Satisfactory is no longer satisfactory...

[bigTillyMint]

Did anyone see Sir Michael Wilshaw on breakfast TV this morning? Satisfactory is going

I think that's the point - making major, irreversible decisions about converting to academy status based on figures from 2006 rather than 2011 makes no sense.

Similarly, whether an LA has high proportion of underperforming or not schools doesn't have to be a factor in the fate of a particular school - there are schools in Surrey that do worse than Downhills, for example, why not target them?

I agree that the issue of under-funding in Haringey schools goes back to (and further than) the last Labour government and I repeat that, in my view and experience in schools in this and surrounding areas, no sensible discussion about standards can take place without including this fact.

In terms of choosing a sponsor, one of the other schools in Haringey did find a sponsor, which was over-ruled by the DfE, who are in the process of imposing another one. There are now discussions about a sponsor who will provide one head between two schools, both in categories.

my point was that if a school is failing, everyone knows about it, and if Ofsted grade it 'satisfactory' that is not going to make one jot of difference to peoples perception.

a failing school is not 'satisfactory' to those pupils it allows to leave without sufficient qualifications to get a basic-level job.

I have done some checking. I have previously heard the claim you have repeated that there weren't any Haringey schools in the original 200 list and that Downhills is not one of the 200. I'm afraid that is incorrect on both counts.

Records are available from 1996 onwards. The only missing years are 2000, where Downhills results do not seem to be available, and 2009 when Downhills boycotted the tests.

This year is the first time Downhills has met the national floor standard. In all other years for which records are available they missed the floor standard, generally by some distance. The odd years where they have got close to the standard have usually been followed by a dip to below 50% of pupils reaching level 4+.

The definition of the 200 is that they were below the floor standard every year from 2006 to 2010 inclusive. Downhills very clearly meets that definition and is therefore one of the 200. Indeed, if you take as your measure how long it has been since it last met the floor standard it is one of the worst. Of course, there are other ways of deciding which is the worst school and that is part of what the argument is about. Michael Gove is looking at the proportion of children that Downhills is failing to get to level 4 rather than any other measure, taking the view that it is more important for all children to get to that level than for some to achieve outstanding results.

Downhills has produced better results this year, just scraping past the floor standard. Roughly 1400 schools failed to achieve that standard. Note that there are two ways of achieving the floor standard - either by getting 60% or more of your pupils to level 4 at the end of KS2 or by pupils achieving the expected level of progress from KS1 to KS2. Some schools which missed out on the 60% will still have passed the floor standard based on the progress of their pupils. But yes, David Lammy may well be right that 2,500 schools failed to get 61% of their pupils to level 4+.

The goalposts have changed and still I expect many parents don't know what the categories really mean.

And to pick up on your latest post...

It wasn't just one year that was looked at. It was five years - 2006 to 2010 inclusive. On that measure there are no schools in Surrey doing worse than Downhills. Having said that, I sympathise with the view that the DfE would have a stronger case if it had taken the 2007 to 2011 results, in which case Downhills would have escaped attention initially.

I am not suggesting that we should ignore funding. It is indeed an issue. However, it isn't decisive. Some schools in Haringey appear to be performing better than Downhills despite apparently having similar demographics and lower funding per pupil. But I need to do some more research to confirm that and I won't have time tonight.

I wasn't aware that the DfE had overruled the choice of sponsor by another Haringey school. I'll have to find out more about that. If they didn't have good grounds for deciding that the proposed sponsor was unsuitable that decision could be challenged.

My apologies to the people who are trying to take this thread back to its original topic of Ofsted categories for the way Rosebud and I seem to have hijacked it.

Well, the info about there being no Haringey schools in the original 200 came from the NUT, who were informed about the forced academy threat when Haringey became one of the targeted boroughs. Gove said that he wrote to the threatened schools in June, and Haringey didn't meet with any schools in its LA until October.

It was 2010 that Downhills - and 3/4 of the primaries in Haringey - boycotted the SATS. It's not relevant - what's relevant is that the school is clearly improving within local authority framework and there is no justification for something so brutal and undemocratic as forced academy status at the moment.

There aren't any schools with similar demographics in Haringey - it is the school of choice for the Roma and travelling community because they are welcomed there. This community has the lowest levels of attainment in the country - it makes an enormous difference to a school's overall stats if 10% of the children come from this group , especially in an already under-funded school.

The school's SATS would improve if it 'managed out' the Roma and travelling communities - it's to its credit that it hasn't, although several other local schools very actively do.

Ofsted categories - yes - goalposts changed so that DfE can label more perfectly decent schools as 'failing' and force them to convert to academy status.

I'm not that impressed that the new framework was only brought in on 1 Jan, and Wilshaw has already started tinkering with it - sort of gives the impression that they don't really know what they're doing.

So a sponsoring school (or its governing body) would effectively take over responsibility for other nearby schools.

Words fail me.

Rosebud05 - Quite right. The SATS boycott was 2010. No idea why I typed 2009 earlier.

I don't personally trust information from the NUT on this kind of thing unless I've checked it personally. They have a point of view which is reflected in some of what they say. I would say exactly the same about supporters of academies.

choccyp1g - Are you seriously saying that it is wrong for a successful school to become the sponsor for a failing school and help to turn it round?

Can someone explain this to me? haringey pay NUT official

From the article I'm not clear if this is all perfectly normal, or if it's a bit odd.

It's perfectly normal, indeed a legal requirement. See the statement by Haringey LA at the end.

A nasty, personal attack within an absolute non-story.

prh, one of the very rational arguments against an 'outstanding' school sponsoring another school is what happens if/when that 'outstanding' school starts to have problems, as many do.

You've said yourself how essential good leadership is in a school; if the head of an outstanding school leaves - and there are often delays getting a replacement - and is replaced by someone not as excellent (this has happened to one of our local schools) this leaves 2 schools in an undesirable situation.

Rosebud05 - I agree with your point. I was just surprised that Choccyp1g seems to think it is completely inappropriate for a successful school to help turn round failing schools.

Regarding Ms Davies, as a union rep she is entitled to reasonable time off with pay to be carry out her duties and be trained to carry out those duties. At first glance, if the article is correct in saying that she has not taught since 2000, this arrangement seems to go beyond "reasonable time off". As far as I am aware most union reps spend most of their time teaching, only needing relatively small amounts of time off for their union duties. However, I don't know the details of her workload so I cannot say for certain whether or not this arrangement is justified.

I think my "words fail me" was an unfortunate phrase, because of my gut reactions to the particular schools involved locally.
I had started writing a long complicated explanation of why the "outstanding" infant school should not take over the juniors....I've just deleted it again, because I get carried away and it becomes too identifiable.

Anyway, I have always held the view that the way to raise standards of poorer schools is for them to combine with the nearby "better" schools, and for ALL the results to all be completely combined. Our local schools do work together and already pool resources to a greater extent than most.

Stangely, not many parents at my school agree with me, because they want our school to be the best.

For example, we have two single form infant schools within a mile of each other, which could surely be managed by one head and two deputies.

However, that could be achieved without opting out of local authority control.

Round here the LEA is forcing one HT onto multiple schools, whether the individual schools want it or not.......

Academies also have that arrangement, indigo. I think it's a high risk strategy in any school.

Just to return to question of forced primary academies, no-one on this thread or in any other discussion I've read or been a part of has provided a reasoned argument for why an improving community school which the governors, parents and staff want to remain a community school should be forced to become a sponsored academy with a sponsor who (by definition, as it's never been done before) has no experience of expertise in running primary academies.

And a sponsor who by definition can take over entirely the running of the school.

For me, it's that the sponsor need have no experience in education and no roots in the local community which sits very, very uneasily.

Also, how undemocratic forced sponsored academies are.

In the economically poor part of the borough where I live, there isn't a single school judged to be 'outstanding', though a few judged 'good'; the great majority are 'satisfactory' or below.

In the wealthy part of the borough, all schools are judged 'outstanding' or 'good'. Leaving aside the obvious point about home influences, in academy terms this means that parents in the wealthy part of the borough get to be consulted with if their school wants to convert (or someone wants to convert it). They will have an opportunity to sit on the governing body and, though parent governors, have some say in some decisions about the school. These decisions will be taken by a group of people (the governing body) who come from various backgrounds, with different areas of interest and expertise.

Parents in the poorer part of the borough face their children's school being forced to convert against the wishes of the governing body, staff and parents, with no parental or community representation on a governing body. Even if it's improving and, now, even if it's 'satisfactory'.

This disparity sits very uneasily with me - it's like saying some parents/communities have the right to a voice and others just don't count.

I doubt that a sponsor with no experience in education would be imposed but I may be wrong. I would certainly be against such an appointment for Downhills.

I would agree that the fact that Downhills has produced better results this time is an argument for avoiding conversion. The counter argument to that would be that it has never managed to sustain improvements in the past 10 years or so - every time results have improved they have immediately fallen back again. If it had 2 or 3 years of improving results the argument would be stronger. Equally the DfE's case would be stronger if they were using the 2007-2011 results instead of 2006-2010.

I share your unease about forced conversions. However, your point about "no parental or community representation on a governing body" is incorrect if you are referring to academies. There will definitely be parent governors as that is a legal requirement.

It may be a legal requirement to, in some shape or form, but de facto it the school can ensure it doesn't happen. A secondary school in Haringey which has just converted to academy status 'couldn't find' 2 parents to be governors, out of nearly 900 pupils. Extraordinary. In their last Ofsted, 24 parental questionnaires were returned with no additional comments. Extraordinary.

In regard to the situation of this improving school, one of the objections is that the DfE doesn't plan to allow time for sustained improvement.

In fact, if the governing body hadn't threatened a judicial review, an academy conversion would have been forced before the school had had it's 12-16 months inspection after the Notice to Improve was issued.

Primaries in Haringey were given less than a month over the Christmas holiday to find and agree a plan with a sponsor. I'd struggle to get 3 quotes for painting my living room over Christmas.

I really, really struggle to see how that could be about 'raising standards'.