Can a school ever "overcome" its catchment?

[QuickGuide]

I'm thinking of secondary schools.

I live in a town with a lot of deprivation and the associated social issues. None of the schools here are highly thought of and families with the means/determinaton tend to send DC to schools in neighbouring towns.

The schools here are left struggling with the social issues from the community. The school with the worst reputation is in heart of the most challenging estate.

However, I know the head in a professional capacity. He's a local boy who went to the school himself. He is incredibly impressive as a professional, really stands out in the meetings I go to and really cares passionately about the children and the school. In many ways he's turned it around, they're now in a strong financial position and OFSTED, behaviour and results are improving.

They do still have a lot of issues with behaviour and some students are still low attainers/poor attenders. There are often fights outside the school, sometimes involving parents, for example.

A friend of mine is literally terrified that her child will be allocated this school and even though I think it's being well run compared to some of the schools locally which have better reputations, I can see her concerns.

Can a school ever really succeed where children come from backgrounds that make learning challenging?

There is a podcast series called “Nice White Parents” all about this, it’s part of the Serial series. It’s based in New York but a lot of the patterns would still apply to the UK schools system, definitely worth a listen.

one of the most important things in determining the quality of a child’s experience at school is the peer group.

Schools can function brilliantly, and provide as much as possible, but if your kid is stuck in a classroom with children who are disruptive and don’t want to be there, your child will not do as well as they would in a more disciplined situation.

It really depends on what happens inside the school gates. I worked at a school that ended up in special measures. However, anyone who wanted to learn, we went above and beyond for, extra classes, helping them after school or before school, giving them opportunities. I used to have several groups that came to my classroom at break/lunch and other teachers did the same. Once awful head was gone, behaviour was turned around and it became more settled, still issues outside the school gates, but it was calmer inside. Those that persistently disrupted lessons were taken out to an inclusion unit - sort of half way house to support and try and re-integrate before permanent exclusion which worked well. So it can work, but it really depends on all sorts of things. You wouldn’t have known any of this from its reputation in the community.

My DD in in a school like this. Was in "Special measures" or whatever it was called 20 years ago, but got the highest possible grade in its most recent OFSTED inspection. Head is fantastic and has really turned the school around in the last 8 years or so.

The local area is still rough, and there's a lot of challenging behavioural stuff that you probably wouldn't get in a "naice" area (from the parents in some cases).

But a lot of the students go through their five years there with no issues and come out with good grades at the other end.

The parents who seem most worried about sending their kids there seem to be the ones that went there themselves. Their experience of being in school there is colouring their view of what the school is now, when really all that's left of that school from 20 years ago is the buildings.

I agree with this. Sad but true.

In my (limited) experience most 'nice' families will not want to send their children to a school where a significant proportion of the children are from deprived backgrounds- no matter how well run that school is or how successful it is at educating all of its pupils

Exactly this. Most 'naice' parents aren't interested in economic diversity, they are interested in PLU - Parents Like Us.

Two schools near to me, one good Ofsted, one RI. But because the RI school was in a wealthier area it was constantly oversubscribed, where as the school which was far superior by many measures was seen as the lesser choice.

We picked the school in the more diverse area, no complaints so far!

Yes this.

And with a small number of resources, the answer to your last question will be pouring most of it into the lowest common denominator, leaving the 'average' behind.

The answer is very subjective, I've seen schools in 'deprived' areas, have small classes (because nobody else wanted to go there) attract lots more funding poured in, charities coming in to conduct 'workshops' etc allowing them to turn things around.

Equally, there are schools in 'naice' areas which do well primarily because of the financial contributions of the 'naice' parents. Going by the assumption that a 'baseline' school get too little funding to be enriching.

Logically speaking you need a critical mass of parents contribution to ensure that the money is mostly helping enrich their own child's experience, not being used to plug a shortfall for other people's children. So, say, 80% contributing, 20% is fine. 50%/50%? Not so much,

Then you also have behaviour policy, SEN, etc more well off parents are either better places to push for the required help and/or pay for treatment/management privately.

As much as things are about class and snobbery you cannot get around the power of money. A change of head etc can cause a downward spiral as PP have noted and a school with parents able to pick up the pieces will fare much better than one who can't, and solely relies on teachers... the latter which could leave in droves.

@MelchiorsMistress "parental influence is always going to be the biggest influence that children have."

So the OP's friend's child will be fine wherever he goes. Sorted!

We have a problematic secondary school near us. I went there myself. I do accept schools can change, but speaking to parents who have children who go there it hasn't changed for the better, it's gotten worse.

I'm sure the teachers are great and the facilities are good, but as harsh as it sounds, the problem is the kids that go there. The school could have the best teachers in the world but what can they do if the children don't want to learn, are disruptive and they regularly get assaulted? Ultimately, I'm not subjecting my child to the same experience I had.

People love to say that bright children do well wherever they go to school, but it's not true, and going to school with 90% scumbags stays with you for life.

Yes, it can, although as others say, it depends on what you mean by 'overcome'.

Get the same exam results as school with leafy, affluent catchment? No.

Be as well regarded by naice parents? No.

Do the best by every child and enable many children to succeed. Hell, yes.

There's a school in our area (I will call it School A) that has undergone a very significant transformation in the last decade. It's our catchment school though not our nearest school due to a complicated story of mergers and closures, not that that really matters. Anyway, it is in a fairly deprived town and used to have a terrible reputation. Virtually everyone in our village and the other "nice" places near us have always sent their children to another school (School B) which isn't actually our catchment. It is easier to get to B, but to be honest, most people, me included, pick B because it is in a far nicer town and gets better results. Or at least that is how it used to be. When my eldest was applying I did not even consider School A but by the time my youngest was in Year 6 things had changed massively. Yes, there are still some behavioural issues etc but a new Head had turned things around enormously. I did still opt for School B as by then I had 2 other children there and we were happy with everything. We would have needed a very good reason to send DC3 somewhere different, and there wasn't one. But had DC3 been my eldest or only child, I would have given School A serious consideration and there has been a steady trickle of parents in our area opting for A. They are still in the minority. I would say that about 80% of secondary age children in our village still go to school B. But 10 years ago it was probably more like 95%. There has definitely been a swing and the gap between the 2 schools had narrowed considerably. I doubt they will ever be seen as "equal" locally, but these days you wouldn't be viewed as crazy to send your child to A from our village, which would have definitely been the case when my eldest was starting secondary school.

I think schools like this can definitely improve their image to the point that those with other options or the sharp elbows to fight their corner will accept the school as a possibility - at that point things start to change rapidly. There is a school near us that used to be like this. No parent in the local area wanted to send their children there and it was widely considered to be a really awful place with poor results. Most of the children attending came from a neighbouring borough with even worse schools.

Twenty years on and some parents are worrying they won't get a place because they live a bit too far away (some don't). The catchment has shrunk massively. When we looked round some years ago they were proudly telling us that they'd sent their first student to Cambridge recently, and it's the default option that everyone nearby puts down if they live near enough because it is absolutely good enough. If DD had not got a school we liked better, we would have sent her there. There are other schools people might list higher for a variety of reasons (grounds/facilities, single sex, faith, results, progress) but it is absolutely a decent school now if not the best in the borough. So I definitely think things can be turned around. I think it can take quite a long time, though!

There are schools in areas of deprivation that attract aspirational parents and there are schools that have both challenging parents and pupils. The latter never improve very much and bump along towards the bottom.

Once a school gets a reputation for being a 'challenging' school, it is very tough to shift this label, not impossible but very tough. Usually, has to be closed and reopened with a new senior management team and real documented change to the culture of a school. E.g. exclusions for disruptive students, banding applied to admissions

@QuickGuide it completely depends on whether the Head's passion is enough to attract good teachers. Job-hunting teachers look at schools with the same critical eye as parents, but if they believe in the Head to the same degree that you clearly do then they will want to work for him and help him succeed. Did he work in other schools before this one? Strong school leaders often attract teachers from other schools they have worked in.

Schools in this position can also be helped by relatively small numbers of supportive parents who volunteer as governors or PTA members, and counter some of the social media negativity with balancing comments.

I’d agree with @GreatBigBoots

I worked in a school that went from 12% to 60% A-C GCSE in 7 years. The area was very mixed, with some involved parents, for whom the school was not the first choice and quite a few who didn’t value education and their children were there pretty much by default.

We had a reputation for nurturing and supporting vulnerable students and working effectively with those with SEND. Plus, there was an SRP on site. It was never going to be a first choice school for the majority, but it was the school at which I stayed the longest, had the most supportive colleagues and, despite frequent Ofsted and monitoring visits, enjoyed teaching there and relished the successes we had.

Sometimes success can be very short lived. A change in slt and it can all go downhill very quickly. As quickly as it went uphill.

As we still have many schools with negative value added and low progress figures, we do know some schools are poor and often remain so. I believe it takes a gifted head to turn this around and maintain it. Getting the right new head is always key.

Sadly parents who do not value education are more likely to live in deprived areas. Not that this is always the case but their Dc are often very hard work! If parents are willing to experiment and gamble with Dc, then go to the school. Many won’t. I’ve seen successes at these types of schools where parents really do want to support the local school but I’ve also seen total disasters with Dc making awful friendships, constantly mucking about and refusing to work. It’s the culture that's around them. This is Dc with degree educated Labour supporting parents who really want a local education with diversity.

Also “people like us” works both ways. It’s why some Dc don’t take up grammar school places or apply for better schools and universities. They like “their” people too!