Outstanding schools

[SpareRoomSleeper]

There are the obvious differences between schools rated as "good" or "outstanding", but I was wondering whether there is a difference within outstanding schools due to the area that they are in?

Are schools judged according to a national or local standard, so that if a school is very good within a deprived area, it is judged to be outstanding, but if you were to take the same school out of that area and place it in a more affluent postcode, it wouldnt rate as highly?

I hear you ButWhyIsTheGinGone - you will be making a massive difference to children's lives not making an entrance area look nice!!
Mixedmama - the gut is always the way I go.

And it can depend on the child, some children don't fit some schools and if you have a choice, look at them all!

Whoops, double post.

My child is in an ofsted outstanding school. We looked around it in great detail, studied all the reports and it looked absolutely fantastic. We observed a section of every class lesson on our lengthy tour and they all appeared inspirational. SATS results were the best in the whole area. Everyone whom we spoke to had only good to say about it.

The head left after we had made our application and any parents already at the school felt the new head was not as good. We did not have anything to compare it against so cant comment on that but unfortunately for our child it has been a total disaster and I think a more balanced school would have been much better.

This school has great SATS but in hindsight not too hard with no English as a 2nd language or free school dinners and about 1 percent SEN. The only child I have heard of with behavioural problems was managed out. Having said that I am sure that lots of parents think it is perfect especially if they only want their children to mix with similar white non SEN children.

Actually I'm glad you posted as I had a quick scoot through the OFSTED reports for local schools, something I haven't done for Primary for years. I discovered: a change of head can make a huge difference, local schools have gone from failing to outstanding over the last 10 years, another solid Outstanding school is now only good. I would also worry a little now at schools which were outstanding, have a new head and on pure paper results are exempted from inspections (I know of one Good school which has one of these letters, but I also know a lot of parents are unhappy, 3-5 years is a long time to wait for an inspection).
It also reminds me why, even if my kids moan, I choose their school.

Our school is rated by ofsted as "good", but I think it's bloody marvellous - and all the more so because the head is more focused on the children than on jumping through a billion hoops to get that "outstanding" on her report card!

DD and DS have both gone to outstanding first schools but I think there was quite a big difference between them. Am much happier with DS's, the Head is fantastic and I'm gutted he is leaving.

Need to chose an upper school for DD. We could get her into a couple of the outstanding ones locally but I really really like a local one that two years ago I just wouldn't have contemplated. You really do have to go and look.

I'm sure that to get an Outstanding a school must have paper trails and policies up to its eyeballs (and all up to date saying things Ofsted decided they should have been saying, as of no earlier than last week). It seems obvious to me that in order to get every box ticked and every form filled and every policy up to date, that means time chipped away from pastoral care, HR management and teaching plans. So am not surprised about the "Iron Fist" description.

Well Ragged I wouldn't say those things are neglected at my kids schools. But their staff do work extremely hard. They also have at present a good team of various support staff. They also are part of consortia, so have other school heads inspect them (at least yearly) and inspect other schools. They also have fabulous governors, who work hard.

Although we did joke that it helped the primary school that the teachers dug the inspectors car out of the snow last time.

(It also helps to have enough experienced staff who have "outstanding" lessons pretty much planned, just to be tweaked and rolled out for inspection. Ones that would happen sometime, but timing maybe adjusted when its known OFSTED are coming.)

The defn of an 'outstanding' lesson changes all the time - so if you rolled out an old outstanding lesson it would only satisfactory this year

That's another problem, Indigo.
I wonder if there's a severe risk of Burnout at your school, mummytime.

Lots of different views and experiences on here! I wonder how you all would define social and economic deprivation - after all, all ofsted reports begin with describing the schools location in terms of economic and social standards. And I for one have been thinking alot about this lately.

The concern is regarding the level of standards and expectations in schools in deprived areas vs standards in more affluent areas. We chose to live close to a more socially and economically deprived part of Manchester as being first time homeowners, our mortgage is tiny here in comparison to what it would be in a more affluent area. We plan to be mortgage free and move on in five-six years time. But now I'm having doubts about this decision. DD is only two yet, so plenty of time to think about schooling, but here is the thing:
have we placed her at a disadvantage education wise by choosing to live here? Even though they may be outstanding schools around, are the standards and expectations of these schools much lower than an outstanding school in a more affluent area?

I dont believe my DD could be classed as a "disadvantaged child" as both parents are educated and in every way possible we have made sure she has a wide range of social and educational experiences, in and out of where we live.

p.s: not sure how much sense this is making, DD is squirting water on me from her ducks as I type!

are the standards and expectations of these schools much lower than an outstanding school in a more affluent area - No!

a "disadvantaged child" - is mainly based on parent's income or rather lack of.

SRS: my parents lived in a socially deprived neighbourhood for my first 3 yrs of school (I worked in academia & feel I can say with confidence what meets a reasonable or objective def. of socially deprived, btw).

Anyway, the school in the deprived area was great; much better than the school in the posh neighbourhood we moved to subsequently. I wish I had stayed at the first school thru primary.

I think there are massive differences, personally.

My DS's nursery/pre-school was 'Outstanding', but I felt they were very good at ticking boxes and putting on a great show for Ofsted, but there was no warmth and the Head was like some sort of robot - 'dynamic', but not a very caring human being!

My DS's first school was also 'Outstanding', but was rubbish at dealing with kids with SN and again, I felt there was a warmth lacking that is essential fr a really great primary school.

His current school is 'Good with outstanding features' and although it is a popular school, it is not one of the 'bunfight to get into' oversubscribed ones in oir area. However, it is lovely. There is such great school-parent communication, brilliant extra-curricular activities and before/after school clubs and all staff seem to really go the extra mile for the children.

Definitely look around, talk to parents, go with your gut as much as the Ofsted reports.

My son went to the very average local school, then he caught a bus outside our house to the local secondary school again ok but not even good I seem to recall. The thing was it was my son who was good, at times outstanding, he put in a huge amount of effort, he had the energy for this as he slobbed and did as he liked when he got home. He was interested and I was available to answer his questions. We watched TV, ate junk on the sofa at times, ignored homework, read the Beano, laughed and joked, played football with balloons and didn't try too hard.
He got a double first at Cambridge and now works for Shell, where did I go wrong? Lol x

I reckon the best way to choose a school is to look at them all and then decide. As soon as you see a school you know if it is right or not. Obviously Ofsted and results offer guidance but nothing like seeing it for yourself. I have friends who have attended church for years to get into the so called best schools but didn't even see the school until the induction day. The kids are now in them but reports have gone down from outstanding to satisfactory (2 church schools local to us in very affluent areas) and they are not actually that happy with the schools anyway.

I can find nothing here which is not sensible; it reflects what we all want for our children, and are willing to work with schools to get there. However reading the navel-gazing of some teachers who have been hard done by in this year's SATs on the Education thread will give you a pretty good picture of how simple-minded and formula driven some practitioner goals can be.

SATs were needed to avoid the appalling failures in primary education that were widespread before their introduction. However they look to be far too narrow, and can be seen as aspirational rather than the minima they are. Mr Gove's attempts to tighten up teaching qualifications appear persuasive in this context. Some intelligent professionalism as opposed to playing the SATs game is well overdue.

Teachers who work in outstanding senior schools (that attract children from the world) tell me consistently they don't send their DCs to schools based on SATs. Looking at the products of some of these 'outstanding' schools, the correlation between SATs levels and selective secondary transfer, and SATS vs. subsequent outcomes, these professionals (when making the most important choice of their child's education) make it their business to choose the right primary schools. Talk to other parents, they have a far better grip on what makes a good educational experience for young children.

Sorry to say this but genetics has far more influence than environment.......hides behind wall to avoid blast.

Unfortunately many ordinary parents do select a school for their child based on Ofsted reports & SAT results rosar.
I'm unconvinced by your statement that SATs were needed to "avoid the appalling failures in primary education" as SATs do nothing at all to improve education. Since SATs measure attainment at age 7, 11, 14 (GCSEs being the end of KS4 equivalent ) they clearly weren't aimed solely at primary schools or at any imagined failures.

We all learn to make better choices. Why not learn from how really good professionals choose for their children? Trust the parents, and a governing body that is able to set strategic direction that doesn't just bend with the wind.

Some of us will remember the rows documented in the media with objections from the NUT, followed by failures to meet even the reduced targets, which are now universally expected. The political will came from average children leaving primary school unable to read and write. There is a summary in
www.guardian.co.uk/education/2004/aug/24/schools.sats

Exam reform is happening at entry level (KS4) as well as A Level. No school worth its salt thinks KS3 is good enough (unlike the response at KS2). That's another story, athough related to the SATs journey.

Back to KS1 and KS 2 SATs. It took over twenty years to get to this basic level. Even so questions are being asked about superficial learning:
www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/nov/05/michael-gove-order-sats-inquiry?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

Two tests of competence over seven years of service delivery, at KS1/2. That's pretty blunt and low in standard. Would you for example use a doctor who was only 'tested' twice in seven years, and partially delivered? Not good enough. But we're fine about our children spending most of their waking lives in this fog of mediocrity.

Why not include tests of competence for sciences and humanities? The SATs are overdue for reform, they lack bite. Prep schools are called to account for more than basic English and Maths. Do the majority of our children deserve less?

Teaching at its best is a noble profession that changes lives. Now it seems to be populated with some who can barely reach minimum and often fail basic standards, and need a flawed handbook to instruct them how to do it. Worried about this year's SATs? Be more ambitious, there's sadly a lot more to fix than that.

rosar I'm afraid with every post you demonstrate a complete ignorance of what happens in ordinary primary schools. Until recently Science was part of the national tests but that doesn't mean that schools no longer assess children in science and humanities as it is part of every ordinary school's continuous process. You seem to believe that because the results of only end of Key Stages are reported that other year groups aren't assessed. Perhaps your knowledge is not good enough and you should get down from your high horse and get your facts right.

You're doing better than me, MRZ, I can't even follow what points Rosar is trying to make.
There's plenty of evidence that SATs & league tables are quite detrimental to education. Just leads to "teaching to the test" etc.

"English schoolchildren the most tested in the world"

I am loving where this thread is going... but i"ve got to go to work. I'll be back tonight ...

We're "outstanding" and the inspectors didn't look at a single policy. They did however look at the head's monitoring file where she keeps all the information about the lesson observations, then undertook lots of paired observations with her to check her lesson grading and feedback matched with their's (which it did). They looked at children's work, talked to children about all aspects of school, talked to parents in the playground and interviewed the leadership team about 101 diffrent things. They already had the school's SEF and had identified a trail of "more info" they wanted to chase from that, which did include progress for particular groups of children, but it was already groups I was tracking and staff had identified might not be making the progress they could / should (not SEN) and we could show the additional interventions we were using. Despite the stress of constant lesson observations I felt it was good that they focused on the standard of teaching and learning, not paperwork, and used children's work and talk to discover if the standards of teaching they saw on the visit were replicated day in, day out. In the report it shows that is why we got the "outstanding.