Which primary school?

[Pohtayton]

So I live rurally, and there are three primaries in various villages that are each about a 5 minute drive from our house, and which are all 1 form entry, and all start at reception (none of them habe a nursery), and all have the same ethnic makeup. We are only considering primaries one and two, as Primary three has a reputation for bullying.

Primary 1 has a new (less than a year old) Ofsted outstanding rating, and since it received that the three schools have gone from all being equally slightly under subscribed, to Primary 1 being oversubscribed, taking a mix of local children and children commuting to the school from other areas, and the other two schools only having about 18-22 kids per year group.

Primary 1 has quite shabby facilities and very little green space, but is in an affluent area (only 3% of the kids are FSM), and has wraparound as well as an assortment of daily afterschool clubs. Parents who have kids there seem neutral/mildly positive about the school. However the school seem very rigid when it comes to the curriculum (I.e: they have an expectation that all kids read every book 3 times from their reading scheme), so there doesn't seem to be much differentiation. Sats are good, 70-80% are working at the expected standard, and 30-40% are working at the higher standard. If my child goes there, they will be one of 30 in their year.

Primary 2 is a cute little village primary in a more middle class area (14% FSM) with a "good" ofsted rating. It has wraparound, but no extracurricular clubs after school. They are part of a multi academy trust and get funding from a very active PTA. The school has lots of green space and the children garden and keep chickens and tortoises and do nice enrichment activities as part of the school day. The school seems very nurturing, the head knows every pupil by name, and parents are extremely positive about the school and the values the school instills in the children. SATs results are good, 90% reaching the expected standard, 20-30% reaching the higher standard. They seem quite flexible about helping children who struggle, or stretching children who are higher achieving. My child would be one of 22 at that school.

We are in a grammar school area, and Nursery have noted that my child is inexplicably very ahead of expectations for their age, so I am a bit torn about which school would be best for my child.

Go with your heart. School 2.

I'd pick 2 because it sounds very like the village school my DC attended and it was fabulous for them.
Have you visited? If not, you may find it becomes clearer for you once you have. DH and I looked at lots of schools when we were at this stage. They all had pros and cons and we created a spreadsheet. We're both scientists and we were going to make a logical, balanced decision. Then we visited the school they eventually went to and we both decided independently and within minutes that this was the right place. I just knew it was an environment my DC would thrive in, even though we'd seen some schools with better facilities, better SATs results and better Ofsted grading.
I'm not sure whether you are writing more positively about school 2 or I'm just reading it that way because I can relate to it, but I get the feeling that you want school 2 but maybe feel as though you should favour school 1?If so, wouldn't ignore your gut feeling, and never underestimate the importance of a child being happy and secure in their school environment.

It’s clear you prefer school 2 so I would go for that. I don’t see from your post what you like about school 1 other than its Ofsted rating? We chose a Good school over an Outstanding one because we liked it better and we had a great gut feel about the place. No regrets.

How recent is the Ofsted inspection of school 2? Have you tracked the KS2 results over time and by pupil cohorts, e.g. attainment of girls and boys. Do you have information on leaver destinations and whether they act as named feeder schools? Have you checked whether school 2 is due to be rebuilt?

P2 for me. It sounds like everything I'd want in a primary school. After
school clubs are not the be all and end all and neither is Ofsted.

Well you clearly prefer 2, so go with that. (I'd check that with only 22 in a year, that there are not mixed age group classes, and they are actually in a class of 30).

Also, visit school 3. Discounting a school based on "reputation" is not a good idea. Is it a reputation based on current behaviour (or from 10 years ago, as was the case at my DC's junior school)? If it has a reputation for bullying, you may find that the school is now clamping down on it and it's less of a problem there than the other 2 schools.

@RedSkyDelights it's the combination of bullying and abysmal SATs results at school 3 that put us off. SATs are well below national average despite school 3 taking kids from the same areas as schools 1 and 2, who have great SATs results.

School 3 tends to be initially more popular than school 2 as it can be walked to if you live in that village, whereas school 2 has to be driven to because of its location. But then the bullying kicks in and kids move from school 3 to school 2. It's still the case now

Read the full ofsted report, I looked at one for high school which was good and it was very minor issue which we could work resolve by extra curricular activities.
I would choose 2 especially for infants as they do a lot of play and outside enrichment was my key decider in choosing a school.

Have you visited the schools? Generally it helps tonhave a gut feeling- DD's school wasn't my top choice before visiting, but was 100% my top choice after a visit.

Think carefully about the right school for your child, as they will be the one attending. Is your child one that would enjoy the outdoor life, or do they prefer rigid structure?

I generally wouldn't be swayed by an ofsted rating (unless it was a bad one) as they rarely give the full picture.

FWIW, it sounds like school 2 will give your child a more rounded experience, and it sounds like that is where your heart lies.

I'd go for the better space/facilities and more nurturing feel of school 2. Ofsted graded outstanding really isn't as amazing as it sounds on paper, as Ofsted value different things to parents, pupils and teachers. School 2 definitely sounds the nicer of the two options. The fact parents at school 1 give mixed reviews says it all.

Choose happiness. They only get to do the primary school journey once and it's such an important stage in their lives. Make it as exciting and magical as possible and they'll thrive.

High achieving DC here.

I suspect P1 would be better at pushing your child if they are bright / achieving. Whilst the school will have a fixed routine, parents pushing and engaging can drive a school. And I suspect that happens more in P1 than P2.

Also high achieving pupils will need added enrichment like chess and music. More likely at P1 than P2

What I will say is one form entry has suited neither of my high achieving kids. There just isn't the competition for them to have peer equals. It's hard.

Also SATS results are wholly dependent on the intake rather than teaching quality IMO.

As a teacher, I would advise visiting each school during the day whilst the children are there and get a feel for which you prefer. You'll know which one is the best fit for your child.

@JustMarriedBecca I think I'm torn because school 2 gets much better results in all the earlier years of school (90-100% reach a good level of development by the end of reception, pass the phonics screening check, pass the multiplication check).

School 1 gets fewer children to expected standard than school 2 at year 6 SATs, but slightly more (10%ish?) to higher standard than school 2.

With it being a grammar school county, with school 1 being in a richer area, and with the slight ability difference appearing so late in the children's education, I do wonder if school 1's year 6 SATs results are being bolstered by the higher ability children being tutored for the 11 plus outside of school.

I think I like school 2 because they are known to have a strong anti-bullying ethos, and are known to adapt to individual children and were proudly telling me how they had previously differentiated work for previous very able children, and my DC is bright but quirky.

However with school 1 being in a nicer area, a higher proportion of the children might come from driven, academically focused families, and it would be nice for DC to go to a school where working hard is seen as good. They've also got a bigger cohort and are probably more likely to afford tuition and the bus transport to the grammar schools, so school 1 possibly gives my DC a higher chance of going to secondary school with friends if they happen to get into grammar school. There's just so much to weigh up

School 2 would have suited my very different children I think. None of mine would have done well in a very rigid environment.

I'd actually be very suss of a school quoting 90% - 100% GLD at the end of Reception each year, especially a small school where each child is worth such a high percentage. Assessment against the Early Learning Goals is not a test that can be coached to, it's teacher assessment. By nature, judgements can be subjective. If they are saying nearly every child gets GLD every year I would be dubious as to how accurate that data is. Instead of impressing me, as an experienced Reception teacher I'd be wondering how on Earth they apparently manage to get children with communication and language difficulties, physical barriers or personal, social and emotional needs there. You're not telling me they never experience children with such needs?

Unlike tests in other year groups, obtaining GLD is not just about being good at, or even coached through, the academics. It's about being well rounded across the board. It's a contentious measure of success (as many academic children miss out on achieving it due to personal struggles in other areas, such as regulating their emotions, building relationships or fine motor control).

School 2 does sound lovely, but I would question the validity of this too good to be true data in Reception. National GLD last year was 67.7%, so 90-100% every year sounds ridiculously high. I can believe a small village school could obtain that some years, depending on the cohort, but it would be balanced with other years where a few children miss out for certain reasons beyond their control, and it dips to the high 70s/low 80s (which would still be amazing data!). I work in a very deprived area, so my cohort is likely very different, but we are proud to be above national most years. I've never had a cohort above 80% GLD though, that sounds incredibly unrealistic to me and I would seriously question how accurate those assessments are. It sounds like some classic 'data fudging' may be going on, where children achieve the Early Learning Goals in all but one area, so are put through anyway. It does sadly happen.

@BoleynMemories13 the GLD data is just this year's data, I have scoured all the resources to find out about both schools, but I can't find data going year's back

Parent of a v bright DS coming to the other end of primary.

I'd choose school 2 over school 1 in a heartbeat. With "bright but quirky" as you've put it, IME you quickly learn you'd sell your soul for the school that actually "gets" your child, tries its best to differentiate for them and to keep their love of learning alive, lets them explore their interests and offers great pastoral support. Whereas "rigid curriculum" and "makes all the children read every reading scheme book three times" would have me running for the hills.

I wouldn't put that much emphasis on school 1's better ks2 SATS results myself - with the demographic, it's probably a combination of private tutoring for 11+, and the school being efficient at teaching to the test (which is usually torture for v bright kids).

Socially, I'd worry a little bit about a 1 form/year school, particularly for upper primary years, as it's a smaller pool to find your tribe in, but you haven't got a choice there. Anyway, you can encourage going to out of school clubs to widen her friendship group and pursue interests, whichever school she goes to.

I'd choose school 2 over school 1 in a heartbeat. With "bright but quirky" as you've put it, IME you quickly learn you'd sell your soul for the school that actually "gets" your child, tries its best to differentiate for them and to keep their love of learning alive, lets them explore their interests and offers great pastoral support. Whereas "rigid curriculum" and "makes all the children read every reading scheme book three times" would have me running for the hills.
I absolutely agree with this. My children are a lot older - at University or graduated - so primary school is a distant memory now, but this is exactly what their primary school offered them. Their head teacher was an incredible educator and she attracted teachers with the same ethos as her. They really did value each child and treat them as individuals. It wasn't a SATs factory that delivered the national curriculum to the letter and nothing else, which is pretty much how I perceived the nearby "Oustanding" primary school that parents virtually stab each other in the back to try to get places in here. But my children had what I consider to be a genuinely outstanding primary education that gave them a great foundation for the rest of their education and indeed for the rest of their lives.

I’d visit all three and get a feel for each of them. What seems positive or negative initially might be different when you visit.

Do you meet the entry criteria for all three?

@Bluevelvetsofa schools 2 and 3 are undersubscribed, so if we wanted a place there one would be available. School 1 is only fully subscribed because people travel from other areas to go there, so again on distance if we wanted a place, one would easily be available

Well first of all ignore Ofsted and SATS results. They tell you nothing. Get a feel for the environment and how the staff speak to you. Also consider your child. IMO I went to a small little village school for a short time and most of the kids were cunts, because their parents were also incidentally cunts. Just being honest.

No brainer, school 2. It just sounds like a nicer more rounded school environment, if your child is bright they will fulfil their potential there anyway. I'm not a fan of primary schools that are overly strict or rigid, I'd rather my child actually enjoys being at school above anything else.

School number 2 sounds exactly like where I teach. I’m the reception teacher there. Go with number 2. I wouldn’t work anywhere else!

Apologies, I read that as you saying they always have GLD data 90% or above. I wouldn't read too much into one year of results, especially in a small school where each child is worth such a high percentage. One year they could easily have no SEN and achieve what look like amazing results, another year they may have 3 or 4 in the cohort with specific needs meaning they don't achieve GLD, which can make the data look wildly different. Each cohort is different and therefore GLD data can fluctuate through no fault of the school.