One-form school?

[pizzanoodle]

Hi everyone,

We really like the tight-knit community of the one-form school. The teachers there say that they are able to observe the students more closely given that there are only 30 students in a year. They can provide more personalised attention to each kid.

Are these true in reality?

We also worry about whether one-form schools are underresourced. The teachers there also talk about having to wear different hats. Larger schools were sharing that teachers at smaller schools do not have time in reality to double as subject leads. They also say that in smaller schools, retention is more difficult as teachers will need to move elsewhere for career progression. I also worry about having enough people on the leadership team. At one large school we visited, there was one head, one deputy, three assistants and each year had a lead.

Are these worries unfounded?

Would be very interested in everyone's thoughts!

Thank you!

What is your alternative? A well run school with low staff turnover and engaged parent community is the key. Big schools can be well run or poorly run, so theoretical ‘efficiencies’ aren’t necessarily realised. Extra funding for disadvantaged children or send can be put to good use for the school more broadly, or it can be poorly deployed leaving children with additional needs poorly supported. There are also smaller schools that are incredibly well run, have experienced teachers who are much more efficient and have active ptas that help fund the extras.

There are pros and cons of both.

What they say is right, and there are elements of what you are worried about being right.

I would also add in, when you get one of "those" classes, the school can't split people up the next year.

Overall though, unless you have two equally good schools, equal distance from your home, that you liked as much as each other in every other aspect, I wouldn't put the fact it was a one form or 2, 3, 4, or 5 form school as a big thing to put me off or make me want to choose it. There are much more important things.

That said, you really don't seem keen on this school - so maybe you have made up your mind already ?

I've worked in different sized schools (2 form, 1 form and small village with an intake of 15 and mixed year groups). There are positives and negatives to each.

The idea that smaller schools are more able to give children individual attention is a myth. The smaller the school, the smaller the pool of staff. You'll generally find a similar staff to pupil ratio in any school. Smaller schools do naturally have smaller budgets so this can affect resources, but again this will be school dependent. Academies tend to be better resourced than LA schools. Some schools are better than others at priotising and spending wisely. Where others will continue to waste money in areas they could make savings if they were more savvy. Generally, the smaller the school the more savvy they need to be when it comes to the budget. That isn't necessarily a bad thing.

A smaller school is likely to have a tighter knit community feel, as the children stay with the same children year upon year. There are less parents for staff and other parents to get to know. However, this can be stifling in other ways. If children don't gel with certain children in the class, there is no scope to ever separate them. Whereas a 2 form entry will often mix the classes each year to iron out issues and provide better scope for new friendships.

The staff retention thing is also a bit of a myth. Yes it's true that some staff may choose to leave a smaller school after a few years to further their career, but not everyone harbours those ambitions. I've left a 2 form entry after just one year in the past as it wasn't the right fit for me. Their ethos was all wrong. So some larger schools have high turn over too if staff aren't happy. A school under new leadership will generally have a high turnover for a couple of years, regardless of size, until things settle down. Many long-standing members of staff will see it as the right time to move on, if they were close to the old head, and the new one will want to bring in their own people. Some schools remain very settled for years, if staff feel well supported and leadership is stable. Then suddenly it can be all change in the space of a couple of years. You can never really tell when things can suddenly change in a school. All it takes is a bad Ofsted, the head going and suddenly everyone is wanting out. That can happen in any size school. Equally, it's just as possible for everything to remain stable for years in a school if everything is going well, regardless of the size.

Environment and ethos is everything. I wouldn't base your decision on size alone, and assumptions on what that may mean. You need to visit schools yourself to really get a feel for which one is right for your family.

For me one form entry is the ideal size. I dislike the larger schools as I feel, based on my own experience, that they can become rather impersonal. However, I think it depends on you child and what you think will be the best fit for them.

Personally, it's too small for my taste. I prefer a bigger school where there are more options for friends, and you'd "know" more kids at least by sight at local extra curricular etc as well. One form entry leaves no room for mixing up classes if there are personality clashes, behaviour issues or bullying. It also means no ability to set for Maths and English (some people like or don't like this so might not be a problem).

And as a teacher, I would never have worked in one. I know a few people who do who are burned out or stressed because they have no year partner to share planning tasks with and they're having to take on extra roles outside class (the school needs to cover the same amount of subject leaderships or clubs etc with fewer staff). But their class is still 30 pupils so they're taking on those disadvantages without any benefits.

our dd goes to a one form entry class and it’s the best - she plays with older kids and everyone knows her by name. All the teachers know her also and us (she’s in reception). The small school made it a community environment rather than just being a “school” with a warm atmosphere. At a big school she will just be another student

Mine was at a single form entry.

Positives:
. It was nice you could know all the teachers, and they pretty much knew all the children.
. No mixing up of classes each year
. More opportunities in plays, teams etc.

Negatives
. Less choice of friends especially for the more quirky kids
. Less choice of extra curricular activities

Mine all went to a one-form entry school. The staff stayed for years, the head knew every child, the school was well-resourced (helped by an active PTA). Friendship issues could be dicey, but I've worked in bigger schools and the same applies to them.

I'd do it again.

(Mind you, I went to a half-a-form entry primary, so that probably influences my perspective.)

Dc went to a primary school with 56 pupils in total. So year groups were very small and only 3 classes. So reception, year 1 and 2, then years 3and 4 together and then 5 snd 6 together. The teachers knew all the kids well, they had a strong community feel and this was good. By year 5 though lack of different people to play with became an issue and they were both ready for secondary school to find new friends. I would do it again and dc loved a small school.

I think 1 form for KS1, and larger for KS2 is the ideal. So I guess that goes back to infants & junior school arrangements.

For those saying everyone knows us in a 1 form school, with the right staff, you get the same in a 3 form school. The head used to stand in the playground at 8.30 - different gate each day - and greet the kids by name.

But in reality how may of us get a legitimate choice? Yes, we put down preferences, but it is likely not to be of a massive choice of where you realistically will get a place.

On the retention thing, my mum worked at a small school (3 classes) for 25 years. Her colleagues usually had at least ten years before they moved on. They loved it, worked hard, led multiple subjects but were able to because it was such a small team it was easy to manage everyone
head outsourced some stuff eg it, caretaking but did a lot herself and adored it.

go, get a feel for the school. Remember each school is also trying to sell itself and the least confident ones will do it by putting others down instead of focusing on why they’re good for your child

It totally depends on the teacher. Personally I preferred being in control of all the planning in my small village school. I find it hard to relinquish control and let someone else take over. For me, it was actually quicker to plan it all myself and know exactly what I was doing in each subject, rather than have to read through plans someone else has written to work out what I'm doing in maths/science/reading etc that week.

There's can often be a lot of debate in 2+ form entry schools before you all settle on which way to do something, as everyone would naturally rather deliver it their own way. Sometimes it can be a case of too many cooks when ot comes to planning events. Most big schools are keen for each class to have the same opportunities and do things the same way, so it's great if year group partners are like-minded people but can be a nightmare if you and your year group partner are chalk and cheese in your approach.

Different schools suit different teachers as well as different children. Don't assume everyone who teachers in a small school is burnt out and stressed. Some people actively prefer it being the only teacher in the year group.

Yes I was going to say this too. In every school I've worked in the headteacher and deputy have always made a point of getting to know all the children, regardless of how many pupils there are. They'd be a pretty bad primary leaders if they didn't know all of their pupils.

It can be harder for teachers in a large school to know everyone, particularly those at the top end, but those who teach the younger ones and stay for a long time definitely get to know them all as they filter through.

It isn't true about the children getting more attention and the teachers noticing more in the smaller school, the ratios are still the same so the teachers are stretched more thinly as they will be subject leads, possibly other roles like SENDCO too.

We looked round schools that were between 1 and 3 form entry. The one form entry felt too small, tiny facilities, nowhere to go if there were problems with other children. It had 1 teacher and 2 TAs in Reception. The 2 form entry had 2 teachers and 4 TAs, then 3 form 3 teachers and 6 TAs as Reception was all in one room.

Practically that means more attention in the larger school as if one TA is totally taken up with perhaps helping kids over by the loo or listening to reading, that still leaves several in the rest of the room.

In the city where I live there are primary schools ranging from 1 to 4 forms per year. The one form schools tend to be the older more established schools in built up area and have no real room to expand. A friend has 4 children at one such school and she likes it because of the real community feel. Intake is standard arrangement so mostly local children. All the teachers get to know all the children well and the school has a thriving sports initiative. Another friend has children at a larger school. On the face of it it seems better resourced but the size means that communication can be awful and in some cases problems arise because issues are dealt with by a range of people rather than one. My friend is seriously considering moving her last child to a smaller school where he won't just be a number or referred to as 'Jones number 3' (not to hid face but definitely has happened). Go with your instinct.

Thank you so much everyone! Really appreciate your thoughts. We have visited the school already and really like it. It's really trying to understand whether we are being too optimistic and buying into a dream or is that the reality! We're trying to connect with some parents who have their children at the school to get a more informed decision and will for sure be asking about the points that everyone raised here.

What do you mean by "set for math and English"?

Thank you, this is really helpful info! We're looking at government website on each school's workforce data and it looks like smaller schools generally have a better teacher to pupil ratio? Perhaps I am reading things wrongly!

What do you mean by "set for math and English"?

I wasn't the poster that wrote that, but my dc went to a school that was 3 form entry. Every day, the 30 children who found maths easy did their maths lessons together, and were challenged and not bored. The children that struggled more, did their maths lessons together, with more practical reinforcement and they had a TA in the room. The 'middle' children did their maths together.

As the poster said, some people will argue this is much better, others disagree, but there isn't the option for this to happen when it is one form entry, as the teacher is trying to cover about 5 or 6 different ability levels within the one class.

I have heard from more than one secondary school teacher that the children from my dcs' Primary school commonly make the transition to secondary much more easily as they were used to moving rooms and being taught by more than one teacher each day. It was just normal to not be completely dependent on only having one teacher.

Yes, we found this too with the informal setting for maths and English in a bigger school so it was easier to place kids where they would be challenged at an appropriate level and have the right support in place.

'Setting' at primary schools is actually a very outdated approach now. It's still favoured by parents of high ability children, who like the idea of their child being pushed ahead of their peers (and the bragging rights of "my child is in the top set" which comes with this). There's a lot of research now though to back up how this approach rushes the top set through, with little chance to consolidate (which can have a negative impact on those who just scraped into the group and end up unnecessarily struggling and demoralised), and fails the rest of the class as those in lower sets are never exposed to certain concepts and are therefore never given a chance to catch up.

Class groupings should be fluid, with opportunities for all children to be challenged in areas they find easier and more supported in areas they need it. Mixed ability talk partners is a great way of bringing both learners on (understanding something is one thing, being able to explain it to someone else requires higher order skills and helps cement it in your mind).

Some larger schools do still set for things like phonics and maths, but it can be demoralising for those in the lower sets (they definitely know) and is thankfully an approach on it's way out.

My kids went to a one form entry school. All the children grow up together in the same class which I think is lovely. I also know all the teachers and staff. I don’t think this translates into better outcomes for the kids though.

lots of schools round here are even smaller, mixed classes and so on. I wouldn’t be so keen on that.

generalising hugely, the bigger the school the more extra curricular and wraparound activities are likely to be on offer and between them the teacher are able to offer a broad range of expertise. But they’re not necessarily the most important reasons to choose a particular school.

I don't know what data you're referring to but if it's just 'teacher' to child ratio that sounds correct, and can he misleading. A small school with classes of 22 will have a better teacher to child ratio than a large school with 30 children on each class. There's a high chance that small class won't have a teaching assistant though, or will share one across 2 or 3 classes due to budget cuts. A class of 30 are statistically more likely to still have their own full time class TA (not always, as sadly budget cuts are hitting really hard now and even teachers of classes of 30 are having to cope without a TA in many areas). Teachers in smaller schools are definitely less likely to have a TA if they have a class of under 25 pupils, so there are less adults in the classroom to support the children with their learning.

In a larger primary school, say two forms, there will be two teachers and two TA’s. You can split the whole group of kids in 4 groups for purposes of focusing on particular educational needs (eg a special group for phonics or maths). Whereas in a small school with one form, one teacher and TA can only split the class in half.

A small school won’t harm them, but bear in mind they may be in a group with much lower or higher ability kids so in that case the teacher has to use different techniques to focus on the kids who need more help or need differentiated work for high ability. They can’t use the “mass education” approach of a larger school.

My dd went to a three form primary. At ks2 the school the kids who were falling behind in certain topics for sats went into special focus groups just to hit those topics really hard. It was very efficient tbh and the kids did really well. But presumably small schools have other ways of dealing wit these needs

Ours was 3 form but it was the closest to us.