Do parents improve schools?

[justanotherdaduser]

I see this frequently mentioned that 'sharp elbowed and pushy' middle class parents can improve schools by demanding better service. Often it is implied that all else equal, an influx DCs of such parents will improve state schools at no extra cost to tax payers.

Does this actually happen? Has anyone experienced such transformation triggered by parents?

My own experience, albeit with a data size of exactly one, is nothing like that. DC went to a state primary that for 7 years remained firmly in 'Requires improvement' mode or worse, went through 3 headteachers.

Concerned parents, many middle class (though not all), made no difference whatsoever. The school as an institution had an inertia of its own, firmly set in its ways, low academic expectations from its students, and little incentive to change based on parental pressure. Those who could, left the area over the years and bought houses elsewhere. Is our experience an exception? Were we not middle class or sharp elbowed enough?

One of the biggest difference is money, I know PTAs that raise thousands for libraries, swimming pools, bus, etc & just having an army of parents to assist with trips, reading, etc

I think that parents can change a school, BUT the senior leadership team have also got to want to see improvement and have high expectations. My DCs went to an amazing primary in London, with very involved parents, an active PTA, and a head who would allow parents to, say, fundraise for and install a roof garden, run a school-wide art project that was then exhibited in public and got widespread national press which the children were really inspired by, run after school clubs teaching languages etc. we moved to East Sussex, on the coast, and I hoped to find similar. All looked promising, but the staff at school just said no to every idea, and admitted that their aim was just to get all children through at 'meeting expectations' (no 'greater depth')- so the sharp elbowed middle class parents (including me) moved their children. Now the DCs are at an outstanding secondary- active PTA, fundraising for extra music, etc. etc. - AND an inspired and pushy senior leadership team with very high expectations.

If a school is considered "great" then you are more likely to get parents who tutor or are prepared to tutor so that will help raised standards.

In my area the State Primaries are Outstanding and mostly shit because the middle class parents get their kids high SATs scores through tutoring (which also allows them to then move to the Private Secondary). The kids whose parents can’t afford tutoring tend to struggle - as shown by the local Secondaries poor results and Ofsted ratings.

Parents who are involved and fundraise can raise tens of thousands for the school that they otherwise wouldn’t have.

Willing and able parents volunteering to hear readers, support with arts and crafts can really benefit the children.

Having intelligent, knowledge and capable parents on the governing body can really make a difference.

There were significant gang problems and resulting consequences.

@OhCrumbsWhereNow wrote:
“Where I saw a big difference was at primary level between the kinds of teachers we had in London (young, ambitious, still pretty bushy tailed, lots doing Masters degrees, basically felt a bit like a finishing school for future super-heads) and those my siblings' kids had out in a rural location (all in their 50s, been there forever, moaned about any changes that ever came in, jaded with the system and their jobs). The SATS result differences were stark - and yet the London school was massively more deprived: 72% FSM, 65% EAL, 28% SEN at the time.”

London schools get far better funding than the rest of the country - over 46% more than in East Anglia in 2021-2022, for example. Teachers in London earn more than in the rest of the country, but not 46% more

It depends why it is failing; e.g. insufficient funds to build a new science lab so they can expand practical work sure middle class parents can help - fund raising, corporate sponsorship or indeed construction.

Can they change a school that a large proportion of the catchment is potentially NEETs unlikely that takes grass root support and factor above other parents control.

@OhCrumbsWhereNow but no one actually got stabbed in school did they?

Yes they were - thankfully they survived.

@OhCrumbsWhereNow In the 70s?

I know there was a stabbing in the 00s - I grew up not that far away.

Tbf lots of London was quite rough in the 80s/early 90s

I don't know about the 70s but certainly in the 90s there were big problems between rival gangs.

Two boys were stabbed by another in 2015. He was charged with attempted murder.

Although I thought the 00s one wasn't on site

Built in the 50s, by the 70s it was somewhere you avoided - bit stabby and terrible results - and was in special measures by 1998.

This is what confused me as I wasn't alive in the 70s & thought you were saying it was bad in the 70s. I was surprised knife crime was a thing then.

By 2013 it was one of the most popular schools in the UK, and is now one of the most over-subscribed schools in London and Ofsted Outstanding.

But stabbings happened in 2015.

London is London and no school is going to be without problem students.

Yes as someone born there & educated there I'm fully aware...

This is a really interesting discussion, so following with interest.

As there's a lot of discussion about Kingsdale, I thought I'd add my observations, particularly about catchments and the like which were discussed a bit earlier.

I grew up very close to there in the 80s. If was our closest state secondary when I was changing school and I also agree the reputation then was awful. On the 'stabby' comment', I'm not 100% sure about that but there were reported to be serious drugs problems at times in the mid-80s. We don't live right by it now, but are close enough that it is an option for us now we're looking at secondaries. Speaking to other parents at my son's primary school who also grew up near by, but are maybe about 10 years younger than me, they also remember it having a similar reputation

I don't know what actually lead to the change from then to now, but it has had a complete change. We went to see it last week and it is unrecognisable. For me, one thing that was noticeable was a lot of the families struck me as similar to the kind of middle class professional type of families I grew up around who avoided it in the past.

What I would say though it is not just about a change of catchment. The area it is in is very affluent. When I was growing up everyone near by would avoid it like the plague, either by going private or doing all they could to get their children into state options with better reputations in other areas. It is very unlikely it was oversubscribed so the idea of a catchment is pretty meaningless - it was the sort of place people would be allocated as a last option. What has happened is Kingsdale now has no catchment, so is by lottery. This may have helped, but just being more attractive to local parents would equally have changed the cohort. You can see this by the success of the Dulwich Charter schools which are very close. But with Kingsdale it is now the case that being close is no guarantee of a place.

An interesting comparison is the Charter schools. At the same time in the 80s, on the site of Charter North was William Penn, which was a boys school. It also had an awful reputation. The immediate area again is very affluent, but no one near by would choose it for the same reasons. Again, a complete turn around but in this case a new school, which again has become very desirable. It is now at the the point that well off middle class families in Dulwich who historically would have chosen to send their children to the private schools there will now often opt for Charter and unless you live in spitting distance (so in an incredibly expensive area for housing) you have no chance of getting in.

The biggest factor determining in the culture of a school, is the head teacher. You can have well run but low income pupils, or badly run private schools with high income pupils.

while the behaviour of the children and their motivation to do well, comes from home, the culture of a school is pervasive, despite staff turnover.

that’s why I question how bringing in the 7% back from private schools to the state school system would actually make much difference as that’s 2 extra middle class pupils per class of 30!

The main factor/ influence is the head teacher but catchment areas can play a big part- no secondary school is without its problems.