First choice of primary school has just gone into special measures. How bad is this is?

[Chocolatestain]

We have recently submitted our application for DS to start school next September (the deadline was Jan 15th). We live in the countryside, pretty much equidistant between two schools, one of which is a more of a village school while the other is on the edge of a large conurbation. We liked both when we looked round and I made the decision to put the village school first based on a slightly easier journey and the fact that it was in the village and seemed to have more links with the immediate community (Carol services in the village church, for example, even though it's not a CofE school).
I found out yesterday, through other mums at a pre-school group, that the school has just been put into special measures by Ofsted. Apparently it was in the local paper on Monday, the day after the application deadline (although I believe Ofsted published the report on the 11th). The main issues seem to be with the head and senior management not following through with recommendations from a previous inspection and a general lack of coherence in school policy on various issues. The most worrying aspect was that incidents of bullying were not being acted upon by the head. The head has now gone (although it's not clear if she was sacked or resigned) and a deputy head from another local stool is stepping in temporarily. The school is going to be turned into an academy and a new head appointed.
I'm now panicking that I've completely messed up by choosing this school over the other one and don't know what to do for the best. Three of the mum's at the pre-school group are primary teachers and they all said not to worry as the school will now be very closely monitored and have to improve. One of my concerns is that I don't know much about academies (and don't particularly agree with the privatisation of the state school system in principle) so really have no idea what sort is school DS may now be going to. Also I don't know if appealing to the local authority to change my choices after the deadline is a viable option. If it is possible I'm guessing all the other parents in our position will also be doing it.
I'd be really grateful for any information about academies and how schools tend to fare when going through this process so I can make a decision about whether to sit tight or fight tooth and nail to get DS into the other school.

[user1485199774]

Honestly it really isn't that big of a deal and can benefit your child a lot considering you already thought that it was a good school it can only get better from here on and out with all the support it will receive

[Basicbrown]

user have you had experience of one of your DC being at a school in Special Measures?

[user1484226561]

user have you had experience of one of your DC being at a school in Special Measures?

yes, why?

I kept them there when it was in "special measures" because it was fine, I moved them a few years later when it was reclassified as "good" because it wasn't fine any more!

ofsted gradings have been shown to be nothing other than random

[Basicbrown]

I dont disagree with you about OFSTED ratings not necessarily being the be all and end all but totally disagree over 'it really not being a big deal'. Interestingly then you didn't like what the 'improved' school became.....! So that's a big deal surely?

[prh47bridge]

There is currently no evidence at all to suggest academisation helps

There is evidence. There are arguments as to why the interpretation of the evidence might be incorrect but it is wrong to say there is no evidence.

by expelling all the difficult pupils

That does happen sometimes. It happens at LA-controlled schools as well.

[phlebasconsidered]

I would tend to trust the LSE on the matter and their research suggested not. My own county's schools have also not improved. Several have gone the other way.

There has not been any research that shows academisation is beneficial to primary schools. There's also research that shows that vast chunks of money in academies tends to go in admin rather than to the actual teaching. My own trust managed to pay itself enormously handsomely. It was slapped on the wrist for over 50k's worth of conflict of interest payment to family members, but nonetheless is thought to be fit to take over education.

Whilst I accept that some trusts may be charitable in aim, it is disingenuous to suggest that they are charitable. They really are businesses. And out to profit from education. I do not think that any good can come of this. Certainly hasn't been the case in my county.

[prh47bridge]

I would tend to trust the LSE on the matter and their research suggested not

I think you are talking about their study looking at primary schools. Their research into secondary schools, where academies have been around longer, showed a different picture.

A 2013 report found that schools that converted to academies between 2002 and 2007 improved overall GCSE results by raising the performance of the highest performing students. However, they concluded that there was little evidence of improvement in the bottom 20%.

Another study in 2011 found a positive impact on pupil performance. They also found improvements in the performance of neighbouring schools, i.e. non-academies that have an academy nearby perform better than non-academies that don't.

There has not been any research that shows academisation is beneficial to primary schools

Agreed. However, the papers I mention above suggest that it takes time for the benefits to become apparent. If they are right, primary school academies have not yet been around for long enough.

Whilst I accept that some trusts may be charitable in aim, it is disingenuous to suggest that they are charitable

It is not disingenuous at all. It is entirely factual. Academy trusts are required by law to be charities. They are not profit-making businesses. Any surplus must be retained within the trust and used for the purposes of the trust. That may not be the case in your country but it is the case in the UK.

Just to be clear, academisation is not a silver bullet. There are good academies and bad academies. Even if one accepts that there is evidence that academies improve performance, one must also accept that some academies have failed to do so. And I would agree that the evidence is not yet there for primary academies, other than the (not entirely unreasonable) view that, since it appears to work for secondary schools, it ought to work for primary schools as well.

[bojorojo]

The whole massive problem with the OP's school is that the Head was poor and the Governors did nothing about it. Neither did the LA. If they didn't know there were problems, they should have done. An academy sponsor could be just as bad, but they could be better.

Parent Governors are a bit misunderstood. They are not advocates for the parents. Governors deal with strategic issues so having a well trained Governing Body is arguably more important than who elects or appoints them. What use were the parent governors at the OP's school? Not much because they supported a useless Head by their inactivity and ability to do the job and therefore were useless themselves.

[Basicbrown]

OP I read the report this morning and it's very similar actually to the one we got, other than the groups underachieving were different and there were different issues with safeguarding.

In one way, like Dd's school it going into special measures looks pretty ridiculous as it is short term management issues. The 3s for other stuff are reassuring and indicate the teachers were strong enough to teach OK despite the poor management. Dd's school took a couple of years.

At dd's school the biggest problem was children leaving. I don't know where people get the idea from that schools in SM have money chucked at them - that isn't the case. The academy gets done money for taking them over but as school funding is per capita if 50 children leave the school loses more that way. Another big challenge is finding the right HT. Unfortunately there is a shortage of them....! Although possibly a school like that which you can turn around is a bright prospect for someone ambitious.

If you get a decent sponsor then it'll be OK once the dust settles. At least even if your DC has to go there you will have missed this year, which will probably be the worst one of all. I would certainly keep your ear to the ground though/ try and find out the school what is going on in relation to sponsorship, new head etc. Because this really is key.

[bojorojo]

No-one knows if it is short-term management issues if it is impossible to recruit a decent Head! Obviously Ofsted judge the school as it sees it and cannot judge on what it may become. It is judging on outcomes for children and the progress they make. They cannot judge what that will be in the future if the new Head does not sort everything out. However, where most teachers are OK, this is an opportunity for a good head to shine. Quite often, though, a new Head finds more needs doing than Ofsted found in their very short visit!

Regarding Safeguarding, schools know they will fail if they do not adequately safeguard children. Likewise if they do not know what improvements in progress are being achieved with their PP money. It is not rocket science and any Governors or LA that know their jobs would sign this a large red flag. I would wonder what the LA improvement advisor was doing in this case. Did they ever visit the school?

There is a school near me that was in serious trouble for years. HMI visit after HMI visit.The LA put in Head after Head but improvements were short lived. Together they got nowhere until the schol was sponsored by the local grammar school and taken under their wing. Now it has improved but it was shunned by parents for years.

It is absolutely correct that schools do not get money thrown at them. Financially, dealing with loss of money because children leave is a big problem and will lead to redundancies. However where a school has poor teachers, this can be an opportunity.

[Branleuse]

If you liked the school, you should still send your kids there. If it turns out to be a bad choice, which I doubt it will be, you can always change later x

[Basicbrown]

No-one knows if it is short-term management issues if it is impossible to recruit a decent Head!

We quite which is the issue that the OP has, plus she doesn't know who the academy is who will take the school over so again the same applies...! Equally though you could argue that there is the potential for long term management problems at any school if they need a new HT and can't find a decent one. Although yes the governors have to hold them to account it is a voluntary role of a few hours per week, the HT has to manage the school and is pretty key to its success.

In terms of DD's school and safeguarding the LA actually cancelled the training that they got into trouble for a few weeks before. The LA were just beyond awful in every way before and after (in fact just before they had themselves rated the school in a mocksted as RI), the head incompetent and the governors pointless. But a school that has been good in recent memory is more likely to be able to recover.

[Wtfdoipick]

My dc were at a good school with a good head but he left. The replacement head only lasted 3 years but completely destroyed the school in that time. Good schools can turn bad quickly and bad schools can improve overnight with the right head. In this instance I would wait and see since changing your selection would put you in a worse position potentially.

[admission]

It is always difficult to know what exactly has been going on in a school unless you have an inside knowledge of the situation. However there are certain expectations that a parent can have.

The first is that the school will keep their child safe in terms of H & S and in terms of safeguarding. It is the school's overall responsibility not the LAs and if the LA are not laying on the training then the school should be looking elsewhere for appropriate training. If Ofsted can see the cracks and can see things that are inadequate then there is almost for sure more that a detailed review will uncover. That is a management issue and the SLT and the GB are responsible along with the LA for ensuring that there is adequate safeguarding in place.

The second thing that parents should expect is good teaching and learning. When an LA knows and has know for a considerable period of time that it is inadequate, then the LA have failed in their duties and responsibilities. What should have happened is that the LA should have removed the GB and replaced it with an Interim Executive Board (IEB) that can make decisions. The first decision that the IEB makes is whether the head teacher is up to the job, which means in many instances they go. It usually ends up with a situation that far more issues come up and have to be resolved but it is a situation that is for the best for the long term good of the school

This should be happening far more than it actually does at present. LAs are not usually strong enough in making that step of removing the GB and giving a small team of professionals the authority to make things happen. I do have to say that, in my opinion, the best IEBs are usually not all educational experts but have strong governance experts on the IEB who must be paid for their expertise

[Autumnsky]

Yes, my DS1's primary school turned into SM in a few years after the headteacher left. The touble is some senior teachers also left after the headteacher left. So the school left with a new headteacher and some new teachers as well. The good side is the school was still lovely, as the whole atmosphere didn't change. However, the academic side suffered, as the new teachers(New qualified teachers) didn't get good advice from the SLT on the lesson structure, the way to control disruptive children etc.

We didn't move our DC, as he has a lovely group of friends and he was happy at the school.but we did some extra work at home.

So I would suggest OP to stay with this school, but keep an eye on academic side, do some extra at home if it is necessary.

[Chocolatestain]

Thanks everyone, that's certainly a lot of food for thought. I will make enquiries about spaces at the other school, but I suspect a lot of other parents will be doing the same. If we do end up at the Meadows, I assume it will be apparent over the next year or two whether the new head/management are turning things around fast or whether there is just ongoing disruption and as there are no issues with reception we have a bit of time to monitor the situation. Luckily we're in the very fortunate position that DS is the only grandchild of a doting and pretty wealthy MIL who would happily pay for private education if we felt it was in his best interests. Although at this stage I would rather he went to one of the local schools as he is an only child and we live in a bit of a rural spot so I'd like him to be able to make friends in the local community, it gives us options if we really can't get him a place somewhere we're happy with in the state system.

[bojorojo]

I hope it goes well for you. I think there is a good chance it will improve quite quickly. Keep an eye on teachers leaving (hopefully not) and look for improvement in maths!

As a general point, when Governors are discussed on MN, I am often surprised by what people think they do and what background they should have. It is not necessary to have lots of parent governors or staff governors either. Staff governors tend to take a back seat and parents can get derailed by being advocates.

Governing Bodies should have reconstituted to ensure they have the right skills to do the job. That does not mean they should all be educationalists either. Many GBs do not seem to have done this and stick with the same type of person: known to the Chairman, probably helps at the school and hardly ever does any training. They are all too close to the Head (or in awe of them) so they do not manage them. They accept what they say without challenge and don't get good honest reports from the Head so they don't really know what is happening. I fear for Governor training and clerking services with budget cuts.

I am not sure if IEBs are paid in my LA, but I do think they should be. Being a good Governor is challenging and needs professional standard people in many ways. If Governors just want to go to the odd meeting and don't understand about data interpretation and school improvement but are just happy to hear children read, then they are a waste of space as a Governor in my view!

[heron98]

I set no store by Ofsted (or at least not much). I would and have sent my children to schools with poor Ofsteds because what Ofsted deem to be failings might not be, it just means the school isn't ticking all their pointless little boxes.

As long as you get a nice feel for it and your kid is happy, then it's fine as far as I'm concerned.

[bojorojo]

heron98 - It really is not about pointless little boxes anymore (if it ever was) and if you look at the criteria and how Ofsted look at schools, you will see that really is not the case. Why do you think most schools work so hard to employ good teachers and ensure that children make good progress? It is for the children but also to prove that they are well run and making a real difference to the children. A school that does not manage to get the vast majority of the children to make good progress, depending upon their starting points, should be accountable. Looking at progres data is not "tick box", and it certainly is not for school governors. Neither is demonstrating good teaching, strong leadership and Governance. You really do demonstrate a great lack of knowledge in what Ofsted reports are really about. They are not just checking policies and office files and ticking off a list of desirable pieces of paper. We all want children to be happy, but we want them to learn as well. A "nice feel" can be maintained at very poor schools but failings in education are so difficult to put right and condemn children to years of catching up. This is why Ofsted look at childrens' books, look at quality of teaching, how well the school is led, do the Governors know the school's strengths and weaknesses, how are they adressing those weakness, how are they spending money, how are they safeguarding the children? None of this is tick box. It all matters.

If you actually read the report for this school, you would see why there were problems and Ofsted are absolutely correct in flagging them up. Calling out a disastrous Head is absolutely not box ticking and needed to be done. No-one else had removed the Head. This will now happen and the school will improve due to Ofsted. This is the very least the children and parents should expect.

[catslife]

Replacing the Head can make an enormous difference to a school OP. Am in LEA close by and dds school went into SM when she was in Y1. There was a noticeable difference after 6 months in the level of teaching and effectiveness of the school.
As well as a shortage of Heads, there are difficulties in recruiting governors as well. The workload of being a parent governor on top of a full-time job can be quite demanding for a volunteer especially if they are to do it properly. On the other hand it can be very rewarding too!

[Foxyloxy1plus1]

I don't find being a governor particularly rewarding. I thought that it would be an opportunity to present challenge as a critical friend, to influence the strategic direction of the school, to support the appointment of high quality staff and to monitor learning and teaching.

I have not found this to be the case and on occasion, my concerns have been completely overridden, including by LA representatives. I feel that I am a cypher and not a professional with a viewpoint. It costs me money to be a governor and I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that I cannot make a difference, so there is little point in continuing.

[OnTheMove28]

I'm also of the view that if you like the school and the feel of the school then stick with it. I think village schools, particularly small village schools, often get marked down by Ofsted because it is hard for them to achieve all the criteria (although I agree that Special Measures implies some serious academic failings that need addressing). Personally, my child is at a school that "requires improvement" partly because it retains a strong community feel and has exceptional parental involvement - one reason it was marked down was safeguarding because loads of parents were helping in the classrooms without CBS checks - I'm not saying that's right, it was just how the school had operated for years, and it has since been fixed. The (new) head admitted they were lucky to get away with "requires improvement" at the last inspection and we (staff, parents and children) are all working hard to make sure the next inspection reflects a huge improvement.

[cantkeepawayforever]

"We all want children to be happy, but we want them to learn as well."

I do think that parents differ a LOT in how they see the balance between these two aspects, though.

I see many posters / Facebook comments etc from people who say that the primary years (particularly the earlier ones) are all about socialisation and having fun and loving school, and that academic progress is given far too high a priority in our schools.

Equally there are groups of parents, again common on MN, who see academic progress, ratings, league tables as the be all and end all, and place much less value on happiness / feel.

The ethos of different schools, particularly small schools that serve quite closed communities,will tend to reflect and be fed by which is the prevailing view amongst its community.

One of the interesting questions about the OP's school is whether a new head can 'retain the good' while turning round the aspects of the school that need to be. It may be that the whole school community will rally round, or it may be that the change of ethos, approach and accountability required may result in very high turnover of staff (and pupils) within the school over the coming few years.

[cantkeepawayforever]

(Turnover of staff often happens in a school with a new head anyway. One which has just gone into Special Measures, and the extra work and scrutiny this immediately brings to a school, may suffer even more. If pupils leave and budgets, already tight, are further squeezed - e.g. numbers of TAs are cut (or they leave and aren't replaced), little training, experienced staff replaced by cheaper NQTs, more mixed classes - then it may become a harder and harder place to work in. It is ironic in some ways that the things that make a school in SM a possibly good choice for parents - lots of scrutiny of progress, quick introduction of best practice from elsewhere, very high accountability - can make it a very challenging place to work, perhaps particularly for any 'more relaxed' staff who you felt contributed to the 'cosy family feel'.)

[bojorojo]

I completely agree with your last post cantkeepaway. It is often the case that with added scrutiny, some staff just do not like it. However, in the OP's school, there did seem to be good teaching, apart from Maths. It is a highly unusual report in that most aspects of the school were good, apart from leadership. The Inspectors heard reports from staff about the poor leadership. This may indicate that the staff will stay because they want to have a better run school. They clearly recognised the school was badly run, but did not all leave. No doubt they could have done.

If pupils leave, there are financial constraints and managing an exodus is very difficult. It depends these days on whether local schools can take more children. If they cannot, there is nowhere to go. Lots of parents are happy to continue to support a vilage school especially if it can improve quickly.

I disagree that training suffers. Any school in SM must train the staff to get out of SM. If they are struggling to teach maths, the staff will need training and support whatever the budget or it is a downward spiral. It is up to the Head and Governors to manage that. It is difficult of course, but vital.

Foxyloxy: I think a sole Governor who wishes to challenge the Head is going to have problems. If the whole Governing Body work as one unit and understand Governance, then the challenge comes from everyone. However, I am very aware that lots of Governors do not want to challenge the Head and accept everything they say, and that can be very little. It also depends on how this is done. The best way is for the Head to give a detailed report to Governors at each meeting. Our LA has a template and we often receive detailed reports going into 30 pages. The main focus of the report is progress. From the data we can see where the challenges lie and address them. It seems some Governing Bodies get useless reports and there is no robust data. You have to rely on a good Head to give accurate reports on quality of teaching. Governors also have to performance manage the Head. This is useless if the challenge is not present in the objetives set by the Governors and the Governors have not been trained. I would love to know what you challenged the school on and how you went about it?