Heber Primary Ofsted

[DaveR]

"When will peopke reakise that Ofsted reports are not worth the paoer they're printed on?

Ofsted are the most self important, pointless organisation in the UK. FACT!"

I have to disagree. Ofsted reports are by no means the last word on how well a school is performing, nor even necessarily the most important, but to simply dismiss either the organisation as a whole or any individual report makes no sense, particularly when the report appears to be consistent with the data prepared separately.

Any kind of snapshot assessment, whether by data or inspection, is a very blunt tool in looking at a complex organisation engaged in ongoing work, but generally the very good and the very bad are easily identified, as are definite trends. As many have said, Heber is clearly not a failing school, and many parents are happy and positive about it, but that is not inconsistent with a genuine 'could do better' finding, particularly under the new criteria.

It's slightly disheartening to see so many people floating vague conspiracy theories or coming up with their own supposed flaws in the data (it is produced by professionals - do you really know better?). Itr is possible that the process was flawed, but to assume that it must be because you think you know better is just a form of denial.

[Scruffy Mummy]

Well said LondonMix!

[Skegness]

Yes, very well said, LondonMix.

[Jessie]

Thirded for London Mix

[LondonMix]

Thanks Scuffy Mummy, Skegness and Jessie. Sometimes poverty is discussed like its some kind of disease that makes you stupid that is also contagious despite so much strong evidence to the contrary now available.

Also, in response to an earlier post suggesting the local variance in value add scores isn't that significant, I would urge you to look at the way the precentiles work:

http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/performance/archive/primary_10/p3.shtml

A value add score of 101.8 puts you in the top 95th percentile regarding pupil progression nationally-- this also happens to be Bessemers math value add score...

A total value add score of 99.7 like Heber's puts you in the 40th percentile nationally.

The bottom 5th percentil is only 97.8 so what might seem like minor differences are in fact not. Langbourne's value add score is 99 if that provides some context...

[Otta]

"to simply dismiss either the organisation as a whole or any individual report makes no sense,"

For the record, I'm not talking about the Heber report, I've not even read it, and am not particularly interested. I do however stick by my earlier statement about Ofsted, and I have my reasons which I think are valid, and they come from dealings with Ofsted (and no, I'm not grinding a personal axe). Basically they're a hugely powerful organisation that seems accountable to no one. (I know technically that isn't the case, but in real life...)

"People think demographics matter more than teaching and it doesn't."

Spot on, but it is also true to say that (I hate using this term) "middle class" parents are more likely to push / moan, and that is significant in the effect it has.

[LondonMix]

That's true. Engaged parents can accomplish a lot. However, good teaching is an incredibly effective tool to level the playing field.

Good teaching is one of the most valuable social tools we have. Ineffective teaching-- particularly of the kind that leaves those who start at a low attainment level behind isn't acceptable in my view and shouldn't be seen as okay.

[Ann]

That's such a good point LondonMix. I mentioned earlier that Heber has a good demographic meaning that the intake is not as deprived as many local schools bearing in mind the catchment area is very small.

I also agree with DaveR's comments as well. It might be an eye-opener for some parents that not all children are flourishing but it should be.

[oimissus]

LondonMix - where did you get those figures from, the ones comparing Heber, Bessemer and Hamlet (your post of 2.47pm)- very interesting, I would like to look at the figures for the schools in my area. I clicked on the link but couldn't see that info, though I may well have been misreading or misunderstood the data.

thanks.

[LondonMix]

The links are in post from 4:28 for each school- I forgot to link initially!

For each school look under the heading--

KS2 test results and progress

Information for your local schools should be on that site as well but if you can't find it, let me know and I'll link it here.

[Curmudgeon]

Please when considering the data consider the absolute numbers they are representing.

For example the low attainers = 4 or 5 students who could be low attainment for a number of reasons including learning disability which may make the targeted progress within the timescale all but impossible - or not (I have no knowledge of this cohort or data)

However there are so many issues with the league tables and analysing data which is standardised when we are actually talking about individuals and cohort to cohort can change dramatically

Also CVA is an oft disputed measure

I'm just advising caution when interpreting the data

[LondonMix]

That's fair but its also worth noting that if the cohort is too small to analyse they don't. For instance the number of students at Bessemer who started out as high achievers was too small to do any statistical analysis on, so the DoE state this and as a consequence don't present any disaggregated stats on that cohort's progression.

Also, the percentage of SEN students isn't that high for Heber within the local context (all of this information is available on my previous links) -- 5% for Hamlet and circa 7% for both Heber and Bessemer. Goodrich has 10.5%, Dog Kennel has 15.5%, Goose Green and St Johns both have circa 8%. All of these schools do significantly more for students who start with low attainment than Heber- and I mean significantly more.

Of course there could always be an unfortunate year where the problems are particularly acute by chance but Heber really can't claim that it has a disproportionate number of SEN children vis-a-vis other schools as an explanation for why so few of its low attaining pupils aren't progressing.

[Curmudgeon]

I know I raised it myself but I have to stress that I did not mean in any way to imply that SEN and low attainer are synonymous

I think any analysis on these terms with percentage figures for less than 10 students is suspect and at best misleading but what are we to do when we have primary sized year groups. Government wanted league tables to satisfy the bean counters and league tables we get.

[Curmudgeon]

teacher assessment at KS1 determines low (below 2), mid (2), high (above 2) attainment. With the development profile of 7 year olds being fits and starts and different paces, I would worry about the validity of that. Even anecdotally my eldest child, who is an academic high flyer at secondary, did not seem anything but middling until well into year 5 - and only really blossomed in year 7.

At secondary its based on KS 2 SATS for DFE but many secondaries use their own / CAT assessments because the SATS do not provide an adequate baseline grade - progress measures though are still Key Stage 2 to 4 on the DFE

It's a rum old world and no mistake - ho hum

[civilservant]

LM, first a declaration of interest - I have a child at Heber. I have no connection with Bessemer Grange

Now some observations based on the data that you linked to:

There were 47 kids at Heber who took KS2 assessments and 37 at Bessemer Grange. Those are hardly the kind of numbers on which to base a robust assertion about a school. All we can see is that

- 11% of the 47 kids at Heber and 11% of the 36 kids at BG achieved Level 3 or below

- 85% of the 47 at Heber and 86% of the 36 at BG achieved Level 4 or above

- 36% of the 47 at Heber and 24% of the 36 at BG achieved Level 5 or above

- 89% of the 47 at Heber and 89% of the 36 at BG achieved 2+ levels of progress in English

- 83% of the 47 at Heber and 94% of the 36 at BG achieved 2+ levels of progress in Maths

- average point scores at KS2 - 28.7 at Heber, 27.8 at BG

So apart from the Level 5 achievement and the Maths progress, barely a whisker between the two schools

And while the figures as presented prevent us seeing the precise distribution of pupils by attainment, beyond the fact that BG has very few High Attainers, they allow us at least to surmise that the spread of ability at Heber is much wider than at BG.

As you know it is much harder to teach a class with a wide spectrum of needs - and to meet individual needs effectively - than it is to teach a class with a more homogeneous ability profile.

Worth pointing out that BG gets more money per pupil - ?5643 - than Heber does - ?4997 per pupil - very likely due to its more deprived student intake. Also worth noting that the average gross teacher salary at BG was ?42k compared to Heber's ?35k, indicating more experienced teachers (although my observation is that Heber's teaching body makes up in dynamism for its relative lack of experience)

You linked to Dulwich Hamlet as well - I suggest that this is hardly the best comparator with either Heber or Bessemer Grange. Its academy status means that its published info is incomplete - nowhere as transparent as other 'ordinary' schools are obliged to be.

[LondonMix]

I agree that SEN and low attainers are not the same and aren't even overlapping categories. Dog Kennel has the highest SEN numbers but too few low attainers for the DoE to disaggregate their progress.

Anyhow, as DaveR said, both the Ofsted assessments and the data are blunt tools to assess complex situations with lots of nuance. However, the need for nuance doesn't render the information that can be garnered from the data useless and saying its just for bean counters is churlish.

When Heber launches its appeal, if there are mitigating facts (credible ones) then I am sure they will detail these then. However, I'd be surprised if 67% of Heber's low attaining students were actually intellectually incapable of progressing from their starting point, however low that might have been. It's right that Heber at the very least needs to improve this or provide an explanation and this level or oversight seems fair to me.

Let's see the outcome of the appeal. Off to bed :)

[oimissus]

thanks LondonMix, I've found the schools I was after.

[LondonMix]

Sorry didn't see your post before responding to the other one civilservant. There is more breakdown than what you've shown. If you look again, you'll see that the progress data is broken down by the various attainment groups. There is a huge discrepancy as I detailed. That's not to say to there might not be mitigating factors that will explain it but an explanation is definitely required and if one isn't forthcoming that is credible the school needs to address this by improved support.

I have never said Heber is a bad or failing school. Its more or less average and it has certain issues that need to be addressed. I don't have a child at Bessemer either so I'm not playing favourites-- I volunteer for an educational charity and have a special interest in primary and secondary education issues.

If you don't like Hamlet or Bessemer as comparators (the most affluent and the poorest intakes locally) to show the extremes then look at any of the local schools. They are all progressing students more effectively than Heber. If you can explain why its not to do with teaching or management I'd be interested to hear.

civilservant Wrote:

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

> LM, first a declaration of interest - I have a

> child at Heber. I have no connection with

> Bessemer Grange

>

> Now some observations based on the data that you

> linked to:

> There were 47 kids at Heber who took KS2

> assessments and 37 at Bessemer Grange. Those are

> hardly the kind of numbers on which to base a

> robust assertion about a school. All we can see

> is that

> - 11% of the 47 kids at Heber and 11% of the 36

> kids at BG achieved Level 3 or below

> - 85% of the 47 at Heber and 86% of the 36 at BG

> achieved Level 4 or above

> - 36% of the 47 at Heber and 24% of the 36 at BG

> achieved Level 5 or above

> - 89% of the 47 at Heber and 89% of the 36 at BG

> achieved 2+ levels of progress in English

> - 83% of the 47 at Heber and 94% of the 36 at BG

> achieved 2+ levels of progress in Maths

> - average point scores at KS2 - 28.7 at Heber,

> 27.8 at BG

> So apart from the Level 5 achievement and the

> Maths progress, barely a whisker between the two

> schools

>

> And while the figures as presented prevent us

> seeing the precise distribution of pupils by

> attainment, beyond the fact that BG has very few

> High Attainers, they allow us at least to surmise

> that the spread of ability at Heber is much wider

> than at BG.

> As you know it is much harder to teach a class

> with a wide spectrum of needs - and to meet

> individual needs effectively - than it is to teach

> a class with a more homogeneous ability profile.

>

> Worth pointing out that BG gets more money per

> pupil - ?5643 - than Heber does - ?4997 per pupil

> - very likely due to its more deprived student

> intake. Also worth noting that the average gross

> teacher salary at BG was ?42k compared to Heber's

> ?35k, indicating more experienced teachers

> (although my observation is that Heber's teaching

> body makes up in dynamism for its relative lack of

> experience)

>

> You linked to Dulwich Hamlet as well - I suggest

> that this is hardly the best comparator with

> either Heber or Bessemer Grange. Its academy

> status means that its published info is incomplete

> - nowhere as transparent as other 'ordinary'

> schools are obliged to be.

[LondonMix]

Now really off to bed. Education is my passion so I could really stay up all night responding as this is a debate I think is very important but early start and all that :)

[Reg Smeeton]

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> When Heber launches its appeal, if there are

> mitigating facts (credible ones) then I am sure

> they will detail these then. However, I'd be

> surprised if 67% of Heber's low attaining students

> were actually intellectually incapable of

> progressing from their starting point, however low

> that might have been. It's right that Heber at

> the very least needs to improve this or provide an

> explanation and this level or oversight seems fair

> to me.

Yes, but 67% of what? Percentages sound impressive until you realise what small samples they can be based on. In the extreme, 67% of 3 is two. And all sorts of domestic or personal situations can mean that a particular child does not progress, whatever the school does. This whole thread is in danger of becoming sweeping assertions based on percentages with no knowledge of how many children are being represented. Heber has a meeting to talk about the data next week, with people who know the facts and the children involved. Why not wait until then.

[seh]

I too was at the meeting last night at Heber. I thought it was managed extremely well, with the right mix of justified complaint (especially having reviewed the Ofsted guidelines for inspection this morning) and explanation of what the school is continuing to try to do to improve. The most impressive aspect of the meeting for me was the number of teachers present: almost as many teachers as parents - a sign of how very committed this group of teachers are and how concerned they are that this report may mean parents lose faith with them. That was not the message of the meeting, which reiterated my experience of Heber, of a high quality and professional but warm and caring school. A view echoed by the ParentView opinions gathered during the inspection but not even mentioned by the inspectors (against protocol).

I happen to agree with independent inspection of schools, but inspectors have such power to affect the lives of pupils and teachers that their conduct ought to be unimpeachable in doing what they do. It sounds like this team did not live up to those standards, meaning there is no reason to listen to their judgement.

[LondonMix]

Fair enough-- however the sample isn't 3. It is a minimum of 6 for cohort data not to be suppressed. Still 4 of 6 would be a small sample with potential mitigating circumstances. Though even 4 out of 6 would suggest to me that the issue should be raised.

[KestonKid]

May we know for which educational charity LondonMix volunteers?

[Scruffy Mummy]

Good on you londonmix - I'm curious if the woman who went to the Evening Standard to complain that because her child didn't get into Heber but was allocated another local school that apparently didn't meet her academic criteria (or could it be the demographics?) was being forced to send her child privately is reading this thread?

[bonaome]

> People think demographics matter more than

> teaching and it doesn't. I know the location is a

> bit tricky but if this school served a more

> affluent / white intake, ED parents would be

> walking over hot coals to get their kids a place

> regardless of how tricky it was to get to.

We looked at BG and put it on our list. Also GG. We'd have been happy with either, but our preference was for Heber and we were delighted to be offered a place for two key reasons a) it's a few yards from our house, but moreover b) we felt it had the best overall atmosphere (community spirit, philosophy).

Four years later I still think Heber has a fantastic community spirit, that the kids are really happy and supportive of one another, that they are respectful of each, other and that the staff are warm, caring and do a great job. As I said previously I don't think academics are everything. Especially at primary. I know two families who have moved to Heber from BG. Neither felt BG was a poor school, but both prefer Heber based on the atmosphere and, frankly, the practicalities of getting to it/from it.

I hope to go to the meeting next Tuesday and will raise the value added score issue. However it looks to me more and more like a bit of 'yes minister' madness.