Primary results comparison please help

[FreshCop]

I'm comparing three schools for 2023 reception admission.

I'm going to share the Locrating results of some stats here.

Now the closest school is the one with the worst results (bottom 24%). I've put it down to avoid getting into a bad school 3 miles away) and have been told that this is the best strategy to take and that we can then go on waiting lists for the desired schools.

The first school, which is in the top 24%, feeds into some really great top selective schools, and a fab grammar, whereas my second choice is in the bottom 44%, however the children's progress from their starting points has been really impressive. In the top 3% of the country.

Although the vast majority don’t seem to move onto the grammar or selective school I’d prefer. Which for the city we live is pretty critical.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is, could someone with more knowledge than me provide some feedback?

I still have time to ensure I make the right choice here.

To clarity I have put them in order of the photos
1 - top 24%
2 - top 10% progress
3 - bottom 24% (with fingers crossed she doesn’t end up here) it’s undersubscribed and really nearby so basically she would get in.

Have you looked at the results across several years? Depending on the cohort, particularly in smaller schools, the results can vary a lot.

Have you looked around the schools to get a feel for them? Sometimes the school with the "best" results may not be the school that suits your child best.

One of our options was a school similar to 2 (huge progress, with fairly average end results). Whilst the school served the local community really well, the starting point of these children in reception was typically exceptionally low. The Ofsted report even flagged it and specifically mentioned that children started school not knowing their colours which appalled me. It basically meant that the class was on a major catch up from the start. My son was bright, and I didn’t want him to be in an environment where he was already so far ahead of huge numbers of the class. So the school was amazing, but not for us.

We ended up choosing to move to get into a school with very much average progress measures, but top 10% results. Basically ones where the kids started bright and ended bright (typical affluent area). Definitely the right choice for us.

Whilst data is useful, I really think nothing beats visiting a school. Also, as mentioned above, look at data over a few years not just one.

They have results for 2019 and prior on Locrating, which does seem to follow a trend.

1. seems to be consistently oversubscribed and now appears to be feeding into the selective schools that, honestly, are incredible, and I would love for her to get into them.

1 and 2 have a lot of things I like, they're very diverse, and they celebrate it a lot. Exposure to different cultures, and they participate in many extracurricular activities that I do as well. Number one enjoys music and attends a philharmonic orchestra concert every year.

I've visited all of the schools and spoken with parents at School 1 who appear to be very pleased.

School 3, my final choice, appears to have a lot of problems caused by deprivation/problems at home that have a big impact on the children.

A lot of staff time seems to be spent on safeguarding and making sure children are getting the stability and emotional support they desperately need.

The average scaled score seems quite good for all of them. Anything over 100 is a 'pass' these days and I think over 110 is the 'better than a pass' mark. From the results alone the 2nd school seems better. They have more children reaching the top marks, and their progress figures are amazing. Children must be coming in with very low attainment and then getting good marks when they leave. However, I have known schools to fudge the entry level data a bit to make children look lower attaining so that they will seem better when they leave. Impossible to know if that's happening here. The last school in comparison haven't made good progress at all. So either they've come in high and gone out at a comparatively similar level or they've come in low and stayed low. If your child is reasonably bright, behaves well, gets on with work and you follow up with things like hearing them read at home then they'll probably do well at any of the three schools. I'd visit all and get a feel for where you think your child would be happier. What happens in Reception in all of them? Some are very play based, others are quite formal. Is there still play in Key Stage 1 or is it all academics? Do they have a full curriculum throughout the juniors or do they start teaching to the test? Are there visits and visitors? Are there Christmas plays and sports days? I would take note of all those things and hold them in higher regard than test scores - particularly as all of them do have reasonable scores.

I haven't looked at the stats.

Often stats reflect the intake more than the teaching. If they can get some children to perform well, they should be able to get your child to perform well, if you provide support at home and your child is capable enough.

Stats can also reflect the level of pressure in y5/y6. People choose a school for the stats and then complain if y6 is a pressured time with lots of practice and a less rounded experience.

Nothing beats visiting a primary school.

Depending on your own social skills you may personally have a nicer time if there are more 'parents like you' at the school. I picked the school best suited for my DDs, but I struggled with social interactions - I was 10-15 years older than most of the parents in DD's class with very different life experiences.

You def need to visit, my daughter has been working in a really lovely primary school but the majority of the children and parents don’t have English as a first language and that is messing up the results. But the children and teachers work really hard catching up, it’s a great School but they’ll never compete on statistics for this reason.

My dd went to a primary with fantastic SATS results. In September year six moved out of their classroom into the hall until May where they sat at American style single desks and 'prepared for their exams.'

Whereas at the school I teach at the dc have hardly any pressure put on them at all, certainly we aren't going on about it in term one. They are excited to get a new pencil though.

You have to decide what you want.

2 and 3 are very play based with things like forest school and gardening for the kids. They seem to have invested a lot more in their outdoor spaces.

1 overall seems much more academic which really is what you need to get them into the grammars it seems? I mean the overall vibe of the school here.

2 with the high progress, I think 70% of the children have English as a second language perhaps that has a lot to do with the huge leap.

I’m afraid you are misguided if you think any primary “feeds” grammars and adjusts their curriculum to achieve this end. It simply won’t happen that way. You also won’t have a grammar school child by sitting next to one. Therefore some of the conclusions you have drawn are suspect.

The reason the higher achieving school
has more formal learning is that they undoubtedly have children who are more advanced on entering school. Therefore they meet their needs in this way. Therefore progress might not be so stellar. Other schools seem to have lower attaining Dc on entry and have a curriculum to meet their needs. This of course reaps rewards. Some Dc love Forrest school. Others don’t. What would your child think? Is your child preferring a more formal start, or not?

ofsted does matter if the report is recent. Put down the schools you want but visit. It’s vital.

I’m afraid you are misguided if you think any primary “feeds” grammars and adjusts their curriculum to achieve this end. It simply won’t happen that way. You also won’t have a grammar school child by sitting next to one. Therefore some of the conclusions you have drawn are suspect.

There appears to be a pattern in that the extracurricular activities, how they teach, and their emphasis on music produce impressive results.

The excellent teaching and consistent challenging of even the brightest students were mentioned in the Ofsted reports.

I'm not saying you'll have a grammar school child by sitting next to another bright child, however you can improve the environment and the child's aspirations by ensuring they’re in a place that will improve their chances.

@FreshCop
They do music because they have musical
dc and parents who pay for lessons! Of course parents expect this. I did. I was also a governor where the school struggled to get anyone to learn an instrument. Parents didn’t play anything, money and ambition were somewhat lacking. Few, if any, got to the grammar and they didn’t expect to. Two different worlds!

Ofsted want to see all children challenged. . It’s a constant beef of theirs that bright children in too many schools are not challenged. Good teaching will do this. None of it is really done for grammar school entry though. It’s done because it’s “quality first teaching”. The Head is clearly on the ball and has excellent staff. Other children you talk about at another school are making great progress. I can assure their teaching is also amazing. They might not have the money for music lessons but they are getting good teaching.

Msny schools in leafy lane areas have parents with degrees and very good jobs and they expect sport, music, drama and high quality teaching plus they pay for tutoring. It’s often the Dc in less well off areas who don’t get the best of everything and certainly no tutoring. However to say a state primary feeds a grammar is wrong. Successful parents have high expectations.

In terms of results 2 looks better. They are getting lots of children to exceeding expectations so they clearer cater for high achievers. I disagree about needing an academic primary to get a child into grammar. My son is at a highly deprived primary for awful results, requires improvement. Not academic at all, doesn't stream and focus is on less able children, not allowed to progress beyond a certain reading band each year. It has caused me years of anxiety as he didn't want to move schools, but he has just passed Kent grammar test admittedly with some preparation arranged by me.

I imagine that the apparent high progression rates to grammars are to do with primary 1's intake - I'm guessing, much more affluent and with aspirational parents, possibly from BAME backgrounds that particularly value education?

Grammar pupils are disproportionately advantaged. Grammars have very low rates of FSM eligibility. Many children who go to grammars are heavily tutored outside school. All state schools are play based in reception..or at least, they should be.

Check the results for Year 1 phonics tests and end of KS1. If they can all read at that point, they'll find it easy to progress. Reading is the key to it all.

I imagine that the apparent high progression rates to grammars are to do with primary 1's intake - I'm guessing, much more affluent and with aspirational parents, possibly from BAME backgrounds that particularly value education?

For option 1 I do know there are a good proportion of BAME parents who are very supportive of their children’s education and appreciated the school was “strict”

the school isn’t musical because parents pay for it the philharmonic orchestra donate all the instruments and tutor the children, all kids get 2 professional music lessons a week and allowing for concerts twice a year and exposure to “that world” - it’s based on El Sistema in Venezuela.

Just to mention school 2 has a high proportion of BAME families with many parents who are international students from the Middle East, some of these children will just be picking up English. This might account for high levels of progress?

Other parents would be working at the nearby hospitals and universities is professional roles. Most children from Asian and Gulf region.

Have you looked at the information from the LA on offers for 2022? Does it look like your child would have been offered a place in each setting? Have they made any changes for 2023 such as reducing their Published Admission Number, eg. If they took 60 in 2022 but are only taking 30 in 2023, you may not get in.

Not sure about your reference to feeding grammars, it doesn’t work like that. Are the schools situated in a fully selective LA such as Kent, or do they just have a few grammar schools or will you need to cross LA boundaries for grammar schools.

Have you drilled into the results both over time and by pupil characteristics, e.g. prior high / middle / low attainers, FSM / PP children, boys and girls etc.

Have they had recent Ofsted inspections? Have you looked at previous reports? Have there been changes such as new headteacher, joining new academy trust, being sponsored?

Above all, visit and speak to the head and teachers. Look at information on their websites, read the newsletters - e.g. is the head resigning, are they consulting on changes etc. What’s the coverage like in the local press and on social media?

@FreshCop
That charity for music operates hardly anywhere in the uk. You are lucky that it’s in Liverpool and DC benefit. Elsewhere there’s virtually nothing like it. No orchestras in our bit of the countryside. So I think their good fortune is great for their Dc. However you need a certain amount of talent to play a musical instrument. It often runs in families. Dc are willing to practice. They are encouraged.

Yes. Dc starting from a “low” point with regards to English, who then make fantastic progress might well be from abroad. Perfectly possible. Maths less likely! Difficult for starters in y6 to make great progress though, so possibly these Dc come much earlier.

@FreshCop CAN YOU PLEASE SHARE THE LINK TO THE EXAM RESULTS YOU HAVE POSTED ABOVE IN THIS THREAD?

That data is really interesting!

School 2 does have slightly stronger scores and has more high achievers, with 12% exceeding expectations (6% for the first school).

So in a class of 30 expect 3 to be doing extremely well as opposed to 1.5 (lol) in the first school.

However, school 2 has a higher number not meeting expected targets at all 36% or 10 children in that class of 30 aren't meeting the basic standards (not their fault obviously! it will be for many many reasons as you are aware). That will also have an effect on classroom dynamics.

But the teaching in school 2 must be just outstanding with those progress scores. They must be able to push strong students up more than school 1 is (with the 12% exceeding opposed to 6).

From here I would cross-reference with Ofsted reports, school visits, distance to the school etc. But both seem to have real strengths.

I'd give School 3 a swerve, as much as possible.

@pjani where do you get these results from? link to it please?

@Razzmata See here:

I wouldn't underestimate nature versus nurture particularly at primary. Choose which school you feel your DC will enjoy most and feel comfortable in.

My Dds both went to a lovely but non-academic primary, focus on drama, art, forest school. It has good Ofsted rather than outstanding, which the more academic schools in our area have.

DD1 is now at a selective grammar school but she was always likely to be that kid as had a great ability to focus and memorise things from an early age, just an obvious love of learning. DD2 not so much and she's at the secondary comprehensive. I don't think a more academic school would have got her into the grammar - she got greater depth in all her SATs but just didn't have the extra focus needed. I also think if she had somehow fluked her way in, she would have struggled with that peer group.