ofsted vs SATs

[malina76]

what do you use to decide if the school is good enough to send your child to?
I'm getting totally confused. Some schools only get 'satisfactory' but results children get at the end of it are sometimes much higher then at schools classified as 'good' or 'outstanding'. I know it would best that ofsted matched the school league tables but with tight budget when it comes to choosing the property with those schools nearby don;t always go together;)

Well after going through the process of both.

I would say ofsted more unreliable than sats.

The ofsted crieria changed recently which meat our school was downgraded to satisfactory was good when I chose it.

Think sat give true picture and also how it feels when you visit.
With sats the school either acheiving or they not.

Yes, both primary and secondary have been downgraded by

Icing the goal posts.

I'd certainly go with results and a visit first and read ofsteds comments, actual grades are very suspect.

Just like the English GCSE there has been some very dubious politically motivated shifting of boundaries.

Moving the goal posts, sorry I'm tired

Thanks mam29.
it all feels like confused.com
and selling and buying the property with a school catchment at the back of your head is even more confusing.

There is a small school near where we currently live. Ofsted is good, SAT results change from year to year, sometimes in high 90s, other time low 80. As we live very close i can see the children during the breaks or in nearby park and to be honest not sure i would like my little one to go in there:( Some of the kids are so aggressive and teachers don't seem to care. I know kids are kids, but some kind of behaviour just doesn't seem to be ok on large scale.Thought the school has some kids with special needs but it got hardly any. Thought this school is not very popular with parents but it is opposite and they speak highly of it and some move in the area because of it. Sometimes if you life 0.3 miles from school is already too far away to get into;)
other school nearby is classed by ofsted as good as well, SATs are much lower then the previous one, actually highs 70s and 80s, kids are friendly, teachers active and nice, school is much bigger so it require much more effort to handle everything. school is oversubscribed as well.
Just don;t get it.

Thanks Starballbunny:)

What kind of results are classed as good?
Are those in the 80s ok? or it has to be 90s at least?

i actually checked: for this year the first school got 100% in English and Maths, the other 76 and 65. the other is more oversubscribed then a first one.
Anyway, as we are moving so don;t have to choose between them;)

I think ofsted do know what they're doing and I'd go with that.Would far rather my dc were in a school with lower SATS but in which the kids made good/outstanding progress and received good/outstanding teaching.

Some schools with a good intake don't have to work as hard as others to get results.

I think ofsted are spot on to downgrade schools from outstanding if the teaching isn't outstanding.

Far less bothered re SATS results(some schools just teach to SATS) than quality of teaching and progress. At the end of the day the teaching kids receive day after day and their individual progress are far more important.

In our experience though some schools mega cram their pupils for SATS and get alarmingly good results. Can think of one school near where our DCs go which has always had a quite poor reputation but repeatedly comes in the top 5 primaries on the Borough for KS2 SATS.

Think SATS results are a very unreliable marker of the quality of a school - which is why so many secondary schools perform their own ability tests for incoming Year 7 pupils!

I think if it's that hard to choose, you go with other factors, like what is most convenient for you, which one feels the nicest when you visit, or where their preschool friends are mostly going to.

They measure different things.

SATS measure 'academic acheivement'. Ofsted do take this into account but look at the school as a whole - more of an ethos and what does it do for the whole child.

I would look at the detail of the Ofsted report. What areas are seen as needing attention. How does this sit with your philosophy on schools.

I think that SATS in the 60-70% is pretty low tbh. I think without checking that the average is in the 80%s.

Acheivement in SATS will most impact long term, although exactly how much depends on secondary school performance. That said, someone has to be I'm the 70% that get the level 4s so going to the second doesn't automatically mean that she won't acheive. The numbers may reflect the catchment more than the acheivement - but then if this is the case would you want to live in a catchment which could be classed as 'disadvantaged'? (and yes there is research which says that disadvantaged catchments as defined by unemployment and free school meals lowers attainment before I get flamed).

I would also factor in secondary schools. It is a long way off, and things change, but if there is a dire secondary you really want to avoid do so, if there is a really good one that is worth a punt you could add that as a plus against any house.

Ofsted will reflect SAT results ... neither give an accurate picture of a school.

Agree completely with mrz. You wouldn't buy a house just from looking online, so don't to it in regard to a school. Go and visit both, several times.

I'd also look at behaviour.

If behaviour is good it means your dc will find learning easier. I agree with visiting and I think you need to look at everything to make a decision,our church school isn't actually formal at all,quite the reverse.

Behaviour,teaching,progress,gut instinct all will help shape your decision but I agree you'll have to make compromises.The perfect school doesn't exist imvho.

Hi malina76

I'm with Prarieflower on this.

SATs results can hide a lot of work at home (which occurs at our school) and bear in mind that if you're in an area with a grammar school system a lot of parents will be preparing for the 11+ during Year 5 (which is likely to improve SATs results as well).

Ofsted looks at the level of the pupils when they came into the school and asks if the school has kept them at that level and more improtantly if they've improved upon that or not (i.e. if they've helped a child to reach full potential or even exceed it). Our school has the majority of pupils arriving at above average performance at age 4 but leaving primarily at average and below average (75% of pupils).

It's very difficult to predict how your child will perform or whether they'll be a high achiever at 4 years old - but the question I think you should ask yourself is what you value. If the issue is whether this is a happy school that generally gets good results - then yes go with your impressions from the visit and the SATs.

If your concern is that primary school is about giving your DC the best possible educational start in life and that you'd like him/her to achieve his/her best in order to give him/her more options/ life chances - then you may need to really read and digest that OFSTED report.

As ever - if you have friends (or friends of friends) with children at the school - talk to them. They're likely to give you a fair appraisal of the pros and cons of the school. And I'm afraid that the reality is all schools have good and bad points. One other issue to really digest is whether the Head is near retirment age. That kind of major change can be very unsettling and isn't automatically for the best.

HTH.

To add to the points above, don't look just at final SATs results. Also look at what (to date) appears on the tables as 'CVA' - contextualised value added.

This basically measures the progress children make in that school from the end of KS1 to the end of KS2. 100 means that they make exactly the expected progress.

To give some examples from schools I was looking at when we moved:

• School A: very high final SATS results but CVA significantly lower than 100. Ofsted Outstanding BUT when I visited it was apparent that a good deal of covert selection was going on at entry.

• School B: lower SATs results, CVA significantly higher than 100. Ofsted Good. Very inclusive, approach to 'unusual' children - DS was still selectively mute at the point at which we moved - extremely positive and friendly.

We went with School B and have never regretted it.

Ofsted is now [since the new framework came out, so from beginning of 2012] very interested in achievement AND PROGRESS. So some schools which are used to getting very good results and good / oustanding Ofsteds because of very able intakes are finding themselves being downgraded because they can't show that children of all abilities are making above expected progress.

I work in a school which used to have a satisfactory rating, and has unusually high numbers of SEN children and those from disadvantaged backgrounds. We worked our socks off, looked at everything we did, improved in all sorts of ways, lots of dynamism, lots of energy - and got a Good under the new Ofsted framework [which since all the levels have been changed, might well have been an Oustanding in the old one]. Equally, a school local to where I live was Outstanding, sat back on its laurels, and the Ofsted inspectors came in and downgraded it to Satisfactory ... it is sometimes better to be a pupil in a school which is striving to improve than one which feels that it has 'made it'...

Soooo agree with teacher.My dc sadly are at one of those schools sitting on their laurels downgraded quite rightly from Outstanding to Satisfactory.So many of us were relieved as now they have no choice but to improve,if they'd got Outstanding again(highly unlikely) nothing would have changed.

If I could choose again it would be the type of school teacher is teaching in so long as the behaviour was good too which if they got good must be.

Even in our Satisfactory Ofsted, behaviour was rated as Outstanding ... which we were very proud of, given our intake.

Thank you for your input.
Of course we visited few schools, one we liked most even more than once, but as the area is totally new to us and we don't know anyone in there we have to rely only on our opinion, ofsted, SATs. I'm aware that just going and visiting a school, even few times is not enough. I'm observing the ones close to our current place for over 5years and i have to say, that more things you can see the longer you live in the area.

The school we like was classed 'good' in 2009, so long time ago. It has a mixture of 1&2. Behaviour was classed as outstanding so it looks promising as my DD happen to be quite often shy and reserved and is afraid of laud and aggressive children en masse so friendly and caring environment is vital. But was is worrying me, the attainment was classed as 3

just checked the sats for 2011 and it lools like that: is that ok?
Measure Lower CI Upper CI Coverage
KS1-2 English and maths Value Added Score 99.4 98.8 100.0 97%
English Value Added Score 99.4 98.8 100.0 97%
Maths Value Added score 99.4 98.7 100.1 97%

if the DD will be very able child we can think of private tuition on top. I know that how the children perform at school is not only school dependent as family play a big role as well:)

DD will be three this Sept so we still have some time, but have to move and apply for reception in Jan-Apr next year.

It's hard to read those stats, but if I interpret it correctly, then the value add isn't great.

Basically, it says that on average, over both English and Maths, children make less progress than expected between years 2 and 6.

If they all made expected progress, then value add would be 100 - scores less than 100 says that the school actually makes them do slightly less well in Year 6 than would have been expected in Year 2. Which is not what you want....

There are some caveats, though.

• If there is a high turnover within the school, then the children measured in Year 6 are not the same ones as measured in Year 2, so the comparison is not a fair one.
• If there is a tendency for children to leave after Year 2 - for example if there is a pattern of children going to that school as infants but transferring e.g. to a private prep at Year 3, then the comparison is not a fair one.
• Up to and including 2011, if there are a large number of very high achievers in year 2 (ie if a large percentage get level 3s), then the value add is skewed because none of these children can be measured as making 'greater than expected' progress up to year 6 as their highest possible reported level would be level 5, which is exactly as expected..

In combination with an attainment classed as 3 (what does the detail of the report say?) I would read it as a nice school in which children are not being pushed to do as much as they can academically ... and that if they are still the same, the Ofsted grading may very well fall the next time they are inspected (due this year on the standard 3 yearly cycle).

The Ofsted framework is changing again as from now (yes, the last change was only in January 2012).

'Satisfactory' will no longer be 'satisfactory' and will become 'requires improvement'.

Schools will find themselves being forced to become sponsored academies simply because the DfE and/or their LA want them to.

Adding in the reception place crisis looming and shortage of teachers crisis looming, it's a difficult context in which to be making a decision.

Sats used to have something called value added - which highlighted how well schools do with the children they have. Value added measures where kids are on entry to a school and if they have reached the expected level when they leave the school.

For example, a school in a deprived area might not come out with top sats but the children still may have achieved much more then they would normally have been expected to achieved. Hence such a school would get great value added scores and would be seen favorably in the eyes of of ofsted. On the opposite end, a top performing state school in a nice area might get top grades but it's pupils still not reach their expected potential. Such a school will have good sats but poor value added results and would not be seen favorably by ofsted.

Also some small schools can be great throughout but just have one specific very mixed ability low performing year group. That year groups results will look bad but also not be reflective of the general results of other years within the school.

Also ofsted isn't just about grades. Theres more to an education then that anyway.