then you're set.