So is the majority of teaching in UK primary schools really engaging and stimulating then?

[Kathyis12feethighandbites]

DD started reception in September and it all looked pretty good fun etc. She comes home from school full of the things she's learnt and I get the impression the teachers have a sense of humour and the kids have a nice time at school.
Anyway the school has just had an Ofsted that really slates the quality of the teaching - they get a 4 and have a Notice to Improve, and the report goes on about how sometimes children fidget in class because they are bored etc.

DH and I both reacted to this by saying 'OMG they should have seen the lessons we had to sit through when we were kids' - I mean, honestly, is the standard just so high these days that anything below total constant stimulation and engagement of all the kids in the class counts as inadequate?

If it is, that's great, but is it really?

It's all relative. Depends on your own school and your dd's, I guess.

I wrote on a thread a few months ago how impressed I was by maths teaching these days, which is just light years better than my childhood encounter with the subject. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a primary school in Britain which hasn't taken on those techniques. And similar improvements must have been made with literacy.

There does seem a lot more thought in the way Early Years learning is done these days. Just imo. Not everyone on that thread was as impressed as I was but, what can I say?, I think it's pretty amazing. It just seems so well structured and tailored to suit the ways children think and designed to build up a real feel for number.

However ... I was really sad to see that, in my dd's school a lot of the way teaching was done, beyond these techniques, was actually less "forward-thinking" than at my own first and middle schools. Which I was really surprised at.

Thanks Cherryblossom.
I think I probably do have fairly low expectations, because my primary school was very traditional, even for the 70s.... One teacher had an RE syllabus which consisted entirely of us tracing maps of the wanderings of the Israelites.

It may be that the foundation stage (reception)is good but that the rest of the school isn't. This does happen sometimes. Does it say anything about that? If the report is very recent Ofsted have just moved the goal posts (again) so it is pretty much impossible to get good grades if the SATs results are weak. Do you know what they're like in this case?

I would hate to have OFSTED in my class - I have 3 children with ADHD and 1 with autism - apparently that doesn't matter so they are expected to behave like 'normal' children (whatever that is). Whilst strategies are in place, they don't always work - it depends on the mood of the children that day, what they are learning about, the weather - you name it!! My lessons would fail because of the couple who constantly call out, and I mean constantly - despite incentives and punishments. I think that they have no idea what it is like in a fully inclusive class - they truely have a blinkered view of the ideal and if the environment does not fit it, you will fail.

Ofsted is going to be a bit of a blunt tool at the best of times; they see a snapshot and have to evaluate that very quickly. You know the school far better than they can do; if you are happy, then don't let this report spoil your feelings. If your dd is happy and excited and learning things, then that's all that matters, isn't it?

My daughter's school seems fab and she comes home everyday shattered but buzzing with all the things they've done

But maybe my expectations are low, as like Kathyis12feethighandbites, I had some dubious teaching at primary level. One maths teacher used to tear a page out of the phone book and leave us to add up all the numbers on that page

We don't have Ofsted or league tables, but I always thought a visit and and getting a feel for a school, seeing how happy the kids are carries more weight than league tables. But maybe I'm too lax about these things.

Riven - was the difference between your dcs' dreadful school and great school reflected in their Ofsteds?

Sararararah - foundation gets a 3, I think. I know the SATS were poor. It is a very small school (c. 110 kids) - we wonder if it is just a case of normal statistical fluctuation being much greater with small numbers, so the results have dipped since the last Ofsted but it is really within the bounds of normal random variation for those numbers.

I also wonder if it is partly about the demographic - it's a rural area with a lot of farming families, not many professional middle class, but actually not much deprivation - kids come from homes where they are happy & well-looked-after but which are not necessarily full of books. Hence you wouldn't actually expect the results to be brilliant but because the area is not actually deprived they don't get any leeway IYSWIM.

Cory - I think if we were further on I'd have more confidence in my own opinion but I really know nothing about primary education and dd only started in Sept, so I am a bit unsure what to expect! Certainly the school has a good reputation - it's a village school which attracts people from nearby towns.

Thanks for everyone's views, all really helpful.

In answer to the OP, I would say not necessarily. At dd's old school reception was fine, but beyond that it was very formal and while I don't object to that per se, some of the teaching seemed very dull. They did a lot of worksheets (timed) which I assumed was the norm, but dd's current school seem to approach things differently and it all sounds more interesting.

I just wonder if Ofsted's expectations are rather high then....
I suppose it could be that they came in and had to find evidence for what they had already decided, based on the SATS, that the school wasn't good enough, so then they were looking for any little thing such as 100% of children not being engaged 100% of the time. Given how bad they clearly think it was, I would have expected to see more evidence that it was bad but there doesn't seem to be an awful lot in the report to back it up.

Am feeling rather sorry for the teachers.

I did read recently, not sure if it's correct, that there's a 98% correlation between a school's test results and Ofsted rating.

My dc have moved from Outstanding to Good to a Satisfactory primary, as we've moved around, and we haven't noticed any difference whatsoever in quality of education, how engaged the children are with the school, how friendly it is, how many activities are available, or how the children do in their SATS. It makes the Ofsted results seem very suspect.

That's reassuring about your dcs' school, Fennel.

Of course we may just be not fussy enough, I do wonder sometimes. Given that so many people are unsatisfied with their Outstanding schools.

I also wonder if the schools which only get satisfactory might be better in some ways, our school (a cosy little village school, oversubscribed, very popular) is seen as child centred rather than results focused, which is quite nice, though obviously Ofsted isn't that impressed.

Ofsted rating and SAT results are directly tied -- quality of teaching matters a lot less than quality of intake, alas!!

I'd say DC have a mixed bag of experiences, definitely plenty of boring moments.

I suspect that 'Outstanding' schools tend to be too pushy and too focused on narrow academic topics. On MN when someone complains about their child's ridiculously excessive homework, said child is almost always at a Good to Outstanding school, never merely 'Satisfactory'.