Primary School

[WorkingMummy]

I don't particularly disagree with anything which has been said here.

But I wanted to add, that a very large proportion of a school's results in any given year will depend on the abilities and circumstances of the particular children they happen to have in the key stage assessment groups that year. Even in a non-selective, community school, there will be years when the children who are up for assessment at that school happen to be more able on average than last year. Even when it comes to "value add", children develop at different rates, and in a non linear way. So a school which is doing a really good job may nevertheless score low on value add if they happen to have a higher than average cohort who happened to have developed young, plateaued (but perhaps be on the verge of another little burst soon).

I'm not saying to ignore all the league tables. But personally, I put little store by them. I'm just not sure that any one school is large enough to have a truly statistically significant set of data in any given year. And it is impossible to screen out all the millions of factors which are influencing each child's progress other than the school's relative merits.

I also agree that all the schools listed are good.

[LondonMix]

I think that all stats regarding schools should be taken with a pinch of salt and agree 100% about headline scores at times reflecting pupil intake. Value add score variations of 1 point or less should not be considered a very significant difference when comparing schools again because of the relatively small intakes as WorkingMummy points out.

However,there is nothing in Goose Greens intake that would explain such as significant underperformance this year compared to other local schools, Southwark more broadly or the nation as a whole on multiple measures. All state schools' socio-economic mixes as well as the proportions of low performers (at KS1), those with English as a second language and those with learning disabilities are available as part of the data released with he performance information each year. I'd like to emphasise that I don't think any of those things doom children to low performance as many of our schools have finely illustrated!

When almost 1/3rd of the intake in a large primary like GG doesn't progress in line with other schools, the school is most likely failing the children rather than the results being thrown off by a few pupils who can't progress at a normal pace for independent reasons not captured by the data.

Whatever the root cause is, it appears the leaders at Goose Green take the situation very seriously which is the right approach and I wish them all the best in their efforts.

[WorkingMummy]

LondonMix Wrote:

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

However,there is nothing in Goose Greens intake

> that would explain such as significant

> underperformance this year compared to other local

> schools, Southwark more broadly or the nation as a

> whole on multiple measures. All state schools'

> socio-economic mixes as well as the proportions of

> low performers (at KS1), those with English as a

> second language and those with learning

> disabilities are available as part of the data

> released with he performance information each

> year.

I fully appreciate that you are not saying that social-economic group fixes performance at a certain level. But what I am saying is that even adjusting for social-economic grouping - so, say, within one social group - ability and also rate of progress, will vary widely. There will be years where you happen to have a higher average intelligence across a particular group of kids than other years. I disagree that atypical or "poor" results from one third of one year group of one, single primary school is statistically significant when compared to "averages" calculated nationwide across millions of kids.

I just feel so gutted for a school that faces this; all of a sudden there has to be a narrative of what went wrong or what changed; and there have to be steps and measures etc. And of course we all want the best for our kids. But really, I think it's all about reading far too much into really tiny data pools.

WM xx

[WorkingMummy]

Just had a prick of conscience - of course when I wrote "intelligence" in my last post, I should have said "aptitude to perform as required in tests". Both can vary widely in any given group, but they are obviously different.

Also wanted to say that there are many other influences, outside of "what the school is doing" which affect these snapshot results, other than the kids' natural aptitude and other than social-economic group. And a really big one - how many kids in that school in that year group are being/have been tutored at home for the purpose of entrance exams to independent or selective state schools? It's a huge thing, which lots of people are quite quiet about.

[LondonMix]

WorkingMummy, I think you and I largely agree. I think there is natural variation not captured by the stats for sure and individual pupils aptitude for progression can vary wildly from the averages despite the best efforts of teachers. I have two teachers in my family and I know what a hard job they have.

However, I think where we differ is believing the scale of this kind of underperformance can be down to a very large disproportionate acceptance of children with an aptitude for progression well below the norm even when their starting point and other factors are taken into consideration. The scale of the issue at Goose Green for me makes that seem extremely unlikely. Under these circumstances, its of course appropriate for both the governors, the head and parents to try to understand what may have happened and to address any issues that need to be improved.

[WorkingMummy]

I think we agree on lots.

But I disagree with your statement that the "poor" performance in these results reflect, in your words, "below average teaching". I don't think the evidence of one set of very unusual results enables you to conclude that so definitively, without more. You are effectively saying "this is the result, it's odd, there must be A cause". I don't think that is correct. You are working on the basis that all statistical anomalies are 1) explicable 2) by a single cause and 3) in this case the cause is sub standard teaching. I would challenge each of those assumptions. Of course it MIGHT be that the standard of teaching has radically altered in one year. But maybe....not.

I know I am coming off as very defensive of the school - I have no link to at all. And a trend, that continued like this, would certainly worry me, if my kids were there. But a blip can be just a blip.

[LondonMix]

Okay, I totally see your point.

In retrospect I suppose I should have said something more along the lines of, these results including the value add scores are indicative of a failure in teaching and that should be explored by the schools management as one of the possibilities for the dip. You are entirely right that no one definitively knows what went wrong or why yet and this is the responsibility of the school to investigate now and then communicate and take appropriate action.

I do genuinely believe that virtually all students can progress with the right teaching methods and techniques. Fairlawn is an amazing example of that and has consistently shown that with appropriate methods all children can make at least expected progress and many times far in excess of that.

[southeastlondonmum]

I do not know the exact circumstances at Goose Green. And if I was a parent there, I would be asking tough questions but I would also support the school. I expect it will be getting a lot of support right now from a range of sources - and given the response from the Governors I would expect results to improve quickly. Many, many schools have turned round very quickly with the right leadership and support.

However, whatever the intake (and many schools have more deprivation, English as a second language etc than GG and still do well) I do not think that you go below the absolute minimum standards that we require from our schools without there being a problem. Variation on results by 10% either way can just be the year group, but not that low.

[landsberger]

I think the problem with GG is, as an academy, effectively they are responsible solely to their own governors (and very distantly, to the DfE). Governors are much less likely to be self-critical than a school with LA oversight (or a school with a sponsor that has a number of other schools) is.

The school could approach the LA for advice and support but so far has chosen not to - which is regrettable. But as others have pointed out, a school in GG's position really should be doing better.

[peckhamprincess82]

Well, at least there has been a very clear change of leadership with the old headteacher retiring and her assistant head leaving the school at the same time to take up a position at Goodrich. The results were from year six cohort who were at the school in 2014/2015 and reflect upon the old leadership team. It looks like the chair of governors at GG is also new and she has excellent professional credentials. I'd be extremely concerned if it was still the same leadership running the school but it looks like acknowledgement of the problems at the school have been done and solutions for change are being implemented.

[Billy]

Just a quick note about GG school and those results. I am a parent with a child at the school. I was horrified by the results - they are appalling. The results also seemed so out of step with my perception of the school that my child goes to and loves. Having spoken to the head and governors I understand that there are various reasons for what happened - the outgoing year 6 (who joined the school when it was in special measures) had apparently been a difficult year group, but more importantly there had clearly been an issue with the leadership team who had taken their eyes off the ball. The new head (whom I think is fantastic) joined a week before the outgoing year 6 cohort took their sats and so bears no responsibility for the results. She has however very quickly implemented her own new way of doing things at the school (based around growth mindset) and the school feels really directed and energised. She expects to turn round the school's academic performance very quickly. The music, art and IT provision at the school remains outstanding. And it has a wonderful community feel. The ks1 team is already great and this is reflected in the ks1 results. I am keeping faith with the school and will be applying to send my younger child into reception there next September. I am really hoping that other parents with children going into reception next September, who visited the school, listened to the head, who looked around and liked the look and feel of the school, can look past the SATs and do the same.

[Monkey]

Results are usually made available to be public mid-December. But schools can individually let parents know how they've done - in our school that's usually done before the summer break. Bear in mind that the 2016 set of results is based on the new curriculum and a new grading system so not sure how easy it will be to compare with the 2015 set.

[Renata Hamvas]

The new grading system will have an absolutely massive impact-on the level that schools that were getting around 80% achieving level 4 under the old system are likely to have around 50% pass under the new system (it's far far tougher). This is going on what has happened nationally. It's crazy IMO to have introduced a system where only half of the 2016 10-11 year olds have reached the required standard. Added into the pot are the 2017 new tougher A levels (linear with 25% more content) and English and Maths GCSEs with new grades 9-1 and the new pass being what was a "B" grade (all other subjects to follow in 2018)!

All the local primaries have kept pretty quiet about their 2016 results, this is because they can't be compared to previous years' results.

Renata