% meeting expected standard

[user27378]

I've previously dismissed a school because it is second from bottom in the whole of our large borough on the local league tables. But we are house hunting and I've seen a brilliant house in this schools catchment. I've had another look on the school's website and noticed it has been updated over lockdown and I've been really impressed with everything, all the policies, the curriculum and just a general child and parent focused feel. It consistently has a good rating Ofsted and all suggestions for improvements are worked upon. The % of children reaching expected standard in 2019 was only 23% though. This doesn't just seem a little low but really significantly low? Any teachers have any insight into how a good school could have such poor results? I believe class sizes are smaller than local average which I know has an affect, but could it just be that? Pupil premium percent is around national average which is low for most schools in the borough.

That does seem very low.
But class size can make a massive difference.
PP will have some impact, but even more so SEN.
It may be that lots of parents of children with SEN are moving to the school because of its pastoral care and smaller classes.
Also remember that improvements take time to rattle through to results.
I'd be tempted to phone the school (in absence of open days) and ask them.

That’s very very low. Is it like that every year or did they have just one bad year? Small classes make a massive difference, I think if it’s less than 10 per cohort they don’t have to report the results publicly, so it must be more than that.

For context, I worked in an RI school with some dodgy teaching for sure. One year we got 43% which was second lowest in the borough and a massive cause for concern.

This is very very low. The worst performing primary school in my area with significant pupil premium and challenging circumstances gets 30% and only 4 out of 36 in the whole area are below 50%. Every school with average pupil premium is well above the percentage you quote for meeting expected.

I think there must be something very wrong. What does Ofsted say? Have they visited recently? I would not judge a book by its cover (flashy new web site). Nor would I think small class sizes are to blame. What this is really telling you is that parents do not want DC going there, hence vacancies. They are trying to recruit via the web site. The financial situation could be dire. That's why there are vacancies.

I simply would not think the school is very good and it would be rock bottom anywhere near me. If a schoool cannot get better results it is either because of poor teaching or very many challenging children. There is no other answer.

You have to decide if you want either of these scenarios. Are you able to go elsewhere?

Is it possible there were others who were greater depth? If not then it's extremely low.

You need to look at this alongside the progress scores.

If they have 23% at the expected standard but a positive progress score then that has happened because the children who go to that school start so significantly lower than other children in other settings.

If they have 23% at the expected standard and a negative progress score then, really, the explanation is that the quality of teaching and learning in Key Stage 2 is particularly poor.

In either case, if this is a trend in their data then you would be sending your children to a school where the majority of each class is below the expected standard for their age and that will likely affect the level of challenge offered in lessons.

@fruitpastille

Is it possible there were others who were greater depth? If not then it's extremely low.

When reported, the percentage of those achieving the expected standard includes those achieving at the higher standard.

I don't believe the lower starting point reason to be true. The next school along has 70% pupil premium with very low starting points and achieved 65% at expected level. Whilst very low pupil premium areas usually do have better results, that doesn't tell you much about the school. On the other hand schools with high pupil premium don't consistently get poor results and when results are above average it is a marker for a good school. I have no snobbery against the deprived intake area at all, I just can't find a suitable house there (yet).

It looks like there might have been a change of head in the last year or two.

The pupil premium aspect is a little bit of a red herring as an area of high pupil premium does not necessarily mean it's an area where children start school significantly lower than average. You cannot know what the starting points for that particular cohort were as that information will have long been archived.

The only way to get an indication as to whether it's starting points or poor quality teaching and learning is to look at the schools published data for that cohort and compare the attainment data and progress data.

A change in head can be a very positive thing in an under-performing school. Do you know whether the change in head prompted a change of any other staff (within a year or so)?

You need to see if this school has a succession of heads and is always failing inspections. It looks to me that these results are so poor, you need to consider if your DC would fit in. If 75% of DC arrived at the school with lower starting levels than your DC, is it worth wondering why? What’s the parent body like? Is this a school that can improve do you think? Is their Improvement Plan on their web site? From this low level of achievement it’s a long way up.

Pupil premium is attached to children where, overall, there is a need to “close the gap” and research identifies this at age 4 upon starting school. However if this school has average pp, whereas the other school has very high pp and good achievement, it’s policies appear to be working. In this school there’s a huge need to improve. Ofsted will surely call as soon as they can!

@Guymere

Pupil premium is attached to children where, overall, there is a need to “close the gap” and research identifies this at age 4 upon starting school. However if this school has average pp, whereas the other school has very high pp and good achievement, it’s policies appear to be working. In this school there’s a huge need to improve. Ofsted will surely call as soon as they can!

I'm not sure if this is poorly worded, but pupil premium is based on finances, not attainment/ability.

Pupil premium means the child has been eligible for Free School Meals in the last 5 years, or is looked after or adopted. Overall, there is a correlation between PP and low attainment on entry.

It is progress scores that tell you how well children have progressed from Reception to Y6.

On the original topic, 23% is, as others have said, incredibly low. If it was a one-off, it could have been a very weak cohort. Look at previous years - any better? If not, something there isn't working...

Yes. I am aware which children get pp. As you say, research shows the eligible children are more likely to be behind their peers. I didn’t refer to parental finances because it was answering a previous post about pp. At the school under discussion pp is average. Therefore you would infer from that stat there are fewer children needing support than at a better performing school with a much higher number of pp children. It was in the context of attainment and progress I was talking about, not how the money is allocated which wasn’t under discussion.

Is that a one off, and is it related to a specific subject or overall? There's a very naice school near here which completely cocked up its writing assessment one year, and when moderated their results took a tumble and they dropped hugely in their stats in terms of both expected standard and higher standard, in fact no one got higher).

The government web site gives you all the stats going back several years. If it’s well below average (red) repeatedly, then there is a big problem. Even below average over several years will attract Ofsted’s attention. Few schools ever make mistakes. Few schools go from 70% (Say) to 23% in one year unless all the brighter children have left! Again slightly plausible but not likely. The quality of the school and the challenging intake are probably the unpalatable answers.

Compare the different areas on the DFE site.

You only need a couple of severe EHCPs in a small group for percentages to fall even if these children are progressing well.

Year 6 we are more likely to have home schooled children join us in readiness for secondary school. Sometimes we have new starters. They can all have an affect on the data.

Look at the data taking out the different elements. Look at the local data too. The data is specific to that year only and by itself does not mean there is any problem.

The only schools that get anywhere near this low in my LA have many challenging children. To have attainment this low, it’s highly unlikely they have made good progress over time. It’s also not true to say home schooled children are low attainers. Send children can affect progress and attainment results but not all of these DC, for obvious reasons. Sometimes children in care arrive. However if there were 30, 60 of 90 in a cohort, these anomalies do not occur every year. But you need to look at previous years. It’s an indication of a problem because this figure is very very low.