Why would there be an issue with an 'outstanding' school?

[MacMac123]

Hi, long term lurker and occasional poster!
Just a question.
Why do some people have issues when a school is said to be outstanding, as in it might not be? Ie, on another topic, someone has said 'and don't even get me started on 'outstanding' schools' as though that would be a debate in itself.
Why?
Are ofsted thought to not get things right? What would be problem/issue be!?

Because what to one person/an OFSTED inspector might be "outstanding" might not matter one jot to another person!

Because they may tick all the boxes on paper. They may have teachers who academically know their stuff, who have exceptional levels of pupils achieving everything they should.

But think about it, how did they get there? Was it by being warn and caring and adapting their lessons for all the pupils or was it by focussing so much on the academic side that caring for the children took a back seat.

When you are outstanding there is no where left to go. They can be result friends and complacent.

Result driven

Ofsted have a very narrow set of criteria to make a school "outstanding".

Have a little imagination, op!

Because if your child isn't academic and doesn't conform and isn't likely to get a Level 5 or 6 in SATs then some 'outstanding' schools might not spend as much time trying to help them as you would like.

Because not all schools suit all children. Also because outstanding schools don't get inspected so often (where we used to live the school was outstanding and hasn't been inspected since 2007) and so it may well not be any more.
But mostly because you need to see a school to form an opinion.

Or, as is the case with the "outstanding" school nearby, explain to parents that a move to a smaller school would benefit their child. Not surprisingly the child in question has some problems/learning difficulties that might drag school results down. ( 3 so far this year!)

When we moved I looked round quite a few schools. Most were "good". The one I liked least was outstanding. The one I liked best was satisfactory.

Ofsted ratings are about how well you play the paper filling game and not necessarily how good they are at teaching each child to fulfill their own potential long term (ie beyond their time at that school!)

I live round the corner from an outstanding catholic school. The kids were like little robots.

To be fair, a school may be the best school in your area, but it doesn't mean it is the best school for your child. Unfortunately I figured that out too late.

Don't discount the ones marked satisfactory either.

An example - primary school in Notting Hill renowned for people renting in the tiny catchment area. Head did not believe in dyslexia and effectively blocked any help to DD in school. Had to contact DofE to ascertain that my child was entitled to attend specialist teaching 1 afternoon per week at my own expense as said cuntish head and even more cuntish LEA told me it was "illegal". Outstanding school in many ways but in that fundamental way - no.

BTW DD's secondary is outstanding overall but most teaching is only good.

We went to visit an 'outstanding' school today. It was, honestly, outstanding. The teaching and learning was of a really, really high and creative standard (what we saw) and the environment was great. The children were confident and seemed really to be enjoying their learning.

But you should have seen the cats bum faces and the backtracking when I mentioned that one of our DCs had SN and was on SA+. And heard the suggestions suddenly that perhaps their (oversubscribed) school might not be the place for him whereas up until that point they were all welcomy about my other DC (very above average academically).

'Fuck 'em' was mine and DH's response (in unison) as we got into the car.

Annoyed, I think I know where you're talking about am in same area

Because, I've sat through part of what I'm assuming, was an outstanding lesson at a open morning.

It was formulaic, box ticking and dull.

MissB - thank fuck you found out now

So they're too focused on academic children and results only?

No necessarily, no. I know of at least one Outstanding school which isn't like that at all - it gets the results, sure, but is also great with additional needs, delivers the curriculum in an exciting way, etc. Happy staff, happy pupils.

The only way is to go and see the schools, get a sense of how the children seem, what the atmosphere's like etc. Just as you shouldn't dismiss a "requires improvement" school, don't dismiss outstanding schools.

Not necessarily. But is possibly more likely to be the case.

I think what bothers me about "outstanding" rating is 1) some people bandy it around about their child's school like it's actually important, and 2) it implies the school must be superior across the board when all we really know is that it's great at paperwork, gets high results which maybe overwhelmingly down to intake not teaching, and performed well on a few specific inspection days.

DC school was "only" satisfactory until recently but has a lot of excellent practice and I can't fault how DC have turned out (reached their potential).

My daughter is in an outstanding school in a deprived area of London. We are taking her out in January and can't wait. To get our DD who is August born the relevant individual support is really hard work.

There can be a huge difference between one 'Outstanding' school and another 'Outstanding' school.

I saw 5 schools before filling in the application for DD last year. 4 were our nearest community schools and one was a school I had heard great things about despite the kind of demographic that would have most MC mothers running for the hills.

Four of the 5 were 'Outstanding' and the other was 'Needs Improvement'.

My choices ended up being the Outstanding school with the interesting demographic, then the Outstanding school that was the only school we had a realistic chance of getting a place at, and then the 'Needs Improvement'. The other two 'Outstandings' really didn't impress me at all and I only stuck them on there because I filled all the choices just in case.

So much of 'Outstanding' can be achieved by box ticking things that need not actually have any real effect on a child's education. And things that a school will lose points for may actually be a big positive. A lot of staff coming in/leaving will lose points, but perhaps the new staff are all fantastic and the old ones best retired to pasture...

Definitely visit as many as you can and ask lots of questions. For me a lot came down to who was doing the tour and how open they were to questions.

One school had us in and out in under 20 minutes, the person doing the tour was new and couldn't really answer questions.

Another spent 1.5 hours, the Deputy Head showed round, showed us examples of pupils work at different stages, let us listen in on music lessons, answered questions and actually offered up information on the support they had for all children - those with SEN, those who needed extending and those who were plum middle of the road.

Here's my experience - as a teacher!
I was informed by another teacher at an 'outstanding' school that her school FIDDLE, YES, FIDDLE their data!!!!
At FS and KS1 they delibrately keep attainment grades lower so when the children reach end of KS2 (Y6) the children who were REALLY a L3 at KS1but have been graded below that at, have 'seemingly' made better than 'good' progress and so their value added data increases significantly.
What was concerning was this other teacher looked aghast when 'WE' (my fellow year group teacher) were informed of this practise because WE didn't do it! We quickly left the meeting as it became VERY apparent that the other 'good' to 'outstanding' schools were doing the same. Don't get me wrong, in education circles you 'hear' of it being done but never actually meet or know of it being done in your local vicinity. These schools have data that is similar to ours but their value added is 'far better'. Now we know that the reason is because they were lying, cheating and unfairly grading children's attainment below what it should be in order to look good in front of OFSTED. I can understand why it is done, but I certainly do not condone it. If a child is a level 3, they should be graded as such; not marked down because they want their school to look as THOUGH they have made good to outstanding progress from Y3-Y6!!!!
I immediately grassed them up to my Head who informed her superiors at a recent meeting. I am not sure how it has went but I was then informed by a colleague who came from another school (outstanding) that HER old school also did it - limited the number of L3s awarded in Y2!!! Not sure how to inform the Head of that one because her two children attend that school!!!!

I really disliked our local school that is 'outstanding' because the head refused to talk to individual parents as if we were beneath her, went on and on about schemes for child counsellers etc (well great if needed but hardly mainstream) and refused to accept that there could be a need for differentiation or that some children might respond better to different teaching methods - it was 'her way or the highway' as the saying goes.

Ok, glad I am anonymous. .. I work at an 'outstanding' school. Only been here since September and I hate it. The kids are nice but the staff are miserable and stressed because the school has basically sold its soul to Ofsted.
I have never seen such a vast amount of box-ticking, number-crunching, data obsessed ridiculousness. Constant measuring of progress. Daft acronyms for everything. This is not what education should be about, imo. It makes me feel like I want to quit the profession altogether (and I had never wanted to be anything else but a teacher since I was twelve).