BBC article: Outstanding schools take too few poor pupils

[Ginmummy1]

I spotted this article today, and wondered what others thought of it.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36926766

I thought the title was misleading. It implies that outstanding schools are deliberately choosing not to take poorer pupils, which I don’t think is accurate.

The report apparently found little overall bias in council-run secondary schools, and also that primary schools appear to be fairly balanced in terms of their intake. I am struggling, therefore, to understand the issue?

It says “the intakes of grammar schools, single-sex secondaries, non-Christian faith schools and schools rated outstanding by Ofsted all fail to reflect the proportion of poorer children in the areas immediately outside their gates“. It also suggests that the figures are likely to be partly “the result of different school choices between social groups”.

So what it appears to be saying is that poorer pupils are choosing not to apply to these types of schools, so this is more about the choices made by these pupils and their families, than about the schools themselves. I can’t see any claims of the schools discriminating against poorer pupils.

It also refers to the attainment gap between rich and poor being wider than the national average in Kent, Buckinghamshire and Surrey. Presumably this is partly due to parental influence (discipline with homework, private tutoring etc) which cannot really be the fault of the schools?

I’d be interested to know what others think.

[Oblomov16]

I'm not sure I agree. Our local catholic school takes children from the catholic feeder schools, irrespective of poor/rich or academic capability.

[404NotFound]

The self-selection thing is interesting, and suggests that the tendency of schools to attract certain types of families is not just about covert selection (though that clearly does also happen).

It fits with what I've observed over the years here: we're in a part of London where most people have a genuine choice of 3 or more comprehensive schools that they would realistically be offered places at, purely on distance alone, no complex admissions arrangements or other funny shenanigans necessary.

It's quite striking how many times parents at the dc's very mixed primary have actively opted for the lower-performing, "rougher" schools because they somehow perceive them as fitting better with their identity and aspirations, and see the higher-performing schools are too posh or 'snobby', even though those schools are in no way aspiring to give that image, and have quite a mixed intake themselves.

And thinking about it, it is mainly the white working-class families who feel that way, I've never heard a parent from an ethnic minority express any sentiments along those lines.

[BertrandRussell]

oblomov- how does the % of PP children at the secondary school compare to the catchment as a whole? And what are the admissions criteria for the primary school?

[Lurkedforever1]

I really disagree with the idea of fast tracking or slow tracking, it has social repercussions whichever side you're on.

Deferring the start of school, or allowing a child to fast or slow track within a subject I could see some logic in. But even then I think it should only be the far ends of the spectrum. The vast majority would ideally be served better by other means.

[Oblomov16]

Bert, I have no idea what % the secondary is.
The criteria for primary is 6 or so categories, but basically it is :looked after children, siblings with form signed by priest, children with form signed by priest, all others.

[BertrandRussell]

So the selection is done at the primary, not secondary stage then.

It's easy to find out the % of FSM children at a school, by the way- it's on the league tables.

[Oblomov16]

The same criteria applies to secondary aswell.
The FSM % is not that high at any of the schools in our borough. Some, but not that high.

[Oblomov16]

8% FSM
National average 26% FSM
Attendance 97%

[teacherwith2kids]

8% is up with the very, very leafiest of leafy 'non-grammars' / almost comps in my very Middle England town.

It's significantly higher than the grammars, though.

[BertrandRussell]

I think you illustrate the problem perfectly Oblomov.

[Oblomov16]

Well, I can't comment on other areas. But nearly all the schools in our area and surrounding boroughs are very good ones. Most of them are excellent. Most parents relatively happy. And I don't take that much notice of ofsted, generally.
It's not my fault that most of the schools round here are good.

[Nataleejah]

[quote]It's quite striking how many times parents at the dc's very mixed primary have actively opted for the lower-performing, "rougher" schools because they somehow perceive them as fitting better with their identity and aspirations, and see the higher-performing schools are too posh or 'snobby', [/quote]
We're the ones who opted for "rougher" instead of high-performing but "snobby".
For us personally league tables and ofsted ratings isn't a deciding factor. Its the ethos and the overall atmosphere. For example unreasonably strict rules and hideous uniforms are appealing to some families and they equate that with aspiration, but i feel the opposite. So i wouldn't say we chose 'poorer' or 'rougher' - we picked a more relaxed and laid-back one.

[BertrandRussell]

The one thing this thread really illustrates is how illusory "choice" is.

[404NotFound]

We're the ones who opted for "rougher" instead of high-performing but "snobby". For us personally league tables and ofsted ratings isn't a deciding factor. Its the ethos and the overall atmosphere. For example unreasonably strict rules and hideous uniforms are appealing to some families and they equate that with aspiration, but i feel the opposite. So i wouldn't say we chose 'poorer' or 'rougher' - we picked a more relaxed and laid-back one.

Yes, fair point, and in fact we have done that too, both with primary and secondary - the schools my dc are at are definitely not regarded as particularly sought-after.

But in our area, disregarding the families that go for the really 'honeypot' schools, whether selective academically or by postcode, it is still striking that while most of the schools are very mixed in terms of having a truly comprehensive intake including 30-40% FSM as well as dc of lawyers/medics/media parents, and good outcomes for dc of all abilities from the 11A* contingent to the ones that need a range of more vocational offerings, there are a couple of schools that have a resolutely working class intake, which none of the more aspirational families would even consider for their dc.

A couple of these schools have been struggling for years, despite being rebranded, renamed, academised, new superheads, new buildings etc etc, they still have consistently unimpressive results and are undersubscribed. And yet there are some families who actively choose those schools despite the lower ofsted rating, lower results, high teacher turnover and general lack of sense of direction, because somehow the very buzzy, inclusive, multiethnic atmosphere at the 'better' schools feels offputting to them, or 'not for the likes of us'.

So there definitely is an element of self-selection going on, and it is mainly white working class families who seem to have that thinking.

[NobodyInParticular]

Our village Primary school has 0.8% FSM (1 pupil!) I imagine there are no kids with ESL. The catchment area is about 3-4 miles radius. The school is a C of E school and is undersubscribed (single intake 25 ish pupils per year and mixed YR &Y1 class) and is OFSTED Good but gets really poor results considering how well resourced and MC the parents are (naice commuter belt village), I think it must be a pretty terrible school. Unfortunately, it is the ONLY state choice as the next nearest Primaries are 6 miles away and full.

[BertrandRussell]

It can't be "Good" if it gets really poor results. The box ticking element of OFSTED won't let that happen.

[teacherwith2kids]

"is OFSTED Good but gets really poor results considering how well resourced and MC the parents are (naice commuter belt village)"

I think that's the point - it gets 'Good' results, but not the results expected from the intake ... but what Ofsted tends to see is the Good results in isolation IYSWIM?

[Summersunandflowers]

Is it easier for a school to meet the requirements to be outstanding when they have fewer 'poor' pupils? I think it's a case of what came first, the chicken or the egg??

[BertrandRussell]

"Is it easier for a school to meet the requirements to be outstanding when they have fewer 'poor' pupils?"

Yes of course it is.

[teacherwith2kids]

"Not so much to avoid mixing with peers from disadvantaged backgrounds as to avoid those who are disengaged from education, are disruptive, and spoil the chances of everyone else in their class."

And the difficult thing about that is that, in general, those who have the potential to be disengaged and disruptive will actually do better if in classes of children unlike themselves, rather than being 'ghettoised' with many similar pupils in the schools that well-behaved pupils with a good start in life and parental support won't touch with a bargepole.

DD currently has in her top science set a child who has just returned from a period in the PRU (which itself followed a managed move from a different school). Isolated from their peers, with an audience who thinks misbehaviour is not remotely cool or funny, and with a teacher who can trust the remainder of the class to work independently for a few minutes while they give 1:1 support to the child to differentiate the academic work required, the previously disruptive child (whose start in life, in common with many such children, would make you weep) is a) behaving very well and b) making massive academic progress.

[teacherwith2kids]

I do also think there is an element of circularity in the Outstanding / few poor pupils thing, though - in the sense that if a school which does have an 'average or above average' proportion of disadvantaged children gets a high Ofsted rating, this can often precipitate a process of 'improvement' of its intake.

This can be very rap[id. I worked in a school with a very high % of Traveller children from the local site, where virtually all adults were illiterate, and which had lots of families coming and going. As the school was consistently undersubscribed, we simply admitted all comers to the door (i think 8 - 10% of the school roll at that time - was the record for a singe day) and dealt with the admissions paperwork ourselves on arrival.

Then we and the next village's very MC school had Ofsteds a short while apart. Ours moved us from the then 'Satisfactory' to 'Good', theirs from a very old 'Outstanding' to 'Special Measures' (good intake is not a guarantee of Outstanding if pretty much everything in the school is lacking!). Overnight, we had 20+ children transfer to us. The next year's Reception applications jumped hugely - meaning that we would have been full from those who had the capability to fill in application forms online, skewed towards MC families from the further village and leaving no spaces for the Traveller children who did not have the wherewithal to fill in forms.

As it happened, the reception teacher and TA simply embarked on a process of outreach - getting Traveller parents with siblings in to fill in forms with the teacher 1:1, even taking a laptop up to the site - to ensure that all Traveller children of the right age DID start school in the September. But a school with less care for its traditional community, and with a greater eye on its results (GRT children regularly achieve lower than any other group in terms of educational outcomes) would have simply allowed its intake to 'improve' by this process.

[gillybeanz]

I suppose it depends on the environment of where you live too.
Most people in my area send their children to the local school.
There are a couple of outstanding schools in primary and secondary across our borough, but they only cover a couple of streets.
People don't move to be near them and the houses are no more expensive than anywhere else tbh.
The same for the borough's outstanding 6th form, where you need A in everything to gain a place.
All the other schools are good or just satisfactory, many are in special measures.
They change all the time though, so people just use the nearest, normally.
There's little choice tbh, no private or grammar schools.

[haybott]

I imagine there are no kids with ESL.

Why is this relevant to a discussion about poor pupils?

ESL does not equal poor. ESL does not equal low achieving.

My catchment school has a tiny fraction of children on FSM, very high results, and a significant fraction of pupils who do not have British parents and speak other languages at home.

[NobodyInParticular]

Haybott I never said ESL = poor (there are as many ESL kids in the private sector as state AFAIK for a start).

I would imagine there is a correlation between low achievement and ESL though - if you arrive in the UK in Y5 / Y6 speaking no English I think achieving highly in SATS would be a challenge.

[Out2pasture]

the last time I looked at a results table those with ESL actually outscored many.
they related that finding to strong parental push to excel at school.