OFSTED reports - nationally consistent?

[hopdad123]

Does anyone know whether OFSTED reports are nationally consistent? By that I mean, is an "outstanding" primary school in inner London comparable to an outstanding primary school in, lets say a small Cumbrian village or do their ratings take into account local factors (i.e. the school is outstanding considering that a proportion of the children dont have English as their first language to take an obvious example).

The reason for the question is simple, there seems to be more good/outstanding schools in HOP/FH//East Dulwich than I would reasonably expect and wondered whether the OFSTED grades were adjusted for local factors...

[LondonMix]

There is a lot of controversy about OFSTED but the idea is that on the academic measure individual pupil progress (which takes into account children's starting point) is the basis for assessment. Some schools for example get criticised for not pushing able students enough.

I have to say, I'm not sure why you think its odd that the area would have more good schools than the home counties or or Cumbria. Both in relative and absolute terms London schools now out perform the rest of the country and this part of London is no exception to that general pattern.

[familyof4]

Exactly

I keep seeing articles about how the london schools are performing better than ever.

We're all v lucky to be here now and not back in the dark days of the 1980s etc

[Bouncy]

http://www.atl.org.uk/publications-and-resources/report/2012/2012-september-cover-story-ofsted.asp

[hopdad123]

Thanks, this is very helpful. I have also seen the press about London schools (on average) out performing schools outside of London and that is certainly great news. Whether they out perform schools in the home counties though might be a more relevant comparison for us all as the wider UK pool will obviously take in large parts of the rest of the UK where the schooling may otherwise be of quite a poor standard (i.e. other dense, inner city areas).

To answer your questions, the reason why I would have been surprised with so many outstanding schools in our area if the gradings were done on an objective and neutral basis solely linked to academic attainment rather than improvement is simply that the schools around here seem to be stretched to bursting point (which must inevitably have a negative impact on academic attainment) plus there are also lots of kids who do not necessarily have English as a first language (which, although enriching in other ways may also be a drag on the kids who do). Let's also not forget that (although I absolutely love our area) we are in south east London which does have its own set of social problems which must manifest themselves in our local schools to some degree.

We're a few years away from schooling and starting to think about state/private schools and ultimately whether when the time comes it might be time to move out of London... I must admit, the school lottery, talk of bulge classes etc. does not fill me with confidence. I'm obviously very interested to hear any other views.

[LondonMix]

Hopdad123, London schools outperform all other areas of the country including the home counties. This isn't just based on relative progress but absolute academic results. London schools are first by every measure compared to every other region of England. It's one of the only major capital cities in the world where this is the case. Over the last 10 years, London has narrowed the achievement gap between affluent and less affluent students to the point now that this is true

Fromt he FT: London schools have improved so rapidly over the past 10 years that even children in the city?s poorest neighbourhoods can expect to do better than the average pupil living outside the capital.

This is such a remarkable accomplishment, that it's really worth highlighting. Being poor or an immigrant or living in an area that is socio-ecomonically diverse does not mean educational standards should be expected to be low.

Lewisham and Southwark as a whole outperform the national average for primary school children being at grade level for math and english despite the sopcio-economic issues you highlight. Most of our local primaries are part of this over-achievement. The national average for primary schools having children at level 4 in English and Math is 79% while our local schools achieve as follows:

Fairlawn- 98% / 70% level 5

The Stillness- 96% / 55% level 5

Dalmain-95% / 33% level 5

Brockley Primary- 92%

Elliot Bank- 96% / 40% level 5

Horniman-91% / 22% level 5

Dulwich Hamlet- 93% / 56% level 5

Bessemer Grange- 86% / 24% Level 5

Bellenden Primary- 88% /29% Level 5

Dog Kennel Hill- 82% / 40% Level 5

Heber School- 85% / 36% level 5

Goodrich-82% / 35% level 5

Ivydale-88% / 23% level 5

The average for Southwark is 83% and for Lewisham is 85%.

In addition to this absolute measure of academic achievement many of our local schools have very high value add scores (which measures how much progress children are making relative to what would be expected of them nationally given their starting points). So in addition to having great absoulte results, many are progressing children well beyond what would be expected.

The accomplishments of our local teachers is beyond commendable and has changed both the national and international understanding of what can be achieved in socio-economically deprived areas. We are very lucky that our children will get to benefit not just from a high quality education but at the same time will get to interact with children from a wide range of backgrounds. It's the best of both worlds.

* Edited to add more schools

[hopdad123]

I hadn't realised that the schools were hitting these levels, that's an incredible achievement indeed (wherever a school is based but especially in London). This is really helpful so thanks for posting. While not detracting at all from these result I wonder what the level 5+ results are like. I'm only now getting up to speed on all of this but it seems that level 4 is the base benchmark for all primary schools (much like the 5 A-C at GCSE for secondaries) and is how they are judged by their local communities and authorities. So, from an attainment point of view it seems that the local schools provide a near guarantee for reaching the national average (which is obviously very good) but I wonder whether this means that the resources are perhaps spent on bringing up the less able kids at the expense of not pushing the able kids onwards and upwards? I guess that's the point you made in your first post and maybe one of the problems with the SATs system in that it creates an incentive for schools to not focus on the bottom and not the top.

[Coach Beth]

A friend recently moved out a couple of years ago to a leafy suburb - mainly because of the impossibility of house prices in East Dulwich. Comparing notes with her, the village school her son now goes to is much more relaxed then the local school he went to here in East Dulwich. She is happy with that in many ways but notes how different the expectation are of the children in terms of academic improvement and she has found a much more laid back attitude where she now lives which surprised her. Another downside for her is that there is little diversity in the school her son goes to.

In terms of focussing on the top, recent changes to Ofsted inspection means that school are now expected to be stretching more able children. As has been pointed out, there has been a strategic focus for many years in London in improving schools and raising achievement in London schools. Our children are benefitting from this which is great.

[bornagain]

"To answer your questions, the reason why I would have been surprised with so many outstanding schools in our area ... plus there are also lots of kids who do not necessarily have English as a first language (which, although enriching in other ways may also be a drag on the kids who do). Let's also not forget that (although I absolutely love our area) we are in south east London which does have its own set of social problems which must manifest themselves in our local schools to some degree. "

Hopdad 123 sounds like you need to move to nice, white, homogenous Home Counties pronto!

Speaking as a person who was brought up with English as not my first language, I am insulted that you think that we would be 'a drag' on those lovely native English speaking children. Also that we are 'enriching', sounds a bit patronising - surely you mean 'exotic'?

For your information children learn languages quickly and would be fluent in a year or two. My siblings and I all went to university and this was back in the day when schools did not offer special support as they do today (esp in rural Essex). Or would you prefer that schools did not offer special support to those children as it does it at the expense of pushing the 'more able' (ie your?) children?

My two children are being educated in Southwark state primary and secondary schools. They are receiving a very good education which we are very happy with. If you choose not to do that then it would be your (and your children's) loss.

PS pls clarify what you think are south east London's 'own set of social problems'.

[LondonMix]

The Level 5 scores are also good (see amended post above). To start with, I would say at primary level, I wouldn't worry too much about this and there are so many other factors that are equally important (such as the feel and ethos of the school).

However, the DofE gives great information for parents to make their own judgments. The value add scores show how much progress individual pupils are making compared to the national average given their starting point to show if the school is outperforming or if it just has a good intake. Also, the DoE usually breaks down the progress that low attainers, middle attainers and high attainers are making.

For example at Fairlawn, 92% of students classed as high attainers achieve level 5 in Math and English.

http://www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/school.pl?urn=100710

[LondonMix]

Cross posted. I agree with this. My sister-in-law is a teacher and this is definitely the case. Ofsted has its problems but the reports do highlight if they think a school is coasting with any portion of its intake.

Coach Beth Wrote:

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

>

> In terms of focussing on the top, recent changes

> to Ofsted inspection means that school are now

> expected to be stretching more able children. As

> has been pointed out, there has been a strategic

> focus for many years in London in improving

> schools and raising achievement in London schools.

> Our children are benefitting from this which is

> great.

[hopdad123]

LondonMix, thanks again.

Bornagain, I think you are reading too much into my post. For my part, if I have written anything that you find offensive then I apologise. I am just trying to educate myself a bit on how the system works (both getting in and then getting on) and how the various measures that are used actually work. All I want is to do the best for my daughter, an aim that I am sure you have for yours.

I was educated both in a homogenous English (school) and international (university) environment and now work in a very international environment. The latter was much better. For a school to have an mix of children from different backgrounds is a great thing and certainly something that I would consider to be a huge advantage for any child's continuing education and subsequent life. My only concern (and this is based purely on assumption) is that if you have a class of 30 young kids (which seems to be normal now) and one teacher then it must be the case that if there isn't a relatively high degree of fluency in English for a substantial portion of the class that the pace of that class slows for all. In an ideal world the class sizes would be much much smaller and would allow all of the kids to get the level of personal attention that they need but I cannot see how that can be the case with class sizes as they are. I may be completely wrong, I suppose I am just trying to think about what I would do if I were a teacher faced with such a challenge! My focus would be to ensure that all kids were brought up to the average standard to allow them to go onto secondary school rather than have a few stars at the expense of the others.

As for social problems, I'm talking about the problems that go hand in hand with living in a city: crime, poverty and lack of social engagement.

[LondonMix]

My sister in law has a teaching assistant with her in reception which helps. She has a large class but what she does is break down the kids into smaller groups based on ability and gives them different tasks. She then goes from group to group to assist them with their progress. This seems like a fairly standard model in the state system these days but visit the schools closer to the time and see if you think their methods make sense for your little one as there are different ways to help each child progress at their own pace while keeping standards and expectations high for all.

Teaching these days is so different to when I was young and in the US. I'm very impressed by what I've seen.

[bornagain]

hopdad123, its great that you are trying to educate yourself about schools. I suggest that you take some time to visit your local schools to see what they are like. I think you will be impressed. You should be able to arrange visits quite easily.

The set up in most classes these days is not one teacher talking to a full class, the approach is much more modular. A teacher normally has a lot of support from a variety of sources and the lessons tend to be fluid. For instance children often leave a lesson to have music lessons.

As for your concerns re: non-English speakers, crime, poverty, lack of social engagement, you need to accept them as part and parcel of living in London (although I have never seen crime nor lack of engagement as an issue in my children's education). If you can't, then you need to leave to the 'safe' sanctuary of the shires.

x-post with LondonMix