Does the school make the student or the student the school?

[Tonty]

Ofsted report, resources, pastoral care and leadership but aside from these, does the school make the student, or do the students make the school?
At first glance it seems if all the aforementioned are in place, they converge to make a good school but these schools also tend to have a certain demographic that heavily influences & drives the feel of the school & its outcomes - leafy , middle class, engaged parent body, low FSM etc. The thread about labour's impending strategy to change school admission rules is what's really driven my question.

The collective of the students make the school. So it’s the parents that make the school.

Primary or secondary? Secondary parents have less influence because of the difference in size of the school and the students being more independent so parents know less of the finer detail that they knew in primary.

Labour might have some good intentions but I’m not sure that increased traffic, limited public transport routes and people not being able to get siblings (or mindees) to different schools is going to help. My secondary aged kids benefitted socially by being able to see their friends easily and walking to school.

If school admissions are adjusted to prioritize socio economic diversity, allowing more disadvantaged students into traditionally high performing schools, does that mean middle class students will increasingly attend schools that are currently struggling? if so, could their presence help improve those schools? What then becomes of the schools that were already considered “good”?

@Tonty You've missed the obvious. It's the teachers who make the school. The best teachers can choose where they work, and they usually want to choose schools with a critical mass of engaged, interested, teachable students and supportive parents.

I know some fantastic schools who do a wonderful job of educating children where there is a high level of deprivation and all that goes along with that e.g. more children moving due to unstable housing, children coming to school hungry, children and parents who arrive at school with very little English. These schools often have a glowing Ofsted report and decent results i.e. lots more children achieving the expected standard than would be typical given the demographics, but not the super high achievement of some schools. These are not necessarily the schools the middle classes are fighting to get in to. In fact in some cases the middle classes are avoiding the schools and aiming for the more 'well-to-do' schools.

Where we live there are some local primaries people work very hard to get in to. They get great SATS results and a higher number go to grammar schools. Realistically, this is probably more to do with the number of parents tutoring for grammar. The schools don't do anything special the other local schools don't, but are based in a more wealthy area.

In summary, I think the teachers make the school, but it is easier to coast along if you have 'easier' pupils. These schools might struggle if things did change. However I'm not sure this policy would make such a difference in practice. Whilst some people would actively embrace the option to send their child to a 'better' school further away, many will still prefer the convenience and community of their local school.

NO teacher can achieve anything alone, it is the managers, the support, the behaviour policy, the rewards policy, but no policy works without managers backing teachers up

Managers are senior teachers! Policies are written by senior teachers! Governors and Trustees are often senior teachers too! I was referring to all of them. And the support staff too.

Teachers and support staff have much more choice about which schools they work in than parents have about which schools they can send their children to. If a school goes downhill, they can move more easily too.

Schools change as student cohorts (and their parents) move through and leave, teachers change etc anyway- its not static and is dependent on a plethora of factors.

Aware I am only commenting on my experience and im sure the national/wider trend indicates differently; but DCs school has a high number of children who qualify for PP, the parents who are most engaged in supporting with fundraising, helping to secure enrichment activities from charities and local organisations etc are those who are financially poorer. There is a lingering assumption that because there isnt as much money swashing round and because some families are on lower wages/have a disabled parent who cannot work etc that these people are disengaged and unable to positively contribute to a school. Many are actively interested because they want to give their children a better chance. Sure, there are chaotic homes where parents cba and dont have any knowledge or will that helps towards improving school, but assumptions aren't always accurate.

It’s the teachers that make the year. My son has had poor, average and excellent teachers and every year his ability to thrive has been determined by how good the teacher is. As a child with Sen he’s a more extreme example but i think it impacts on all students just some more keenly than others.

Students / parents make the school. Mine are at a selective independent. The school does well in league tables because they select bright children (and the reality is that those children often have invested parents). I don’t think the actual teaching is particularly privileged and can think of a number of actual poor teachers. But the children are working in a cohort where top grades are expected and (as already selected on ability) they can all keep up.

Streaming is great for the most able, but not necessarily good for those with lower ability.

@whytchocolate I don’t think that all good or excellent teachers choose schools with the criteria you mention. Some teachers teach in schools that face many challenges and there’s reward in making a positive difference.

Of course some do. But a much greater number don't. That's why I used the word "usually" not "always" when I said teachers usually want to choose schools with a critical mass of engaged, interested, teachable students and supportive parents.

However the term "critical mass" is key too. If leafy schools have to prioritise some students on free school meals then it won't necessarily skew the critical mass, and it may benefit schools that don't currently have a critical mass. Presumably that is the rationale.

Broadly speaking the students or at least the economic demographic of their parents. Of course other factors do have an impact too.

Many grammars do have a fsm admission category with a lower pass mark already in my LA. All fsm get pp funding as do forces dc. There’s extra money for the schools in doing this. Often the dc have been well taught in primary but no coaching. Although some have - paid by grandparents! It doesn’t make any difference to school outcomes because the % is still small.

I'm a teacher and I don't think that's actually true at all. The best schools I've taught in have had their fair share of mediocre teachers, but that causes fewer problems when you have a largely cooperative, well brought-up and academically able student body. Mediocre teachers can survive longer in that atmosphere, as long as they aren't doing anything actively disastrous. Admittedly this is slightly less true than in the past though.

Having worked in everything from inner city London comps to grammars and high-end independent schools, I'd say the student demographic is the most decisive factor. That doesn't mean headteachers, teachers, policies etc don't make a difference though.

Labour's manifesto said they would make sure admissions decisions “account for the needs of communities” and require all schools to “co-operate with their local authority on school admissions, SEND inclusion, and place planning”.

The "thread about labour's impending strategy to change school admission rules" referenced by the OP was based on a scaremongering article in the Telegraph that is complete speculation. Labour are talking about making socio-economic status a protected characteristic like disability and gender and sexuality so that people of particular status (whether high or low) can't be discriminated against. That has nothing per se to do with giving priority school admission. The Schools Adjudicator already has the authority to consider and uphold admissions objections that accuse schools of discriminating against families from particular socio-economic groups. I know because my children's school was accused of it (though the objection was not upheld because it was bollocks).

There are mediocre teachers in every school, but there are fewer mediocre teachers in good schools so I would question your use of "fair share". The leadership team, especially the Head, is key because good leaders attract good staff.

Genetics
Family
Life experience (which includes schooling in general but not the physical school)
COHORT (I’d move that up to third spot for secondary years)
in that order.
However a poor school fit could be hugely detrimental to a child’s mental health and lifelong education (regardless of the child’s family wealth).

It doesn't sound like the Labour policy change (if it even exists) will do anything for the most disadvantaged children - the children with truly crap parents won't be sent to better schools further away because their parents won't bother to research school choice.
Parents in poverty, working long antisocial hours or with disabilities are likely to be put off a more geographically distant school for logistical reasons.
There's no evidence yet from the Brighton changes to show any impact on kids - they should be doing some quantitative research with that cohort & monitoring outcomes first to see if mixing up school cohorts makes any beneficial difference.

"It doesn't sound like the Labour policy change (if it even exists) will do anything for .."

@CinnamonCinnabar it doesn't exist.

If you read the Telegraph article which parroted speculation by a Tory MP you'll see it's complete rubbish.

Behavior wise, the students make the school. Education wise, it's more of an even give and take

You haven't mentioned any downsides, just that the benefits would be limited to parents who care and are willing and able to pay the price in terms of a commute. Sounds like a net positive to me.

Student cohort. I’ve got kids in the same single form primary school with totally different experiences depending on the class. One is difficult and a bloody nightmare by chance and is a bit of an anomaly. The other is constantly being told what a joy they are. No-one wants to teach the ‘challenging’ class. Now if you multiply that effect to school level rather than class level you can see how demographics totally affect experience, staffing etc. it’s much easier to teach if you’ve got 30 kids who are reading well by the end of reception versus a class where you get told to fuck off by 8 year olds.

Student cohort. I’ve got kids in the same single form primary school with totally different experiences depending on the class. One is difficult and a bloody nightmare by chance and is a bit of an anomaly. The other is constantly being told what a joy they are. No-one wants to teach the ‘challenging’ class. Now if you multiply that effect to school level rather than class level you can see how demographics totally affect experience, staffing etc. it’s much easier to teach if you’ve got 30 kids who are reading well by the end of reception versus a class where you get told to fuck off by 8 year olds.