ofsted schools dashboard

[MerryMingeWhingesAgain]

Sorry I can't link from
phone, has anyone else looked at their school on this? It gives a brief summary/overview of how well the children in the school are doing.

My school looks truly appalling.

Erm they're not challenging to teach,far from it.Lovely catchment but lots of sitting on laurels of past Ofsted glories,weak head and weak governors.

Thank goodness for this new initiative as I'd still be in the dark,even the Ofsted report didn't make one aware to this extent how bad it is.

What difference such info makes to my dc is a whole different matter,buggar all I suspect.

re challenging: I was thinking more along the lines of the inner-city schools we're always hearing about.

Well it isn't it's a leafy suberb.

My kids primary comes out really well in that but its latest ifsted wasn't breast, they just got a new head teacher and had had a temporary one before that tho so ofsted pulled them up on that.

My kids are happy and doing well tho.

My sons high school is variable but not all results are included and at GCSE level they have various 'pathways' for students of different abilities and the results don't cover the non GCSE courses that many of them do, despite them being equivalent to GCSEs. My son is happy and doing brilliantly tho.

I think the dashboard gives an unclear picture of what is happening. It picks certain things to focus on while ignoring others.

In Key Stage 1 it is looking at how many kids are attaining Level 2C or above. Which is sort of odd. Because the expected level for kids to be at at the end of Year 2 is Level 2B. Why don't they focus on that?

So in my dcs' school, the fact that they are judging on performance at Level 2C and only Level 2C means that the school's performance in maths looks completely average, despite the fact that 98% of our kids achieved that level (i.e. one child didn't). If you look at the full set of data though, it is a completely different picture - our figures are really fantastic. 95% of our kids achieve Levels 2B (76% national average) and 67% achieve Level 2B (49% national average). So if OFSTED had chose and different "proof point" the results would give a completely different idea.

I am however pleased to see that they have included the data on "progress", which IMO, is pretty much the most important data to indicate whether the school is doing a good job or not.

But if the children are challenging to teach what are governors (effectively) supposed to do about it?

This. DD's school does badly in comparison to others in the area. It has more children on FSM than average, more SEN children than average, more EAL children than average (many at an early stage of learning English), more indicators of deprivation etc etc etc. However, it is possible to see that it is a good school by, for instance, looking at how deprived children do compared to their peers and by and large it seems they are progressing similarly (only a couple of percentage points in it, in terms of % making expected progress). In contrast, a school down the road has 100% of non-deprived children making expected progress and 65% of deprived children making expected progress. In my book that is NOT a good school no matter how good its SATS scores are.

We are in a leafy suburb, btw! But DD's school is much more diverse than most others round here.

Yes sadly Neo our school is in the bottom for everything re progress too.

Hmmm. I've been nosing at our local schools and one with a very aspirational intake and great Ofsted report comes consistently in the bottom 5th, well below the one DS2 attends which has a high percentage of deprived pupils and (anecdotally) significantly less parental involvement. Whatever you think of the dashboard, it's not something to be looked at in isolation.

That's encouraging Bacon.

All I'm seeing for DD1's school (secondary) is the impact of the grade boundary scandal in English.

DD2's school seems to have had a weaker year cohort in 2012, will be interested to see what happens at KS2 as this is their first year doing KS2 SATs and there is a very marked difference between the current Yr6 and Yr5 cohorts, with the Yr5 being much stronger.

AScorpion, presumably the opposite of what seems to have happened to my nieces school. Their 2012 KS2 results dropped by about 20% from previous years, putting them in the 5th quintile despite the fact that their results are usually above 90% in reading, writing and maths.

It's so amazinglyt broad brush, though.

There is, for example, no data at all about children getting levels higher than Level 4 in primary. So a school that got 100% to level 4 but 1% at Level 5 would appear to be better than one getting 99% at Level 4 with 70% getting Levels 5 or 6.....

Really teacher so it would be in a schools interest to focus on the middle band and not the higher band? I guess that wouldn't sort the progress stats though.If they're bad I'm guessing they're bad and that's it?

The thing is, it makes it easier to make a glib 'overall' judgement of a school, but much harder (and less obvious that it is possible to) make a judgement about the fit for a particular child.

So when choosing a school for DS, I needed to look for a school with a strong track record of dealing with the very able(including supporting them to make maximum progress, not just get high marks) PLUS a school with a strong record of inclusion of SEN children and making sure that they made good academic progress. Also, for secondary, DS should stay for A-level so I want that information (not just GCSE - and with almost 100% of each cohort staying on for A-levels, focusing on GCSE results as a 'final destination' rather than as a 'stepping stone to higher things' could lead to dysfunctional behaviour) and I want to know what their university destinations are.

I could, for example, worry that his current school is not as good for Science GCSE .... but as I happen to know from more detailed stats that they have a fantastic record at all Science A-levels, it doesn't worry me... However as the dashboard doesn't give A-level information, tyhe 'glib judgement' would be easy (although totally wrong).

This 'dashboard' is more a headline view for parents. Far more detailed data is available for each school and this is what OFSTED will focus on. It's unlikely that getting all pupils to level 4 and only a small proportion to level 5 will be in the school's best interest.

Yes Clay, but there are parents on here making judgements about their school based on the dashboard - and several have said that it conflicts with the judgements of Ofsted (who a) have seen the school but b) have a much more detailed view of the data). Is it therefore productive or counterproductive to provide a partial picture for parents??

As always the information is presented as percentages. The worst school I taught at had 100 children in a year group so each one represented 1%. Another school I know well has 14 children in year 6, so each child is worth 7%. So at the first school if 12 children don't get level 4 they come out at a very comfortable 88%. At the second school, if 2 children don't get it they come out at 86%. Given that I've never met a school without at least 1 or 2 special needs children in a year group, that puts small schools at a huge disadvantage.

The likelihood of having a SEN child is far higher in a 90+ intake. If the intake is 15 or below the likelihood is lower. If small schools are at a disadvantage that may not be the reason why.

parentview.ofsted.gov.uk/

You could also compare the parent reviews for your school alongside the dashboard; you may find the parent impression very different to the school stats.

I don't know whether to be concerned or not about the KS1 attainment scores on my school's dashboard. In 2010 when ds1 started in reception a new head started and 86% of children attained level 2 in reading. In 2012 the number reaching level 2 had fallen to 49%. There are 49 in each year group but they're split into 3 mixed Y1/2 classes with average numbers of ESL and SEN pupils. Attainment in maths and writing has fallen too but not such a big extent and levels in all 3 fell in 2010. Ds1 is now in Y2 so will be taking SATS this time.

Staff and parents alike are unhappy with the head and this seems like a huge change in the attainment levels for the school - there isn't a large transient or newly immigrated population, the children's abilities on starting reception haven't changed vastly in two years, I can't think of anything that would cause a huge drop in attainment.

I just don't know whether to worry or not.

L&S,

Actually, there can be a bias the other way. For certain types of SEN, parents IME often seek out smaller schools, believing that in that smaller, more 'family type' environment their child will find their feet better and will receive the individual attention they deserve.

Just as a personal example, in one of the very smallest schools (2 classes) that I have taught in, some year groups had 75%+ SEN, often children who had tried out a larger shool and become 'lost'.

In the largest school, 90+ intake, the % of SEN is negligible.

Catchment can also be a strong factor in SEN numbers, more so than size. Although prevalence of certain types of disability obviously do not vary with socio-economic factors, SEN issues associated with e.g. drug / alcohol exposure during pregnancy, or neglect (both physical and in terms of language development through speaking to the child), and those which can be caught up in early years in school but may lead to an initial placement on the SEN register such as complete lack of pre-school education including very limited spoken language ARE linked to deprivation.

I'm not quite sure what you mean in terms of "seek out." Depending on the parents circumstances and location (unless money is no issue) it may be possible. But the small/good/outstanding schools I'm familiar with are not only well and truly oversubscribed but have minuscule catchment areas.

In the genuinely rural areas of the country where I have mainly taught, small schools are the norm because of scattered populations, and are very rarely over-subscribed. Parents of SEN children have, IME, driven considerable distances from the nearest towns to enrol their children in such schools.

Really interesting, teacherwith2kids, and likely very relevant to my school. We have a large number of SEN and large proportion of vulnerable children.

Incidentally, I am a governor at the school I posted about, the dashboard was interesting for me, because of the comparison with other schools.

I was already very aware that our progress and attainment are very worrying because I have seen the data through the school already. What was shocking, was to see just how bad it is in comparison to other schools. I will be very interested to discuss with the school what will be changing, things are already in the pipeline but I don't know much detail as yet.

(To give you some idea, 5 miles between schools is about the minimum in these areas, often more.)