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.

soggy - most councils already do the tests ...just double checked and from this www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-35237834 which has more details of the national tests
While most of Scotland's 32 local authorities already conduct some form of standardised assessment to monitor children's progress, the first minister argued that they were not conducted on a consistent basis.
I think the 'problem' is that each council just compares schools within its own area -the national test will test compare all schools from all areas to the same level. Another big difference is parents will be able to get the results (at the moment they can't). I think in some areas the biggest concern - IMO worse than league tables and teaching to the test - will be ambitious parents trying to boost their child's score...

cauliflower I agree - parental influence and involvement is the biggest factor.
I never checked any reports etc for our nearest school -didn't compare it to other schools in the area etc - because I knew the area and the kind of background the vast majority of the other children come from. I knew it would be a 'good' school and also that even if it wasn't that good my and DPs influence meant that my DCs should be ok.
Also the children that are doing less well (apart from 2 with SEN) are the few who come from the more deprived backgrounds and they are the same ones that never come to school fairs/open days etc, get in trouble for not doing their homework, don't have costumes for dress up days etc (not because their parents are busy working full time or even that they can't afford it... I saw a photo of a historical dress up day - most DCs were in outfits of put together things they already had - the ones who had no costume at all, in school uniform, were the ones I would have guessed wouldn't have one -they did thankfully all have some accessories they'd made in school). They have the same teachers in the same school - but aren't making the same progress.
Those children will most likely not do well in exams etc - school will seem to them to have been a bit of a waste of time and they will likely have the same attitude to school for their own children. And that is what we need to tackle -and from a young age. Break the circle.

She has responded to interview questions rather than "gone to the papers" and yes, her comments are entirely valid and in keeping with what we know about poverty and attainment.

In fact some of the best teachers worked in the most deprived school where I worked. They had to go the extra ten miles just to achieve anything approaching the kind of results that these kids were capable of. A real fight against the odds.

And in fact I wouldn't say the kids at the deprived school were generally that financially poor, (although FSM was about 40%) they were culturally and linguistically poor, and living in a community which generally didn't value academic qualifications or have respect for authority, which meant that the culture of school was oceans away from the culture of home. And as kids are steeped in their home culture for the vast majority of the time, that is what prevails.

unlucky - correct!

I do think some schools try and take the easy way out and say, 'oh it's the area. We're never going to be able to get them up to standard.'

My kids go to a school that is in the middle of 3 schools all practically on the same road, each about a 10 minute walk from the next. The area is very similar all along that road with arguably the 'worst' area being the middle - where my kids go to school. When I looked at the KS2 results last week I saw that our school's results were double that of the other two schools, despite the 'type' of kids and families that attend all three schools being very similar. These schools are all in what is classed as a deprived area yet our school has managed to do pretty well. From what I have seen that is because the children are worked very hard and their family background is not allowed to be used as an excuse.

SOSCA tests are used by schools, as are INCAS tests and CAT tests. But, not all tests report back about individuals, just cohorts. Also, some just feed into a national picture and have no data released about schools. The Level 2/3 etc in Reading, Writing and Maths are awarded by the school. Hard to explain but, for me, secondary English, level 3 is 3 years of work (plus Level 4 for the more able). Last year was the first year of reporting. I am not sure I knew that results would be reported, as they are not usually.

Watch them go up next year......

Where I live there is a river dividing 2 areas, that stretch of water divides the haves and the have nots, doctors and lawyers one side and generations of low paid or unemployed the other .. and yes the school results reflect that. The distance between the 2 is less thana mile, less than half a mile!

If there is a mixed area (with both middle class and deprived families living in close proximity) one or two schools will become populated with the middle class families and perform well and the others will take on the children from deprived families. It's pretty difficult to stop this happening because as soon as one school becomes slightly better than the others the middle class families will do what they can to ensure their children go to the "better" school which means the intake becomes predominantly middle class kids from supportive families with fewer social and financial issues, and you get a run away effect.

I do get a bit weary at the endless suggestions that poor parent = bad parent.

It doesn't. It's just that for many parents, school really isn't that important.

Cherry I don't think people are equating poor parents with bad parents but statistically poor parents are likely to be less educated themselves, less invested in their children's education and less able to help their children perform well at school (obviously this isn't always the case but is a statistically significant effect). This has an enormous effect on their children's performance in school, which is what we're discussing here. Therefore a school having a largely deprived intake will have a much harder time achieving good results than a school with a middle class intake.

Yes, I understand that, Have, but while you might have a poor education yourself, that doesn't mean you are a poor PARENT. I've known a lot of poor parents in monetary terms who could wipe the floor with their middle class counterparts in terms of love. But anyway - the school is obviously concerned with results, that's it's business, of course it will be. However, you can be a great parent without caring what your child got in his SATs. And opening the article describing cannabis smoke does suggest poor parenting generally, not just 'actually a pretty good parent who hasn't got a degree'.

My area is much the same. The wealthy parents sit in church every Sunday (just until the form is signed, of course, then they magically forget their faith) and clamour for places at St Wealthy's, with the overspill going into the Catholic schools. A few metres down the road is NoChurch Primary. NoChurch takes the kids St Wealthy's won't. It is closest to the poorest estates, so it also takes the nearest.

Despite the area seeming well-mixed, St Wealthy's has a curious less than 1% of children with English as a Second Language, less than 2% Free School Meals and less than 2% SEN.

NoChurch Primary has over 33% ESL, over 45% FSM and 25% SEN.

If you're unaware of the 'game', or plain ol' not Christian, if you're poor and if you're statemented - you're not going to St Wealthy's.

So NoChurch Primary has the challenges. No Boden here. We have the cannabis smoke, the swearing, the public slapping. We had a woman barricade herself into the office for safety while her violent partner tried to smash the door down, roaring the C word and N word. We have mothers bellowing at one another they will 'fucking sort you out' while their children cower. Children whose uniforms are torn, dirty, the wrong colour for the school. Children who move in, then are gone again weeks later.

OFSTED wasn't convinced by St Wealthy's. The children make less than expected progress from when they join (where they are "above average") to when they leave (they leave "broadly average"), whereas at NoChurch Primary, the children arrive with "less than average" skills in speech, reading and writing yet leave "above average". The school has to work twice as hard, whereas the rich school can just coast along - they know they wealthy parents will aid in the children's skills and can provide enriching materials and trips.

My kids are at NoChurch primary.

Do I worry? Sure, I worry. I decided I couldn't live with myself 'playing the game' and lying about being a Christian with the other parents I knew - I thought that was awful behaviour and only perpetuates the faith school's stranglehold. I can certainly understand why others went to such lengths to avoid it - boy, can the parents be an eye-opener in the mornings. I still went in and smiled and nodded but they don't talk to me, don't even look at me, and I guess that's fine by me.

We should start with the faith schools. If all the wealthy kids were mixed in with everyone else we'd all be learning by example, bringing one another up, raising aspirations. Instead, we ghettoise - wealthy school, poor school. Don't send your kids to 'that' school. 'That's' the council estate school. 'That's' the poor school. And faith is the handbook they use to draw those lines.

cherry it isn't that really -and children of some poor parents do well -but not often. School isn't important because they gained 'nothing' from it -no improved life chances etc.
But doing well at school (getting a good education) is the main way people can improve their life and that of their children.
It is about a mind set. And it isn't just about being able to earn more money - it is about aspiration, hope for the future - some kind of purpose in life.

I do understand that unlucky but just the same, you can be "unsupportive" insofar as you don't pile pressure on your child to achieve at school and don't have a thousand extra curricular activities and a private tutor and you don't have books in the home and you have a TV in their bedroom but not smoke cannabis!

cherry I agree with that too ... I would class as a pretty unsupportive parent in regards to pushing academically eg my DCs do their own homework - I only help if they ask for it but I do check it and make sure they have done it. They don't have tutors etc. The youngest still does lots of after school activities because she wants to and enjoys them. (And there more she wants to do - but I don't think she can fit them in and I insist on Saturdays 'off') When she wants to give them up she can. (Which is the broader life experience thing I mentioned earlier - some are very cheap/free but it does still all add up and I'm lucky I can afford it) Eldest did lots of activities and gradually gave them all up and I'm fine with that.
I think really pushy parents don't really do their children any favours in the long run - eg when they push and tutor them into a grammar school then are always the bottom of the class, struggling to keep up, feeling stupid.
But that is the other extreme.
And the issue of parents thinking school isn't important can affect the self worth of children - I think probably in my school it is worse in that it is a few children that don't have the right things, a costume, a parent at an open day etc. They do notice.

I think three schools near each other can have different intake as one gets the reputation as a "rough" school so the other families make every effort to get into better schools and so it goes on.
About the Catholic schools l think the better behaviour is because until this generation those schools were run by nuns and they put huge effort into order and that sort of order continued even in their absence. My friend got a post as a principal in one of those schools after a regular school and she couldn't get over how regimented everything was, not in class but in corridors assembly etc. Then she realised hey it works to make everyone's job easier so decided to go with it although her experience would have been different.

I teach in lreland and genuinely most of the children l teach have such supportive families the children could nearly learn at home. Any teacher who teaches children who are starting from a different Base should have any achievement lauded as it's a totally different job. I did it my first ten years teaching and l loved it but you have to understand where the children are at and go with that.

cherry I'm not doubting that but we're talking about school performance here so how much you care about your children's SATS results etc. is obviously relevant (even though it might not make you a better parent overall).

No, but the article made it sound as if poor parenting and poor in monetary terms were synonymous.

I don't think it did Cherry. The article pointed out some specific issues - drug/alcohol dependency and being hounded by loan sharks - that will present families with additional challenges. Because having that shit going on does make everything harder. Having an almost forensic knowledge of the family context of the children allows schools to properly target support.
That's all she's doing.

cherry I don't think it was saying that.

It's true that the financially poor will have different priorities and pressures which will sometimes mean that education is not the most important thing. It can be the same st the other end as well. If Daddy is a squillionnaire then why bother in school?

I've known plenty of very very financially poor parents who are brilliant at being parents.

Myself and DH left school without taking GCSEs (was legal here in the noughties) and I am worrying about DCs going to school and having to help with maths homework - it's not as though we can afford tutors either.

Where I live there is a school which is housed in an old pre-fab building that was mean to last something like 30 years - a stop gap so education could get the money together to construct a proper building. It is now well over a decade "out of date" and no plans to replace it are in sight despite leaking roofs etc. It wouldn't be allowed to happen to the grammar or colleges here, but as it's got an awful pass rate and is hugely fed by a rough estate, the politicians don't give a fuck.

No, fair enough Boundaries :) I suppose it's interesting because middle classes can have things like that - an equivalent - but maybe it's just failure isn't an option in some families. I don't know!

AllTheLightWeCannotSee

when I was growing up the term was "sinkhole school" (An unpleasant term). These are the schools in a generally thriving area where the parents say "I don't want my kids to go there", because it has a bad reputation as the kids from deprived areas go there and it gets poorer results due to the issues that that causes.

I am laughing at the post that says the DCs who never have costumes have parents who are disinterested in education. In our school, it's the DCs whose parents are teachers who never have costumes, never wear pink for charity days, etc.
The OP wasn't arguing about the comparison between Easterhouse and Langside. She was highlighting the difference between Aultmore and the other schools nearby ie schools with a similar demographic but higher attainment levels.
It's understandable why the paper went for the cross-city comparison but it's rather disingenuous of the HT to base it all on demographics when she must know that the schools closest to her are also outperforming her.

It wouldn't be allowed to happen to the grammar or colleges here - not so sure about that. Grammars tend to get the very lowest funding.