Should we make a decision based purely on OFSTEDs?

[NemosKnickers]

My DS wants to go to the nearest comp (School A) which has been rated as 'requires Improvement' in 2016. This is because about 80% of his peers from school will also go there.

We applied for School B a bit further away which has an Outstanding Ofsted from 2009, but we didn't get in and so we'd accepted this and were going to make the most of School A.

However, I have now just heard that he has got a place from the waiting list for School B and I'm dreading telling him. He will be really devastated. He never wanted to go to School B.

I don't know anyone with kids at either school, I can't find any meaningful reviews online for either school and so I only have the Ofsteds and results to go off. School B gets better results across the different measurements.

I've looked at both school's websites and nothing is standing out to me as being obviously better than the other.

So, we have to just go with the school that's better on paper don't we?

Have I missed any other way of making this decision?

I think the ebacc figures for high achievers say a lot about the 2 schools.
In school A only half of the clever kids leave with the full range of academic subjects,mcompared to 92% at B. That means in B, the clever kids are pushed towards languages and humanities, but in A they are not so much and even though those kids are capable of doing the full range, many end up with other options. This just says something to me about the focus put on the academic subjects and level of push given to the brighter kids. It is a marked difference in figures. To really know if it matters we need to know the % of high middle and low performers in the school.

Oh, sorry, Attainment 8 and progress 8 for high attainers. Both are interesting, because they tell you slightly different things. A grammar, for example, often has high attainment 8 for high attainers - because most will be amongst the higher high attainers - but may well have a low prgress 8 for the same group because those high levels just represent expected progress.

Chocolate,. however, it can just mean that they do compulsory RE GCSE or that RE is very well taught so many choose it as an option!

I note with interest that everyone seems more suspicious of the outstanding school than the RI one, which is curious!

As I said form the outset, I work in an outstanding secondary and DS1 has attended an RI school. The data aren't hugely different. In fact the RI school has always been a lot complacent about its result relative to the wider LEA.

But I do know my outstanding school is definitely a far far better school in nearly every way.

Still sending DS2 t the local school because he will work hard and get involved in music and stuff no doubt.

Do you think the RE thing explains the 42% difference in high achievers getting eBac? I think RE could account for some of it, but not to this level.
Here we are trying to help the OP use the info and interpret it as best as she can. As you say, the figures all have to be interpreted and don't give the full story. However, there is a marked difference in these figures.

OP, what % of students are high,middle and low attainers for each school. This is pretty important.

I think the issue is that the Outstanding school was inspected so long ago, whereas the RI is recent and is thus more likely to reflect 'current reality'.

And I agree that the level of suspicion about the Outstanding school is odd. Sometimes I think there is almost an inverse snobbery about these things.

On the data alone, I would be going for School B. The journey is not off putting and socially the boy could get fully involved at school and with friends because of this. Seems to suit a bright child better.

What reason would there be to choose A over B, when both are in walking distance? On what counts does A actually win?

I wouldn't rely heavily on Ofsted for a decision like this. Their criteria are not necessarily the things that concern parents.

I'd let him go to the closer school with all his friends. My dd goes to a school further away that very few near us go to and it is a bigger issue than I thought it would be, socially. She chose this but if she hadn't I expect she would blame me and want to move.

If it doesn't work out you can always move him.

Yes but cant - the Outstanding school is a victim of its own success there! My school was last done in 2008.

Unless our head invites them in - which would not exactly go down well with his staff- we won't be inspected again unless our results plummet , which means we would be unlikely to get an outstanding. It's an unusual pressure these schools live under , on constant high alert , bit like the Cold War!

And I agree that the level of suspicion about the Outstanding school is odd. Sometimes I think there is almost an inverse snobbery about these things.

No it's just insight into how some schools play the system and chase the "outstanding" rating at the expense of pupils.

I would (and have) sent my child to a farther away school on transport if the other school is really very much better than the local one. However, all that faffing on buses and difficulties in making local friends has to be worth it. If your local school is above average in terms of attainment/progress scores, or the two schools are pretty similar with an edge towards one being better, I'd put him in the local school. It's a huge advantage having a child be able to walk to school and get independent, not worry about slow/missing bus.

For me the important thing was that the op's son wanted to go to school A with his friends, and it's a bit difficult to see how it could be RI with reasonably OK results so it was worth digging a bit to see what was going on....I'm still a bit puzzled about that.

I also think that people are snobbish about state schools being "outstanding". It goes against the narrative that they are all mediocre at best- as if they are getting too big for their boots.......

Serf,

There is also the point that the criteria needed to get 'Outstanding' 7 years ago were probably lower than those needed to get a secure 'Good' now. Ofsted have toughened up the criteria BUT haven't gone back to re-evaluate the schools with Outstanding ratings against the new higher standards.

Thus a recently-inspected Good school may well be better now than an old Outstanding school was when it was inspected ... regardless of any game playing or otherwise.

Ofsted inspection reports would be at the bottom of my list of considerations. Progress 8, attainment 8, % achieving EBAC but also the curriculum offer ,- do both schools offer a wide curriculum, including arts, sports etc? In my experience many schools that achieve outstanding do so by limiting the curriculum to core and ebacc subjects, cutting arts, music etc in order to play the system.

Visit both schools during the working day. Which is the best fit for your child? Which school will develop the whole child and not just churn out exam results? There is also a lot to be gained by allowing your son to go to a school that he will be happy in. Good luck

That too @cantkeepawayforever exacerbated by the longevity the reduced inspection regime gives a higher rating, which is ridiculous.

Can you imagine a comparable MOT system? "No advisories this time, so we won't need to see you again for five years."

I am not normally such a zealot about my own school but that is absolutely not true of my school ! We have a much wider A level and GCSE offer than most. Our main negative is sheer popularity equals an ever increasing roll so large class sizes at times and packed corridors.

Oh, and don't forget the RI school might inevitable struggle to recruit and retain staff.

Maybe do a bit of digging on the new head! Google his/her name and see where s/he has been before.

we won't be inspected again unless our results plummet

Not necessarily, results aren't the only criteria for triggering an inspection, safeguarding etc might be an issue. Even if headline results are good, the DfE come up with new definitions and criteria for schools to panic over. 'Coasting' for example is poorly-defined. Schools can have an inspection triggered if PP students perform badly in comparison to non-PP. PP wasn't even introduced till 2010!

I heard of a school where a parental complaint triggered an Ofsted inspection - turned out to be still Outstanding, but gossip suggested that it took the head a few moments to be convinced that the inspector on the phone wasn't a prankster....

"I heard of a school where a parental complaint triggered an Ofsted inspection - "
I really don't think it works like that.......

I think this is exactly what I am trying to say : what I mean is that the fact that they haven't been reinspected means the school is a solid school.

It can do, if it's a serious safe guarding issue. General moan about marking etc, unlikely.

Bert, it was, I believe, a safeguarding complaint that Ofsted believed to by a qualifying complaint.

Whether it had substance or not - the fact the school remained Outstanding suggests perhaps not - my understanding was that it had been deemed serious enough to trigger a inspection.

You should 100% send you're child to the outstanding school imo. As a teacher I'd say a school really has to be bad to be bad to get RI. The staff churn is phenomenal in a RI school which will be bad for your son as well. Friendships change a lot from primary. So though his initial start will be hard he will probably settle in fine.