Considering changing primary schools due to its' low aspirations. Opinions please>

[bowerbird]

My dd goes to a local state school, currently in Y2. It's an inner city London school. She is pretty happy there and has lots of friends. The last Ofsted report was only Satisfactory, then there was a change of head and she's worked hard at improving relationships with staff and the school is far better managed, all of which is good.

However, I am concerned about the lack of ... well, aspiration for the pupils. The school has no ambition to be Outstanding, just Good. They're incredilby pleased when a student in Y6 attains the national average. There's not a culture of excellence, or pursuit of excellence. I'm not just talking academic achievement here - but creative arts and sports. Most just seem content to noodle along, particularly the middle class parents, who "just want my DC to be happy". As if you can't have achievement and happiness in the same young person.

I worry my DD won't be challenged, particularly in the upper grades. She's not a genius, but she's bright, and she needs to be pushed or she'll just get bored. I'm now considering (very reluctantly) moving her to a "better" school, but dread the upheaval for her.

Has anyone faced a similar dilemma? Thoughts about this would be really appreciated.

I am not sure what exactly you mean by excellence. My DD went to a well known (regular write up in broadsheets) state primary in London. Some kids had connections; journo parents, House of Lords grandparents, celebrity relatives etc which meant interesting speakers, trips and so on. A famous chef used to cater at the summer fair because his child went there. There were a couple of kids there who were fantastic at music or sport but their parents had spotted their potential at an early age and were able to nurture it, not much to do with the school.

The school was quite affluent and they were able to buy in a lot of outside activities, to do with music and drama for example. I don't think anybody mentioned excellence they just wanted the kids to be happy and have stimulating things to do. The SATS grades were good, but this was mainly because the parents were middle class, and the teaching generally good - it was multi cultural and multi racial but there were very few people on benefits and those with English as a second language were mainly from diplomatic families.

Frankly, if your DD is happy and has friends I think at this age that is enough. It sounds like the school is on an upward trajectory. Ofsted grades don't always mean a great deal. Change takes time. Some schools in my area have gone from special measures to Outstanding in a few years. How do you know she will be bored later on? What exactly is it that you want her to achieve? If she is far ahead of her peer group speak to the Senco or the Head - they are supposed to make provision for gifted and talented children. Why not get involved as a parent governor or in the PTA and see what else you can do to support the school.

We experienced same thing at our state primary. At his Y5 Parents Eve we told DS's teacher that he found the work too easy. Her response was that DS was at the national average so relax oh pushy parent.

The school's aspiration was to get everyone to the national average which is laudable. Unfortunately that isn't my aspiration for my kids.

The other day DD came home and said that her BF wants to go to Oxford like her parents. DD said she was going to study hard so that she can go to Oxford and be with her BF. DD will probably be on her 10th BF by then but the point is that it is important, at least for me, for children to have high aspirations.

What levels do pupils start on though? If I have a pupil who arrives at school below national average I'm chuffed if they leave on it. Excellence doesn't necessarily always get measured in the same way.

If your children are happy and progressing and you like it overall I would stay.

"If I have a pupil who arrives at school below national average I'm chuffed if they leave on it."

I wouldn't be chuffed if my child arrives at school at above the national average and the teacher says now go and amuse yourself for the next few years while I spend time on that pupil so that he can leave on it.

Like most things in life, it depends on which side of the fence you are on.

I wouldn't be chuffed if my child arrives at school at above the national average and the teacher says now go and amuse yourself for the next few years while I spend time on that pupil so that he can leave on it.

Exactly, in a nutshell a lot of parents (esp mums who were the good quiet clever girl who just got on with things in a large mixed ability comp but as a result were ignored/not pushed and encouraged enough by teachers) just want that not to happen to their kids. Perfectly reasonable.

I wouldn't be happy with average either, but then my DD was bright and yes, she got bored.
She's moved to a new school and made lots of friends there.
We took her out in year 2 when she came home from school crying with boredom and frustration on a daily basis. Looking back we should have moved her sooner.
She now goes to a school that has a higher standard (Blake and Shakepeare discussed in year 3 for instance) but isn't obsessed with homework so she has an interesting day and then can go out to play or do sports which she loves after school.

Looking to the future: "average" school achievement probably won't get you a job paying enough to buy you a house in London by the time my DD grows up. I do think there will be a lot of middle class downward social mobility in the next generation as kids who have grown up with middle class house owning parents won't be able to afford to live where they grew up. DD would need to earn over £150k to buy a flat where we bought a house 20 years ago on a combined income of £35k!

Blake and Shakepeare discussed in year 3? I am impressed [No sarcasm intended]

Please re-read PA's post. She is talking about raising children from below the average onto the average, with presumably concomitant achievements for children who are average to raise their own achievements.

And which Blake and Shakespeare, anyway? If it's Tyger Tyger, first stanza, or the fairies' song from Midsummer Night's Dream that's very different from some of the rest of their work.

"She is talking about raising children from below the average onto the average, with presumably concomitant achievements for children who are average to raise their own achievements."

Doesn't work like that in real life.

At our state primary we told DS's teacher that he was finding the work too easy. Her response was that her obligation was to raise the whole class to Level 4 and she didn't have the time to set additional work for DS simply because he found the work too easy.

Giving DS more difficult spellings or a harder maths challenge wouldn't have taken up much of her time so I wasn't too impressed with her commitment to teaching and my contribution to her leaving collection reflected this :o

Having said that, it wasn't unreasonable for her to take that position. She had only so many hours in the day and when you have children that are still at level 3 in year 6 then its only fair they get her attention.

But in this instance raising the standard of the other kids had no positive effect on mine.

Nomoreinsomnia you have just described myself and my daughter and the exact reason why I moved her out of her state primary and into a private prep school at the start of year 3.

Seems to work fine for my children in whose class some children are moving up to the average while plenty are achieving well above average. Inner-city state primary, btw.

motherinferior then your children's school must be paying more attention to the higher achievers, so you are lucky in not having the same problem as the OP. If my daughter's state primary had been the same as yours I wouldn't have moved her!

Going private at secondary school was never on our radar but round about Year 4/5 DS had a mental spurt when everything clicked and it quickly became evident that the school neither had the resources or the inclination to encourage this.

If his primary school had paid him more attention then we wouldn't have been pissed off enough to go the private route [looks wistfully out of the window, thinking about the Hawaii holiday that isn't going to be]

MI, shrugging and saying worked for my children is not helpful. Some schools are better than others. OP, I understand your frustration and so do many of my friends, incidentally mainly those from other countries where educational standards seem to be a bit more exacting (and the children don't appear unhappy). Imo, not achieving ones full potential will cause serious unhappiness in later life, if not already in childhood.

I'm shrugging, actually, at the 'doesn't work like that in real life' generalisations. I do know some schools are better than others. Am actually quite well educated, have degrees and everything.

I was talking to a head today who talked Ofsted out of awarding his school an Outstanding ... I don't think Ofsted outstanding ratings have anything to do with aspirations.

"I'm shrugging, actually, at the 'doesn't work like that in real life' generalisations"

I'm speaking about my personal experience. How is that me generalising?

Various international league tables rank the UK below quite a few of our competitors. Various reports go on about children leaving school without being able to read or write. A few months ago there was an article in the London Evening Standard about how the Olympic facilities management company had to put on remedial math classes because newly recruited staff did have enough maths to make change for a customer.

The education system in this country clearly does not work so how can anyone who reads this stuff shrug their shoulders and go on about how its all a generalisation?

I found primary school very easy. I'm very glad my parents didnt move me from a school where I was happy, on the basis that it wasn't challenging enough in primary two. I now have a PhD BTW.

If a child is unhappy that's different of course.

My husband still talks about how traumatic it was to move schools at the age of 7.

I moved both my DC (Y1 and Y3) in September as DS1 was falling so far behind it was dramatic (1-2 years behind predicted not to get a level 4 by y6).

Interestingly, the child who gets most out of the new (academic) private school is DS1 who was doing well in his old school (though he told me he got bored and always finished his work before the others) but is now actually pushed in the area's he is good in. That is completely new to me. So instead of having to sit around waiting for the others to finish, he is given additional challenges , which he loves.

It is such a difference in attitude.

I wish I had found a state school with that attitude (I know they exist).

'in real life' is a generalisation. 'It did not work that way for me' is a specific, personal (if anecdotal) report. Your personal experience has been of one school; mine has been of another.

OP if your daughter is happy & settled & the school seems to be improving under the new head then thats a lot in this climate, especially for an inner city school & all the challenges it offers.

TBH the ODSTED ratings are a PITA,having worked in the Early YEars sector (slightly different but same constraints)

"Good" sounds so average but actually getting and maintaining a "good" is very hard and quite an achievement, Outstandings aren't easy to get.

If you think your daughter is under-stimulated could you stretch her with out of school activites or visits to museums, libraries etc?

"Your personal experience has been of one school; mine has been of another."

The fact that the UK rank quite low in literacy etc compared to other industrialised nations seem to suggest that my personal experience is more typical than yours.

This is the bit that I don't understand about people. The experts tells us that our children are doing less well than children in parts of the former Soviet Bloc. Major employers talk about their difficultly in finding teenagers who have acceptable levels of Maths and English.

Yet there is no shortage of posters that will tell me that I have a negative view on the education system since its nice and perfect in THEIR school.

We have had many parents leave our (rural) school, mainly due to our small numbers and I have to say that most regret it. It is a much bigger upheaval for the child than you think. If your child is happy at school, has friends and is progressing well then unless the school is failing, I would be tempted to leave her where she is and invest in the things that you think she may be missing out on e.g Sports activities. Personally I think this whole concept of "choice" in education has been very damaging. In the past when everyone went to their local school, children from all backgrounds mixed and the schools benefited as a result. I do wish that parents would think "What can I do for my school?" a little more before just moving their child. I know of an 8yr old who is on his third school! I realise things may be different in London though and I do sympathise as I know that this it is not an easy decision.

I think most aspirations come from the parents, don't they, rather than the school? (I guess see pushedtotheedge's comment about her daughter's best friend wanting to go to oxford like her parents - though my dd would rather marry a prince at the moment than consider Oxbridge like her parents, alas)
I went to a couple of fairly ordinary primary schools and a large comprehensive. From what I remember, the children whose parents had aspirations for them all went on to university (and, brilliantly, so did a few whose parents didn't), because that was the expectation for them from home. I think I read a report saying that school makes about 10pc of the difference, which sounds about right to me.
DDs school (an inner-city london primary with a Good) has, on paper, quite low achievement. A third of the children did not reach level 4 this year. I am not concerned that it will impact on aspirations for my children, or their literacy levels. It shows that lots of children come in with difficulties that my children do not have.
Because of these difficulties the school gets more funding (dds class seems to be stuffed full of adult helpers) and recent studies show that, for example, high levels of children with EAL does not impact on the achievement of other children in the class (except, interestingly, in a slight but positive way). Despite the low Sats, I can see evidence of high aspirations in the fact that there are children who get level fives. Although that number is low it reflects the intake. Even amongst the middle classes who are happy for their children to "noodle along" (guess I'm one of them) there are children who go to superselective grammars or get scholarships to the local public schools (about 10pc of all leavers I think). I think lots of schools can genuinely do both well. As the OP said, though, I guess, that's not her school, and they are all different. But those are some of the things that stop me worrying about aspirations, and maybe the school might be able to allay her fears about differentiation.
As for literacy levels, I do think literacy is better taught now than it was (and I have an English degree). Certianly don't think I was doing Blake in Year 3, though you could do a slightly twee number on the Songs of Innocence, I guess.
Sorry, what an essay. I think I'm trying to say, don't panic....

of course, it would help if I could type certainly. oops