Ofsted Reports - how important are they when looking for a school?

[Lochie]

I need to apply for a primary school for my son next year and am going to visit a number of schools over the next 12 months. We are not tied to property as we don't own in London, so will move near to the school that appeals the most.

I've been looking at Ofsted Reports and am mainly going to look at schools that are listed as 'Oustanding'. However, I'm sure I've seen a few comments in the Family Room before suggesting Ofsted ratings are really not that important? Or are they? I'd just be really interested to hear opinions of how indicative they are of the school's performance? Is reputation better than an Ofsted report?

The areas I've pinpointed are Beckenham and Honor Oak (and possibly where we live now in Herne Hill as our local school has recently had an 'outstanding' inspection). There are also a few 'outstanding' primaries just beyond Beckenham - I don't really like the area they are in, but will move there if the schools really are worth it as the housing there is affordable.

Any thoughts on importance of Ofsted reports appreciated. Or are there better ways of evaluating a school?

[telemum]

I have a daughter at a school (Honor Oak/ Forest Hill) that was rated Outstanding, and is now 'Good with Outstanding Features'. It's the same school. Same head, same teachers (mostly). Now much less hype surrounding it though! Because of that I guess I take the Ofsted with a pinch of salt - it is just a snapshot of one day. And I'm just as happy with the school as those who joined it when it was Outstanding! If a report highlighted specific issues that were important to me then I would want to ask questions about them of a head.

We chose the school (in so much as you can 'choose' any school round here) for its welcoming feeling, approachable staff, confident children, rather than its Ofsted. And a school with a bad Ofsted (Special Measures) often gets a lot of help and can be turned round very quickly. But going round a few should give you a feel of what you want...

Good luck!

[Sanne Panne]

I don't want to care but I still want my kid in a school that I like AND that is rated 1 or 2. Call it superficial but I don't want to go by my own impression and a bunch of recommendations alone. I would like both to be positive because Ofsted looks at different things than parents do.

[Scruffy Mummy]

And there is always the problem of schools 'resting on their laurels'. A school rated good or outstanding a few years ago might having been slipping over those years. A school rated satisfactory might actually be striving and get a good or outstanding at the next visit which means children over the years it's been striving have benefitted.

Another point is that under the new Ofsted framework that was effective since jan 2012 it is more difficult to achieve outstanding and good.

[reneet]

I think its important to read the reports and understand where the school is failing and if it applys to you or not. I.e if attendance is an issue but you know you will make your child attend then its less of an issue for you. I am not saying that it does not matter but that its something you can deal with.

[Smiler]

Bear in mind that the most popular schools have a ridiculously tiny catchment area (likely to shrink further for those schools that recently had "bulge" classes, since in subsequent years many places will be taken by siblings), and there is a hefty additional cost of housing v close by, both rental and to buy.

As well as ofsted I also looked at sats results and other data(DfE publishes tables so you can compare local schools), went round etc. in my new area (outside london) the "outstanding" school has a tiny catchment, infants only (with no guaranter of a juniors place), class sizes of 35 in some years and no sibling policy, so ruled that out, didn't want to pay the premium for housing. The "good" schools had v different features, eg some were church schools (lots families attend church to get in, didn't want to do that), some had a challenging intake, some had nice new pfi buildings others decrepid ones. One of the "satisfactory", undersubscribed ones turned out the one we liked the best, they had addressed ofsted's concerns (report was a few years old), had improving sats results, strong focus on writing, good value-added data, did a good open day etc.

[DaveR]

Ofsted reports are like lots of other assessment tools - not a complete answer by any means, but helpful because a school with effective leadership and systems is going to make sure they do reasonably well, even if the values/priorities of the school itself do not chime exactly with those of the inspectors. I would definitely look at schools that are rated 'Good' and any rated 'Satisfactory' that seem to be improving.

Personally, I wouldn't move to a neighbourhood I didn't want to live in just to be near an 'Outstanding' school; statistically, the single most reliable predictor of educational attainment by children is educational attainment by the parents, so it is easy to over-estimate the impact of the 'best' schools, particulalrly st primary level.

[Fuschia]

I wouldn't move to chase an outstanding

The rules keep changing re ofsted guidance anyway plus schools can change very quickly

'good' would be fine pref with outstanding leadership and ethos

Less than outstanding for raw results isn't unusual on

London

Satisfactory but on the up with good leadership and capacity to prove would be ok I think

[dulwichgirl2]

Unfort I think one needs to go round them all or at least a cross section to get an initial feel.

As others have pointed out, it is how the school manages your child that really matters eg if he or she were very artistic, presumably you would be keen to develop that strength.

Things like attendance would worry me hugely, although of course the specific issue is not relevant. Attendance issues speak to the nature of the other families, their lack of support for education and general attitude. Teachers time will be wasted on chasing this sort of issue and problem families rather than getting the best out of your child.

[BB100]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

statistically, the single

> most reliable predictor of educational attainment

> by children is educational attainment by the

> parents, so it is easy to over-estimate the impact

> of the 'best' schools, particulalrly st primary

> level.

It's what parents 'do' rather than 'who they are' that is a good predicitor of educational achievement. That's why schools and Children's Centres invest time and money in boosting parents' social capital in deprived areas.

As regard Ofsted reports, Ofsted's new framework is changing 'satisfactory' to mean 'unsatisfactory'. I've worked in 'satisfactory' schools and they are graded that for good reasons. However, as mentioned, if a school has recently 'changed hands' with new management they are worth a look. Lewisham has done a rather radical shake-up of all their stalling primary schools so it's a good place to move to at the mo.

[DaveR]

"It's what parents 'do' rather than 'who they are' that is a good predicitor of educational achievement. That's why schools and Children's Centres invest time and money in boosting parents' social capital in deprived areas."

The second part of that sentence doesn't really follow from the first; establishing that something can help kids who would otherwise do badly, to do better, does not explain why (other) kids do well in the first place. And in any event, the evidence supporting the effectiveness of things like Children's Centres is also pretty thin. On the other hand, the straight correlation between parent and child educational attainment is clear is undeniable; the reasons for it are probably many and varied, and some will have little or nothing to do with what parents actively do.

[dulwichgirl2]

I am not meaning to be facetious so please so not take this the wrong way- what is the meaning of "parents' social capital", please? Is it their involvement and interest in the child or is it the amounts they sometimes have to pay for state schools. (yes I know this sounds wrong but apparently you do have to pay for some state schools.)

[DaveR]

A basic definition of social capital is that it is an asset that arises by virtue of relationships, whether between individuals or groups. An obvious example is networking - the whole idea behind it is that by establishing relationships with people who may be in a position to help in the future you add to your personal capital i.e. your earning potential. In the context of this debate, social capital means positive relationships between parents, children, communities and teachers/schools that have a positive effect on outcomes, and research has suggested that this may explain why, for example, Catholic schools often perform better than other comparable schools, or why Chinese kids often do better than other kids.

The point I was making above is that social capital is unlikely to be he only reason for the very strong correlation between parental educational attainment and childrens educational attainment, and in fact there's plenty of evidence that all sorts of things that parents do (in the belief that they are likely to make significant difference to their kids educational attainment) in fact don't make a big difference, at least when compared with the big picture i.e. how well did the parents do at school, how much do they earn etc.

[BB100]

I was quoting from academic research. What you read in the Daily Mail isn't really credible Dave ;)

[dulwichgirl2]

Dave, thank you, very interesting.

[Lochie]

Thanks for the comments. They have helped. I guess I need to look at the detail of reports not just the rating. Really useful thanks again

[ClareC]

Def read the reports. We moved away earlier this year, all close schools with the exception of one is rated one or two. Having lived here a few months, it's now apparent the poorly rated school is actually the one with the best results, great environment and teaching and most sought after!

The report basically slams the school on the basis the children are deemed to be more able than the norm and the fantastic results they gain should be better!

The reality is the school had been rated outstanding for years, changes to the ofsted system and being the first school to be rated under the new rules and fought about a very undeserved 4! Interestingly, the nursery is still outstanding and really is exceptional.

I would hope this is an exception but it does go to show ofsted isn't everything and there are other things to look for.

[DaveR]

"I was quoting from academic research. What you read in the Daily Mail isn't really credible Dave ;)"

There's lots of research out there, and if you want to rely on it you might want to post a link. Like this one:

http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/education-achievement-poverty-summary.pdf

which says:

"It was not possible to establish a clear causal relationship between AABs (attitudes, aspirations and behaviours) and childrens' educational outcomes"

Or this one:

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/econ/sempapers/Sacerdote.pdf

which I won't try and summarise, but if you read it you may not feel quite so confident in your opinion. (One of the findings is that the natural children of highly educated parents appear to enjoy a fourfold greater benefit to their own attainment than children adopted into those families - an odd outcome if "it's what parents 'do'")

By the way, don't bother with the smiley, it doesn't make your post any less patronising.

[prickle]

(One of the findings is that the natural children of highly educated parents appear to enjoy a fourfold greater benefit to their own attainment than children adopted into those families - an odd outcome if "it's what parents 'do'")

Hmmm? I see your point, but 'adoption' covers a whole gamut of situations from babies adopted at near birth to children of various ages adopted later in life (with associated problems leading from neglect/institutionalisation and other social/emotional problems).

It would be more meaningful if 'adopted' children were not just lumped into one category and the result was more nuanced.

[DaveR]

The report describes the background circumstances in some detail, and consequently the limitations on the conclusions that can be drawn.

Ultimately, I don't want to get drawn into an academic debate; I just think that this:

"It's what parents 'do' rather than 'who they are' that is a good predicitor of educational achievement"

is a far bolder statement than appears in any of the research or commentary that I have seen, and the risk is that parents automatically assume that 'doing' more is better for their kids. In a thread that discusses whether, for example, it's a good idea to move to an area you don't otherwise like because of an Ofsted 'outstanding' school, it seems to me to be a good idea to take a step back and ask how much difference parental choices make to outcomes for their kids (whether judged by exam grades or indeed by how happy they are).

http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/08/17/new-freakonomics-radio-podcast-the-economists-guide-to-parenting/

[LondonMix]

If you are saying that a portion of intelligence / aptitude is inherited then I doubt anyone can argue with that. In fact, I think most posters were simply stating that you as a parent have more impact than the school as long as the school doesn?t have any serious failings. If you are arguing that there is nothing else that impacts how well children perform given their ability or that cognitive development is not influenced by factors other than genetics then I think that's where people are challenging you.

The first article you mention questions the quality of the evidence in support of certain types of interventions and clearly states that other types of interventions have been proven to work well. You have taken that quote on AAB so far out of context, I feel compelled to post the full section for those parents who don?t have time to read through the document. Also, the economist in the feakonomics post mischaracterizes the results of the Korean adoptee study. For those who don't have time to read it, the parents background does have a proven impact on the attainment of non-biological children but not as strong an impact as genetics.

Extract from First Article.

A significant factor in reaching this conclusion was the quality of evidence available. This, in part, reflected the standard of evidence the programme demanded. Whilst a lower benchmark might have yielded different conclusions, this standard was considered appropriate given the significant cost of educational provision and the questionable ethics of using unproven interventions on children during such a critical period in their lives. This conclusion leads to three main points:

1 Whilst there have been many interventions aimed at addressing the AABs of poorer children or

parents, few have been explicitly aimed at raising attainment.

2 Much of the evidence that is available is of a very mixed nature. This is primarily because of how

previous interventions and evaluations have been designed and implemented. Predictably, where

evaluations were small scale, process-orientated, poorly-resourced or ?bolted-on? during the life of

interventions, or used inappropriate research tools, the resulting evidence was weak and inconclusive.

3 The evidence that is currently available offers only limited support for the impact of most

interventions aimed at AABs on attainment or participation.

This does not mean that nothing can be done. Detailed analysis of the existing evidence reveals threebroad levels of effectiveness. This has significant implications for policy-making, practice and evaluation.

? Even when demanding standards were applied, interventions focused on parental involvement in children?s education demonstrated evidence of impact on raising attainment. This suggests that an immediate focus for both policy and practice should be on developing a full cost-effective model of delivery of this type of intervention and ensuring detailed ongoing monitoring.

? There is some evidence of a relationship between outcomes and interventions focused on addressing participation in extra-curricular activities, mentoring, and also on improving self-confidence. However, this is not sufficiently compelling to recommend roll-out at this stage. This suggests that further development of these kinds of interventions should be subject to full-scale trials alongside well-designed evaluations to determine effectiveness.

? There is little or no evidence improved outcomes from interventions focused on things like addressing children?s general attitudes to education or the amount of paid work children do during term time (e.g. a paper round). This does not mean that such interventions may not be valuable in their own right or that they do not have any impact on the educational experience or personal circumstances of children and young people. However, the available evidence is clear that these kinds of interventions should not be undertaken in the belief that they will make a contribution towards raising attainment or participation through changing attitudes, aspirations or behaviour.

This distinction of three ?levels? of evidence is important. In the current economic climate, it is perhaps more important than ever that policy-makers and practitioners seeking to raise educational attainment and participation in post-compulsory education know which interventions:

Later in the article, an interesting conclusion that stresses how social capital can very directly influence life outcomes.

However, the study stressed that the real difficulty for many children was in knowing how to fulfil their ambitions. Rather than raising aspirations in order to raise attainment, there is a real need for children and parents to be offered support to learn more about educational and career options so they can make more informed decisions about their future.

[DaveR]

I said I didn't want to get drawn into a debate, but I guess it's unavoidable. I made a simple point:

"statistically, the single most reliable predictor of educational attainment by children is educational attainment by the parents"

I was not advancing any particular theory of causation, just saying that, even when you control for other factors, this relationship persists. I don't understand anyone to be disagreeing with this.

BB100 made what seemed to me to be a much bolder claim, i.e.:

"It's what parents 'do' rather than 'who they are' that is a good predicitor of educational achievement."

This is pretty black and white - it says that if parents want their kids to fit with the pattern they have to 'do' stuff. That may be right, but there have been many, many studies and none that I know of have come even close to making that claim.

BB100 also said 'that's why there are children's centres etc.". But studying interventions in relation to kids who would otherwise have been predicted to do badly, to see what makes them do better, does not answer the question as to why kids who have been predicted to do well, in fact do well.

You say I took the quote from the JRF report out of context; it is, in fact, the first of the 'key points' listed in the summary of the reports' findings, and (unsurprisingly) is not undermined by the more detailed findings regarding specific interventions, and in any event this does not answer the above point i.e. what is the explanation for kids who do well without intervention?

You are, of course, free to criticise the author of the other study but again, the point that was being made was not that parents 'doing' stuff doesn't have any effect, but that there are serious questions as to whether it is critical.

I'm not sure why you want to label me as some kind of genetic determinist when all I have said is that parents should be wary of assuming that the specific involvement that they have in their kids education is likely to make all the difference.

I'm not really interested in genetics; what I find interesting are the likely unconscious influences that 'lazy' parents may nevertheless have on their kids.

So, in the study of adoptees above, there was a very strong association between parental drinking and smoking and kids taking up the habit(s). I have at various times seen bits of research that suggest lots of other, more positive associations between parents and kids e.g. parents having a wide vocabulary leading to earlier speech development, parents who are able to resolve conflicts verbally leading to fewer behavioural problems, and the 'role model' effect i.e. successful parents/adults who unconsciously embody positive messages about school success and life success.

Obviously, I have to declare an interest as a parent who is perhaps less interested in the minutiae of my kids schooling than seems to be the norm at the moment. It would be nice to think that just by being around, I'm exerting my magic.

As an aside, when I was a kid the concept of pushy parents was pretty much unknown (to me, at least). The stereotyped Dad barely knew where his kids went to school, and Mums were more concerned with making sure you had you PE kit than anything else*. Yet the data from the 70s (and the 60s and the 50s) suggests just as strong an association then as now between how parents did at school and how their kids did.

*And our diet was terrible - fish fingers, spaghetti hoops and Angel Delight.

[LondonMix]

Okay, I don't disagree with you on any of that and agree that the position BB100 took is also too extreme in my view. The only reason why I waded in was after reading the research you posted, I felt that the way you presented the conclusions in the post were too extreme in the other direction and somewhat misrepresnted the conclusions.

I personally suspect that "over parenting" can actually be harmful in certain contexts to kids autonomy so really with you on this for the most part. It's just not black or white in either direction. Certain types of parental involvement has been shown to help.

[BB100]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> By the way, don't bother with the smiley, it

> doesn't make your post any less patronising.

oops, obviously upset Dave. The position I took was not of my own view but a current one in general academic circles but you can believe what you like cause I can't be bothered. At the end of the day, a parent with a degree can't assume their kid will do well at school. You need to do more than that.

[mynamehere]

It cannot be nature alone. It has to be nurture as well. Love, libraries, museums, parks, culture and inclusive society

from the paralympics two family stories of adopted children:

Perhaps one of the most inspiring tales comes from Iraq-born Ahmed Kelly - a swimmer who was born without arms and legs and abandoned on the doorstep of a Baghdad orphanage.

and

two wheelchair racing adopted sisters:

.... a woman who was born with spina bifida and spent her toddler years in an orphanage. The orphanage had no funds for basic needs, let alone a wheelchair, so Tatyana was left to her own devices and used her hands as feet and her feet as hands to move around.

When Debbie, then a commissioner of disabilities for the U.S. Health Department, traveled to the orphanage as part of a business trip, she became smitten by the young child. Debbie wound up adopting her, and Tatyana came to the United States when she was 6 and was raised in Clarksville, Md., outside of Baltimore. Debbie was told that Tatyana did not have much of a chance to live long, but Tatyana definitely has beaten the odds.

?Now she?s studying to be a child life specialist in college,? Debbie said. ?Both girls have come a long way, and this is an exciting time for them.?

Hannah, the youngest athlete on the U.S. Paralympic Track and Field Team at 16, was born in Albania and is an above-the-knee amputee who also has a congenital bone problem in her hip.

Both sisters race in wheelchairs and, despite the age difference, a sister rivalry does exist on the track.

?She?s my sister and we always wish each other luck,? said Hannah, who will race in the 100-meter sprint in London. ?But when the race starts, we don?t hold back. We?ll see what happens.?

Their mom is not about to choose sides.