Would you choose an under performing primary....

[CooCooCachoo]

...but where class sizes are really small?

We have a choice of 3 primaries, fairly central to all 3 and have been told we stand a pretty good chance of getting in to any we choose.

2 of the schools are categorised by Ofsted as good with a couple of outstanding features BUT class sizes for reception this year was 30.

The third school requires improvement across the board but has really small class sizes, the yr2 class having only 13 pupils (96 on the role for the whole school this year). They are also gearing up to do a lot of forest school activities and other more 'holistic' activities than the other 2 schools seem to offer.

All 3 schools seem to have same spread of TA's, we saw at least 1, sometimes 2 in the classroom but only the third smaller school had a couple of part time teachers with classes doubling up for afternoons I.e yrs 2 and 3 and 5 and 6 joining up.

The acting headmistress of the smaller school said that the school has previously had a disruptive elements (children in yr6) that have now moved on and a previously high turnover of staff that she is hoping is now resolved and as hopes of a better report next time.

I want to choose the 3rd school but see it very much as a school potentially on the road to recovery and the risky option. I'd appreciate any thoughts/input to help DH and I decide.

TIA

I'm a primary school governor. The small class size aspect is likely to be unintentional and a result of unfilled places. Schools cannot usually afford to sustain this. This means that combined age classes or staff redundancies could be on the horizon.

I would not 'ignore Ofsted' as one poster recommends. I understand the sentiment, but like it or not a school's Ofsted judgement drives everything in it. Good or better means the school is free to develop, provide holistic experiences, be creative etc etc.

RI or worse means intense pressure to improve. Typically a headteacher ramps up the pressure on staff. Good teachers then leave because they can get a job anywhere and can do without the hassle, poorer teachers leave if they can afford to but are often 'managed out'. All this translates into disruption for children which can sometimes last for years. (I am generalising of course). I was a governor in one school for 6 years. In that time ALL the teaching staff changed including the Head and both deputies. So apart from the building, it wasn't really the same school by the end of that time.

I would definitely think twice before sending my dc to a RI school, if there's a choice.

that's fine charles but few people have your level of understanding unfortunately

so flip flop in your lofty world what happens when things change?

The appalling neglectful nursery we sent our son to for a time, where we were genuinely concerned week on week for his physical safety (forget the lack of stimulation from the wholly uninterested "carers"), got an outstanding Ofsted rating two months after we left. Nothing had changed, they just knew how to game the system. We could NOT believe they'd got an outstanding rating.

Moral of the story: take the ratings with a big pinch of salt.

What do you mean Tobysmum?

I can see that some weight ought to be given to Ofsted but also get that this shouldn't be the only basis for a decision. While the class sizes are attractive, I am concerned that this is indicative of an unsustainable position as a poster above suggests. Given that one earlier report refers to the school having 161 pupils on the role and now there are only 96, I'm guessing this gives an idea of how other parents may view the school.

I hadn't thought about there also being fewer kids for DS to befriend. He's fairly outgoing but like the idea of a larger pool, in the event of clashes.

While we will visit again, in the hopes of being able to chat to other Parents, I think this probably will not go down as first choice.

Many thanks again for input, it's given us a broader perspective and raised some further questions we can put to the acting head at the next open day.

No I wouldn't touch with with a barge pole, small classes and its still failing no way.

I considered a tiny school for DD but have come down in favour of bigger classes. It is quite risky putting them in such a small group. If it works it's great, but if you are the odd one out of the 7 girls in your year, and everyone else has a best friend, it can be tough. DD didn't really find any like minded friends in YR (13 girls in class of 30), but has found lovely friends since they mixed them. Bigger schools get much more experience of, well, ANY issue. SN, toiletting issues, geniuses. A bright child is more likely to have similarly bright peers, and the same with less able children. And while it is a big compromise having 30 in the class, the teachers never cease to amaze me in how they get to know the children and cater to a range of abilities.

Also my friend's daughter was in a failing school where everyone was trying to move their children elsewhere. Not sure if this would be the case for you as it sounds like a tiny school anyway, but it was hard on the child. Her friends were forever leaving. Her best friend would leave, she'd make another, then she too would leave. Those left behind knew that everyone was leaving because their school was considered rubbish. Very hard to thrive in that environment, despite the greater attention in the small class.

I can see that there are circs where a small class is fantastic, but I'm not convinced about this particular one OP.

I wouldn't automatically reject a notice to improve school-but I think I would avoid this one. One challenging cohort is not going topmost a school in special measures. The ahead is not bing straight with you- and blaming pupils is a massive red flag. And small is often not a good idea- it might seem appealing when you've got a tiny 4 year old- but much less so when you've got a rambunctious 7 year old who wants to play football.

I haven't read many replies so sorry if someone has already said similar.

My line of thinking on this would be the schools with bigger classes are good, despite the teachers having more children to teach, less time per pupil etc. Whereas the smaller school is RI despite a lower pupil/teacher ratio. I know that is quite a massive simplification as lots of things go into an ofsted rating..but that would be my first thought about the situation.

We dismissed a school with dismal results and small class sizes precisely because the head effectively blamed children for the fact that under 40% achieve level 4. For me school is not just a form of childcare - they are supposed to teach children and if they can't do it with small class sizes than what can be expected. In short I would go to the school and would try to talk to a head or their head of early years.

I mean when the 'good' school your dc go to becomes 'requires improvement'? Do you move them? Ofsted reports are not static.

That said and putting my hate of ofsted aside, this school the more I think about it sounds alarm bells for me. The head is going to need more than 'hope' and well behaved children to get good. If it hasn't improved it will be category. It being undersubscribed is a concern also. If that happens it really will not be a good environment.