We haven't had a state vs private debate for a while! What did you think of the Fiona Millar programme on schools?

[WideWebWitch]

Well?

i meant trying not to use it as in staying healthy! another huge nhs fan here, it has served all of us v well, which is why I get so angry with the terrible conditions it is forced to function in, lack of investment, mad amounts of money wasted in areas away from clinical care etc.

This debate has raged on while I've been at work. HMB I agree with everything you said in your last post!

Didn't they solve the problem of catchment areas in some part of the States by bussing kids across town? Anyone know whether it worked?

Jimmychoos I really disagree with your secondary school place being dictated by your feeder primary. This raises the same issues about people having to move- or lie- to get into a decent primary so as to get to the decent secondary, & would have no benefit. What happens when- as happened to us- you move house (not for catchment reasons!) the nearest school refuses to take you so not only do you have to continue to trail back to your old area for primary, your child then faces 7 years of secondary in the wrong school?

alibubbles- were you at my school?!

scummy- you asked a hundred miles down the page- whether DS1 had issues at being the only one of my 4 not a grammar. No, is the simple answer! He wasn't allowed to take the 11+ by his tch of a Head, & we didn't argue because we thought he wasn't very bright. (So he didn't fail because he didn't take it!) It turns out he is the 2nd best in the entire school at maths!!!!!

At the time DD was on a Assisted Place at a private secondary school & DH was having to drive her 20 miles each way. We are not technically in the catchment area of any secondary, but the nearest is a 30 minute walk. He decided he wanted to go there & wanted to walk. 3 of his friends from primary were going & all walked together. It gave him so much confidence!

DS2 passed the 11+ & went to the grammar. For many years we had them at 4 separate schools, which was ideal. We have recently had problems since DS3 started at the grammar. He is treading on his brother's toes. So no, the only 1 with issues is DS2, who doesn't want to share his school.

Ooops, sorry pph, obviously my brain has just gone into combative mode!

I went to a Methodist primary, & my DDs school was Methodist. I notice a lot of you are anti-religious schools, but a thorough grounding in the Christian tradition helps you when you come to study any sort of literature in later life. With this emphasis in most schools about having a brief overview of all religions they miss out on this. I would rather my children got a proper grounding in theirs then an overview of the others.

can i ask a question? what about value added league tables? i've done some reading (not as much as i should) and i'm confused. some of our local lambeth schools do appallingly on ordinary league tables but are national leaders in terms of value added. what is need help with is what this means in terms of potential outcomes for my child. does that mean if he goes to stockwell school (bad on ordinary tables, great on value added) versus dulwich college (probably the reverse) he will do better at the former because it adds more value?

this is a genuine question - i'm not sure what the value added tables are actually telling me about the school. hope someone can enlighten me.

This is the Dfee pages which explain value added in performance tables.

Carol Vorderman was on Steve Wright this afternoon. She says this country is so bad at maths because we try to teach children in wide-ability classes & it's too great a gulf. She thinks it's a subject that should be streamed from the beginning (rather brings us back to setting & grammars.. )

My current, rather dodgy state school I work in has setting throughout secondary level. This is for all the core subjects, but affects most subject areas. In ICT I get the science settings. Setting isn't just for grammars!

thanks, hulababy. i have read that before, but i don't think it answers my question, but thanks anyway.

Haven't been able to post whilst at work but dinosaur - like your posts very much.

bk - added value, as I understand it, is that if kids start school from a background of low expectation/less advantage/less parental support or education the school really works hard to pull them up. Kids from more privileged backgrounds don't need the school to do as much to bring them upto scratch, the school can rest on its laurels a bit. Hence, it is assumed that a good added value is good for teh 'weaker' pupils and may or may not be good for the more able. I would assume teh teachers working harder would benefit most pupils. It could be argued that a low added value in a school in an affluent areas, can't be avoided - if the pupils are that good to start with, harder to do more? That's my interpretation anyway.

tinker, thank you, that's a good balanced view any other views welcome!

Me? Balanced? How disappointing
Excuse poor grammar, typing too fast.

Just come back to this. I wouldn't disagree with anyone who argued for more money for schools, or for effective leadership in all schools. Dp teaches in a v challenging school, plus many friends so I have no illusions about the state of some of our schools.

But I think one of the major factor that contributes to success at school is the involvement and support of parents. Now any parent who is prepared to move house/ attend church/ go withour holidays/ car to improve their child's educational chances is likely to be the sort of parent who supports and encourages their child's academic progress, and puts a high value on their child's attainment at school. And these parents tend to have children who are easy to teach and keen to learn. And many headteachers have contributed to the current review the gvmt is doing on the ed system (forget what it is called) by saying that this is a problem for them in their schools because it means that disadvantaged children are in the majority.

Basically (for primary schools) value added scores are found by comparing a cohort of kids' SAT results at 7 and 11, I think, bk. You get a very good value added score if the kids are doing better at 11 than you would expect given their results at 7. It is especially useful for recognising excellence in schools where a large number of kids enter with lower than average attainment but emerge doing just fine. My boys school is average (within a fairly high ranking borough) for SAT results and top table for value added which basically means their teachers are super fab!

Jimmy
Well put. As an ex-high school teacher (now SAHM) I was always frustrated at parents lack of support.
They would ask 'how we can get little Johnny to do his homework'. When I suggested removing TV and Playstation from their room... Too much trouble, don't want the hassle. Being a parent, a GOOD parent that is, is very hard. I certainly have not perfected the art. But I try V hard. Why do so many, want it easy?
I do not consider myself middle class, my dh and I were taught thru' the comprehensive system - but its not the same now. We are doing without things in order to send dd1 to private school. Most of her school mates are not posh and don't live in flash homes. They are just parents who do not want to RISK their children missing opportunities.

jimmychoos - a good point about parental involvement. It really does make a huge difference. Current school - failing, not good - little parental involvement and support for vast number of children there. Even parent's evenings are bad turn outs. And you never see the parents you really want to see. Last school - excellent, over subscribed - loads of parental involvement. At times too much

Are value added results published anywhere yet?

DS2 is about to leave primary; he had baseline assessment when he entered school at 4, 6½ years ago, and yet as far as I know value added still isn't published for primary; and DD2 (nearly 19) was in the first cohort to have KS1 SATs published (2nd cohort to do them) so the stats have been available for at least 8 years BUT THEY AREN'T PUBLISHED!!!

In terms of school performance, value-added is the only one that counts. Where are the figures?

The key correlation in education is between parental education and their kid's A level results, I believe. So BK, I suspect your ds (and mine and most mumsnetter's kids) will be fine -esp at primary almost regardless of the school - at least academically. By secondary peer pressure does become more important and teaching too (my comp was rubbish and I definitely underperformed - did much better at the sixth form college). I wouldn't want my ds to go to a school where drugs, knives, guns and gangs feature and children are openly defiant and abusive. That would really worry me. Those things don't seem to be Ofsted inspected though! I'm sure everyone on here wants to do the best for their children in different ways, and in real life too, my friends are making radically different choices with the same objective, and because they all care so much I suspect all their kids will do well.

They were published quite recently, janh. Have a look here and you can search for your ds's school.

Discipline, marvellous stuff. The son of a 'C' list celeb was expelled from our school at Christmas for his language and behaviour.

aloha, so will you be fighting to get into Stockwell comp along with me

scummy, thanks for that!

Have discovered that the grammar school (KS3-GCSE) is 102.2% value added, which is a surprise, I have to say.

DS2's primary school is: KS1 - KS2: 101.2%

I haven't read any of this thread at all - I daren't! However, apparently one of you lovely MNetters has asked about value added statistics so thought that I would jump in and explain a little bit.

A bit of context - I am a Year Six teacher and head of year in a large school and have a key role in the organising and preparation of SATs and the analysis of data.

VAlue added is a measure of how much 'extra' a school gives its pupils - for example, a pupil may be prdicted a low level 4 at key stage two (based upon what they achieved at KS!)but might achieve a high level 4 - so the value added it the extra bit (low L4 to high L4) that the school have added on.

There are all the usual arguements about pupils progressing at different rates....but the main flaw (as i see it) is the way that it is calculated. I am going to simplify this a little or I will get myself tied up in knots.....
Bear with me if you are interested!

Pupils are 'expected' to achieve level 4 at KS2 - they are given a prediction based on their KS1 sats adding half a level a year - so a pupil who achieves l2 at KS1 is predicted a L4 at ks2.
Levels are assigned points scores so say
L1 =1 point
L2 = 2 points
L3 = 3 points (etc - not correct but illustrates the point)

A child with 3 points in each subject at KS1 will obviously get a total of 9 points....they are therefore predicted 3 level 5s at ks2 (15 points) but to get a positive value added total they need to get more than 15 points - more than 3 level 5s

BUT THEY CANNOT GET THIS AS LEVEL 5 IS TEH HIGHEST YOU CAN ACHIEVE AT KS2.

So if the school has good results at KS1 - ie lots of level 3s and therefore lots of children working ABOVE average - lots of children will be predicted level 5s at KS2. It is impossible to get a high value added score as there is currently no way to measure value added with these pupils.

So a really good school will have a value added measure of around 100 (as predicted so to speak) when many of the pupils are above average.

Does that make any sense?
That is the first flaw....

Agree 100% that parental involvement is vital. The child learns at an early age that education is something that the parents put value on, and they tend to respond accordingly (I know some teensagers become stropy, another issue there)

the comp I work at in is at about the nation avarge for test results/exam results. in general the kids are nice, everyday sorts. Most of the parents are from wc backgrounds and generaly want the very best for their kids. These parents are supportive, helpful and the kids are fine.

We have a subset of kids who are awful. Many of their parents don't give a damn about school and this is made clear to the kids. The parents will not support the school over dicipline because 'My little John never lies' John is usually a stranger to the truth. This kids know that there is almost nothing that the school can to to them. Eventually the kid gets more and more out of control. By age 16 the kid is off the plot, police involved and the parents are begging the school to 'do something'.

To improve state schools we need to sort out dicipline. Kids need to learn that their behaviour has consequences. trouble makers need to be moved to special units. That way the rest of the kids will stand a chance at getting and education.