Hill House rated unsatisfactory

[jeanne16]

I was shocked to read this. Any parents from Hill House available to comment?

Didn't know that Phoenix.

Re ofsted rather than ISI inspecting.

It was only a few years ago that hh didn't do background checks on their staff. I would be far more concerned about the serious lack of concern for the children's safety and welfare than the low standards of teaching. The report makes grim reading .

I think the inability to bring fire safety and other actual H&S things (not just having shiny policies, but actually being safe) is worrying, especially as the school is in a number of buildings, some very cramped.

EYFS may well be stuffed as it's failing so badly (rumours of this amongst parents for some time now).

The report makes it abundantly clear that they are not following any known good practice in independent schools, and that pupils progress isn't monitored in any cohesive fashion.

Now as an independent school, they can teach pretty much what they want and how. And parents might indeed choose a 'secret garden' approach (iirc, parents have to make appointments to see staff at all, no PTA, very much 'hand me your child and I'll return it with a secondary school offer or two')

Parents, of course, don't often ever see what could happen if their children were at a school that was differently run. They do see it occasionally, if a head changes, and then they realise that better safety and admin frees up time for better everything. And whatever style of teaching you seek, a planned curriculum and some sort of knowledge if how well your child is doing makes an enormous difference (especially if you want your child to be treated as an individual).

What does EYFS mean?
At HH especially the parents will have little idea what goes on in there as parents are actively encouraged to keep their distance. So I would have thought it would be v useful for parents to have access to this report.

I expect it will be seen as inflammatory but I can't for the life me see why anybody would pay for this kind of sub-standard provision when there are so many brilliant state-funded nursery and primary schools in London. Many years ago I naively assumed that one reason was that children attending private schools were drilled for their senior school entrance exams at their school. I was astounded to learn from a friend that in fact most of them are also having private tuition. No wonder so many of these children have to carry on having private tuition at the senior school to have any chance of keeping up.

It can only really be to prevent their children from having to mix with the riffraff, surely? And to start them off making the connections they'll need in the world of work 20 years from now...

EYFS is the Early Years Foundation Stage (up to end of Reception year).

All schools, state or independent, are inspected by OFSTED for this stage, so it's possible to compare all private schools for this age. I remember hearing that HH might even have to cancel a Reception intake a few years ago because there were difficulties - did that actually happen?

I's always thought that the attractions of Hill House were that it's cheaper than other central London preps, you can usually get a place (always lots of families coming and going) and it you want a traditional approach it seems to supply it.

Many of the children there are from expat families, here only for a few years and it is far easier to secure a place from abroad than wait until you've actually arrived and take your chances with state in-year offers. (Also, if your DC education is going to be split over several countries in the primary years, you probably look at the whole thing quite differently).

I'm not sure about that Edith. I know this latest report was fairly scathing about the reception. Outside area is square of bare tarmac. The whole area has to be dismantled every evening to return it to use as a church hall so this is quite restrictive I expect.

Just stunned at some of the responses to the report. If this was a state school with such critical comments from Of stead over some years, the slating would be epic. Instead, as it relates to a private school with concerns raised by both teachers AND pupils, it's clearly a box ticking exercise.

EYFS sets the standards and levels children should reach by the end of reception. Which sounds fine except that around the world most children aren't in education. It's as if a hospital was failed because of the colour of the flowers painted outside.
There is no evidence that being able to 'do stuff' early equates to high achievement later
And plenty of evidence that shows that many 4yolds get tired, demotivated and frustrated when expected to fit in with a formal education setting.
Gasp0de
'...there are so many brilliant state-funded nursery and primary schools in London.'
There are; they are excellent, compliant and children make great progress. But what if they're doing the wrong thing excellently.?

Yes becles, it's interesting isn't it?

Cognitive dissonance in action...

I've done a bit of searching and there was something going on in 2010/11 and the Jan 11 nursery intake was suspended (maybe whole year from Sept 10?) possibly down to problems with OFSTED. Which I thought at the time might have been teething troubles, as private schools were still fairly new to EYFS then. It's looking less like that now, I suppose.

EYFS is a play based curriculm, and not 'formal learning'

Some private schools (don't know about this one specifically) clung to 'formal learning' from a very early age, especially if selling themselves as traditional.

How many other private schools have had this level of criticism from OFSTED? I know Summerhill has, but that's such an alternative school it's hardly unexpected. Any others?

The thing is, children are by nature, bouncy and jolly and seemingly happy most of the time, particularly in groups with their friends around them. Any school that isn't actively mistreating children Dotheboys Hall-stylee is goign to be full of chattering, happy, enthusiastic kids.

So the presence of happy chatting children talking enthusiastically about their day tells you pretty much nothing other than that they're not being beaten and locked in the chokey.

I think one of the problems here, and which has also affected schools run by religious orders, is that an institution where senior staff are always appointed from within the ranks rather than from outside is going to be affected by the lack of a fresh external perspective. At best that can lead to a strong sense of identity and community, but there is also a tendency for it to result a somewhat blinkered and inward-looking ethos, which is actively hostile to outside opinions and influences.

So unless something goes really catastrophically wrong (and sometimes not even then) there is a tendency for everyone to assume that everything is fabulous just because it's working as it always has. Minor (or even major) blips are dealt with and business as usual continues.

The thing that doesn't happen in these kinds of closed management structures (whether extended family as here, or eg religious orders), and which does happen in schools with more normal management structures, is the fresh perspective that takes place when a new head is appointed from a different institution. That person will bring with them a whole different body of experience which they bring to bear on the existing structure - yes, that can sometimes be disruptive, and there will be disagreements over changes made, and sometimes there will be mistakes, but overall there will be a realigning of the school's ethos and direction in ways that open it up and renew it.

I suspect that what has happened here is exactly that entrenchment of perspective and narrowing of vision arising from the fact that the entire SMT of this school is taken from a dynastic extended family with a very strong original vision, but one which has not been strengthened and modified by being systematically challenged and refreshed by any outside influence. And yes, having seen at first hand some very similar issues within a school run by a religious order, I would be inclined to take the Ofsted criticisms seriously, and to take even more seriously the SMT's knee-jerk reaction that nothing can possibly be wrong because they're doing what they've always done and therefore it's fabulous.

The fact that things are jogging along perfectly nicely and individual children are happy and getting into good senior schools does not at all mean that there are no problems, or that things could not be significantly better. In fact, is this not exactly OFsted's criticism of 'coasting' state schools in 'leafy' areas, ie that they get good results, but actually given the advantaged nature of the intake, they could and should be doing a great deal better? I would also be very concerned by the finding that a high proportion of teachers feel that their professional development is not being well-supported. Essentially that means the people delivering the hands-on education think they are not being helped to do the best job they possibly could - and for the managers to respond by saying, 'nonsense, everything's fine here' is even more worrying.

All schools should be constantly questioning their own practice on all sorts of levels, and the arrogant and complacent reaction of the SMT here sets major alarm bells ringing.

I fully agree Pollym. Kids will laugh and chat whatever school they're in. I think the parent's' views are being too strongly swayed by the promise of Eaton, Westminster etc. Even though that may not be the outcome for their children. The leavers results are highly distorted. If your child can't keep up, you can have them heavily tutored or you can leave hh.

So some school that the tiny minority who can afford it pay through the nose for so their little darlings don't have to mix with the unmentionables turns out to be crap anyway? Hahahahaha! Should have saved your school fees and given the cash to food banks instead. Or gone on a long-haul holiday (again). Ahahahahaha!

To me as a gossipy by-stander it just proves that when it comes to it the school I secondary to the economic/ social background these children may well be let down by this school but they won't leave education at 18 to work in a call centre... They will be ok because their parents are educated/ engaged and well resourced.

One of the posts above says there are lots of excellent primaries in London. While that may be true, it is incredibly hard to get into them. In the area I live in, they are all church schools with tiny reception classes and I could not bring myself to go to church just to get a place. So we were left with either primaries with dreadful reputations or paying money. So I would not rush to judge the HH parents though I do realise human nature means many, incl Cruikshank, will take pleasure in gloating at their misfortune!

Jeanne. Don't take Cruik too seriously. She's just having a laugh. It is ironic the whole paying for an inadequate school. But I doubt folks are judging the parents so much as judging the school. Hopefully the parents at HH will give the owners some serious grief and put pressure onto resolve these inadequacies.

Our local state school is failing.
Next one along is in a housing scheme where the council temporarily houses families and refugees - big problem with bullying, gangs (the estate is very rough) and high turnover of staff.
Next one along is almost impossible to get into (unless you are David Cameron and/or serious god botherers)..

Do people really not understand that in some parts of London the choice of school isn't 'nice little village school' or stuck up private?

Its not always a case of 'ooo, I couldn't possibly have Tarquin mix with hoi polloi'.

Of course we understand it. Plenty of us had to contend with similar. We had no nice little 'village' school to turn to, we're not religious so church schools were out of the question - (a)they wouldn't have had us, (b) we didn't want them to go to a faith school - nor could we afford prep school fees. We made the best of things at the local community primary school, which has never been Ofsted-outstanding or even close. It did very well by both my children. In year 6 my son got a scholarship to a very good independent school with no private tuition at all. He learned everything he needed for the exams at school, except for a bit of familiarisation with VR and NVR questions which my husband went through with him.

nochocolate, of course it's about not wanting to mix with the undesirables. You said yourself - you don't want your kids to go to school with people who live in temporary accommodation - although if there really is an entire housing estate given over to people in temporary accommodation, I'd like to hear about it. Not from you - you wouldn't know, because you think the people who live near you are beneath you and crucially are beneath your children and therefore I doubt you have any idea at all of the reality of your near neighbours' lives, because you've chosen to opt out of it. You do realise, don't you, that most parents don't have a choice between 'nice little village school' and 'lovely private school'? Most of the UK population, particularly those with young families, live in urban/suburban areas. No village schools there. And 94% of the population don't go to private schools, because the vast majority can't afford it, so it's never a choice for them anyway.

Ah yes, poor old TheState primaries and their 'lack of places'. I really think the denizens of mumsnet should descend upon Parliament in order to protest at the fact that millions of children can't get a place in school and thus are growing up feral and illiterate, roaming the streets looking for fag butts to sell.

Oh, what's that you say? There are places at state primaries, just not the ones you want to send your kids to? Ah, I see.