Are these awful primary results?

[Shoobidowhop]

Applying this year, this is our catchment school.

Attached the results but in summary 40% meet expected standards, 0% higher standards.

That class was tiny, 10 students, current intake is back up to 25-30. I know that less children have a bigger impact on the data.

When asked, the head referenced the small size but then said their results were in line nationally, which didn't feel right at that looks like 60%.
Also said their KS1 results in phonics were improving so the expect this to translate into higher results in future years.

I'm not fussed about a SATs factory but it did worry me. Other schools around are 70% meeting expected standards, naice area but tight catchments.

Would this worry you?

10 children, each child counts 10%.
What were the previous results like?

As the average scores aren't TOO bad, it looks like they had some children who were good at reading but not maths and some good at maths but not reading or some good at writing but not one or the other! They only had 4 of the 10 who were good at everything! It's not brilliant but it's not the worst I've ever seen! I would look at previous cohorts to get a better picture!

Tricky to tell, in 2 years the cohort were too small to publish apparently. In 2021 it says 64% met expected standards but conscious that was a covid year so I think everyone was higher?

The school was "requires improvements" until 2019 and I know lost a lot of pupils hence the low numbers.

Did they have a high level of extra need in this cohort? SEN, English as a foreign language?

Oh that's a good point, I hadn't thought of it like that (and all the numbers were confusing!) Thank you

One question I would be asking is whether that class of ten really existed as a class, or if it was merged with another year group. Few schools could afford to staff such a small class. Mixed age classes are another problem entirely if this is done routinely.

Are these results for the cohort that's just left, or for a cohort that's still passing through the school? If this cohort of ten is still within the school, what potential impact that managing this cohort could have on the new intake year?

The small sample size means that the higher achievement stats aren't significant either way looking at the local and national average. But if this was genuinely a small class (see my opening paragraph) you might expect this to translate into average or above average performance against the expected standard.

I've delved deeper 6/10 were classed as disadvantaged pupils.
No EAL.
5/10 classed as low prior attainment. 2/10 middle. 3/10 high.
So results possibly not unexpected?

No idea if my own child will do well academically or not of course! Just want to make sure they fulfil their potential.

They were in mixed classes, year 5 and 6 I believe. These children will now be at secondary.

Now back up to single classes per year group throughout KS1

Can you ask about progress rather than attainment? That might give you a better idea as to the school's effectiveness.

It's tough to know. There are some children who struggle despite interventions and parental help. Others whose parents won't or can't help at home. I know of many instances where poverty does not correlate with achievement, but often PP children will have harder life chances and perform less well. Could you look at other stats that might indicate the cohort had external factors that influenced their success?

Same for SEN. Many children with SEN perform fantastically, but if the SEN is something like global developmental delay, then the child can struggle to ever catch up. It's crap and I'm sure there'll be some schools that do get great results, but many are under resourced, and many classrooms contain 2-3 children who are undiagnosed but in need of support to access work, support that has to come from the teacher who has to find ways to do this while pushing and supporting the meeting/ greater depth children too. With high turnover of teaching staff, this can be an issue as often knowing how best to do this comes with experience.

If you haven't visited, I'd do that. It tells you so much about a school, more than stats ever could.

I also agree about the 'across the board' nature of success. I know many children who will meet or be GD in 1-2 of those areas but have one they don't. Writing is particularly hard to achieve GD in.

In small schools you can get massive variation in results as it's do dependent on the children.

You shouldn't look at one year's results. Look over a number of years.

Are those the progress scores at the top? ( hard to read in my phone!) Again, they're not TOO bad, especially given that 50% of the cohort were lower ability ( which does often, but not always, correlate with lower progress).

10 children is too small for these results to be meaningful.

For them to be "average" for England they would be expected for one of the 10 children to be at higher level and 5 or 6 at expected (I'm not sure whether the 60% includes the 10% or excludes it)

It just requires the brightest child in the class, plus one or two other above-average ones, to be poorly on test day, or not understand a confusing question, and the whole results are massively skewed. Whereas in a 2-form school with 60 children, one poorly child will only skew the results by 1%

Yes, this would put me off, especially if other local schools are also small but performing better.

Small class sizes can bring skewed results for both good & bad BUT that is way under national average (20% below) and the fact that the Head lied about that is concerning.

Do they display data for last year's cohort, too? So you have a better idea of the current state of play? For what it's worth, DS has just left a small rural school so his year's SATs are up but the year before that did take SATs so their results should be available (obviously the few years prior to that were Covid years).

The 'too small to publish' thing is bull, in my opinion.

There were 8 kids in the year below my son - they were still published. I think the lowest they've had is 5.

If their writing was moderated by the local authority, which happens usually once every four years, that is likely to suppress writing results, which brings down the combined RWM. Look at each subject individually for a better picture.

But results don’t tell the whole story. Look for the school development plan on the website, have a look at how recently the curriculum has been overhauled. Does it look they have addressed the areas raised in the Ofsted report?

I agree with the person who said look at the progress scores, which were 'average' for all. That means that given the cohort, they all progressed to an average level.

So it's not below average, so the teaching/culture is ok. But it's not above average progress, which obviously would be better - where students start out being a little behind, a push forward through great teaching - or whatever else - is ideal.

I also think in a class of 10 they were probably getting a decent amount of attention each and would have been very well known, strengths and weaknesses, by the teacher. Is there a chance that things could get worse with a cohort that maybe struggles a little, with average teaching/culture, now in much bigger classes?

What other options have you got? And what did it feel like when you went there?

I liked the feel of the school, well cared for, felt calm, engaged confident kids showing us around. Forest school on site. It's smaller than I'd like due to the low numbers higher up the school so less clubs etc, but there's only 1 form entries around here. Also, out of school I don't love the behaviour I've seen at a nearby playground etc.

Other options:
-Outstanding & massively oversubscribed, no chance
-Outstanding & catholic (we're not!) But going to view
-Good, but furthest away and doesn't feel worth the faff. Its fine.
-Independent

Thanks for all the food for thought.

birth rates have dropped & many primary schools have falling rolls so don’t be put off trying ones that were previously out of reach. Have you looked at previous yrs furthest distance offers?

I’d be worried about this one reducing even further.

@Cremacreme good point we will definitely try, however the oversubscribed one had the shortest distance ever this year, despite it being the lowest birthday year!

It's not, it's official - 6 children or fewer and you don't report. It risks being too identifying for the children and it's meaningless to judge a school by. It's meaningless even for cohorts of 10ish. We have year groups where all children are summer born, or all children are pupil premium, or all children are middle ability, or all children are boys. It tells you very little about the school' teaching.

I stand corrected!

Although I bet there have been some fluke years where 6 kids have all been high achievers and the school has wanted to post fab results 😂

Thanks.

Oh yes, 100% reaching Expected or Greater Depth in R, W, M and EGPS. That doesn't tell you anything either!

Having said that, so many things skew results. It's not hard to get great SATs results in an affluent area. Infant schools are something like 75% more likely to be graded Outstanding than junior schools. It's all lies, damned lies and statistics.