Anything Political

[DJ360 6,730]

It'll get easier with practice..

[DJ360 6,730]

Today  a Coroner ruled that Headteacher Ruth Perry's  suicide after an Ofsted inspection, was at least partially  the result of an Ofsted Inspection.

The point seems to me to be basically that a school can be judged 'inadequate' simply  because ONE aspect of its performance  is not 100%.

Would you say that a child who fails ONE out of TEN GCSE's is Inadequate?

Yet another Tory failure.

[siddha 825]

DJ I think it interesting that you conclude that this is a Tory failure. I reckon no political party has failed but a lazy complacent civil service has not been responsive to to the feedback from within the profession.

 

Many of our regulatory bodies are flawed for varieties of reasons.

OFSTED has always been problematic in generating an aggressive culture. When thinking about children and their learning they have a relatively short time in school and lazy/comfortable leadership in schools can leave poor teachers in place doing a poor job. A good and robust professional development process (appraisal)  could sort most of that out but again you need good and firm leadership and governance to make that work.

 

Safeguarding of children is vital and the processes in school need to be 100% perfect and a minor error  or omission can lead to a school being judged inadequate. We can only conclude that Ruth Perry did not get absolutely everything right in the safeguarding arrangements at her school. Whatever the omission it was poorly handled by the inspection team. 

 

A sad state of affairs and an unnecessary death and attendant sadness.

 

I could relate so many stories of unnecessarily disrupted lives following school inspections. A stupidly brutal system that should never have been developed in the way it was. But what should we do to ensure that our children's education is good?

[DJ360 6,730]

11 hours ago, siddha said:

DJ I think it interesting that you conclude that this is a Tory failure. I reckon no political party has failed but a lazy complacent civil service has not been responsive to to the feedback from within the profession.

 

siddha,

 

I'll come to party failures later but..

 

It's clear that Ofsted has not been responsive to feedback and that even now, it seems reluctant to accept responsibility or to make significant changes. It remains a remarkably opaque organisation. Even its own website makes heavy and not especially informative reading.

 

However, I'm not sure that the general depiction of 'a lazy and complacent Civil Service' is correct either.  As far as I can determine, most OFSTED inspectors are 'contracted' to OFTED and OFSTED itself is:

 

Quote

a non-ministerial department of His Majesty's government, reporting to Parliament.

(From Gov.UK.)

 

OFSTED inspectors of schools need to be Graduates with Qualified Teacher Status plus some management experience and other qualifying characteristics, so it's likely they are drawn from the teaching profession rather that the Civil Service.

 

11 hours ago, siddha said:

Many of our regulatory bodies are flawed for varieties of reasons.

 

Amen to that!

 

11 hours ago, siddha said:

OFSTED has always been problematic in generating an aggressive culture. When thinking about children and their learning they have a relatively short time in school and lazy/comfortable leadership in schools can leave poor teachers in place doing a poor job. A good and robust professional development process (appraisal)  could sort most of that out but again you need good and firm leadership and governance to make that work.

 

I'm afraid the above paragraph reads as a somewhat 'scattergun' approach, but..

 

-Yes OFSTED is disliked and even feared.

-Obviously poor leadership in schools will be damaging, but Teachers are regularly appraised according to Govt. Guidance so I assume that a poor Head/Leader would soon be revealed.

 

11 hours ago, siddha said:

Safeguarding of children is vital and the processes in school need to be 100% perfect and a minor error  or omission can lead to a school being judged inadequate. We can only conclude that Ruth Perry did not get absolutely everything right in the safeguarding arrangements at her school. Whatever the omission it was poorly handled by the inspection team. 

 

-Well of course.  I spent 30 years of my working life in schools, though as a Careers Adviser, not a Teacher and I'm well aware of safeguarding issues and how difficult it can be to monitor and effectively address them.

 

-I'm sorry but I don't think we can conclude anything of the sort about Ruth Perry. It was a judgement made by an inspector and I don't think we have enough evidence to go on.

 

Slight Edit:  The OFSTED reports are here:

 

https://reports.ofsted.gov.uk/provider/21/109778

 

However after contributing to Perry's death, they then use a subsequent report to complain that Governors are allowing Safeguarding to distract them from other important areas. You really couldn't make this up!  It's as if OFSTED take some sort of sadistic delight in finding fault.

 

-Yes, it was poorly, I'd say criminially handled by the Inspection Team.

 

Both of the above points bring me straight back to my original point..that it is not only unhelpful, but it is monumentally stupid, to allow ONE element of the inspection criteria, however important, to totally condemn a school.

 

Surely the approach that any sane person would take would be to identify performance against all inspection criteria and to then point out any failings and set a timeframe for rectification/improvement.

So.. for e.g.  "Some record keeping around Safeguarding' procedures was picked up, but there is no evidence of any ensuing harm.  This must be rectified within ... (suitable time frame)"

 

I used to have to create a document called a "Section 139a Assessment Summary", which was designed to 'follow' all pupils with a statement of 'Special Needs' leaving 'special' schools, in order to inform their next education establishment etc., of their needs.  The amount of work this involved, chasing up reports from multiple agencies, health info, social /family info, academic attainment and potential, etc., etc., etc... was borderline crippling... But I digress...

 

It's a Tory Failure on numerous counts.

 

-OFSTED in its current form was created by John Major, a Tory, although in comparison to the present lot he's a raving Marxist...

 

- It is basically an 'arms length' organisation,  something like a QWANGO, with many features of a Private Corporation.  Govt. is able to distance itself from any failings by this device.

-In my view it is just another example of Tory Privatisation and Deregulation, where they are typically unwilling to intervene in the behaviour of the 'monster' they have created.

- It reports annually to Parliament, not Govt., or the Education Minister, unlike the previous HMI.  It's unclear who, if anyone actually responds to  OFSTEDS own Annual Report.. Maybe a select committee..

 

But the real point is that the Tories have been in power for 13 years during which I believe that at least three headteachers have died from suicide connected to OFSTED reports and countless others have had their health or careers ruined.

It is simply beyond unbelievable that Govt. and the Education Dept. were unaware of OFSTED's failings, but they did nothing.

The 'buck' stops with them.

 

Maybe when they've sorted out OFSTED, they could move on to OFWAT, OFGEN, OFCOM and all the other toothless organisations they maintain seemingly to rubber stamp legalised theft and incompetence.

[Brew 5,419]

It seems Ofsted can do nothing right.

 

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

OFSTED inspectors of schools need to be Graduates with Qualified Teacher Status

It would follow therefore they are best qualified to judge.

 

13 hours ago, siddha said:

A good and robust professional development process (appraisal)  could sort most of that out but again you need good and firm leadership and governance

Isn't that what Ofsted does? and define 'robust' and 'firm leadership'. Schools heads regular carry out  appraisals internally, who would you suggest does the impartial external?

 

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

OFSTED has always been problematic in generating an aggressive culture.

Is it aggressive or robust, firm leadership?

 

 

" Whatever the omission it was poorly handled by the inspection team."

How do we know this? Unless we are privy the the internal proceedings of Ofsted we only have conjecture and supposition,

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

I'm sorry but I don't think we can conclude anything of the sort about Ruth Perry. It was a judgement made by an inspector and I don't think we have enough evidence to go on.

 

 

Totally agree. I won't comment on Mrs Perry other than to say it's an absolute tragedy.

 

But it was not just an inspector. there's at least three in a team, each qualified in different areas.

 

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Both of the above points bring me straight back to my original point..that it is not only unhelpful, but it is monumentally stupid, to allow ONE element of the inspection criteria, however important, to totally condemn a school.

 

On this the coroner came up with two hypothetical cases to illustrate the point:

 

"Hypothetical school A is inadequate in all areas and there are serious concerns about safeguarding, which will take a long time to fix. Hypothetical school B is good in all areas, but has safeguarding concerns which are likely to be fixed quickly." Both fail inspection ,and far from a single item there were at least four areas of concern,

 

OK,  but where do we draw the line? There has to be a standard, and far from a single item there were at least four areas of concern,

 

A driving test allows 15 minor faults, 16 and you fail. It can be said therefore that you failed the driving test on a minor fault. A failure is a failure whether its a massive fault causing an accident or simply bumping the kerb. There has to be a line as with O level, A level. MOT and every other sort of test.

 

There are 2500 schools in Ofsteds  mandate, of those only 130 failed to gain at least a 'good' rating. Hardly the draconian result that the press are alluding to. Ofsted are taking some flak with the media  frantically searching to find tales of woe from the profession, the more onerous the better.

 

There is no criticism from those schools rated good or outstanding indeed they are very quick to boast about it, but that's not newsworthy and we rarely see mention of it. A school fails and its headlines...

 

No organisation is perfect, but in short Ofsted are staffed by well qualified professionals, well funded and accountable to parliament. any changes to the system will simply be Ofsted by another name.

[siddha 825]

Brew and DJ  you have points you would like to make. Some of your points are more valid than others according to the particular lens you are choosing to view the matter through.

 

It is extremely unfortunate that Ruth Perry and her school were so poorly tret because an Inspection team did not do their job well. ( Just to be clear , I do know that)

It was extremely unfortunate that Baby P and Victoria Adjo Climbié  died because our Safeguarding (Child Protection) arrangements were not followed through as they should have been. Good Safeguarding arrangements are necessary.

 

DJ you make an assumption about professional development, we know what assumptions can lead to.

Brew you have useful points of clarification thank you for those.

 

I know the problems of this area of provision for like DJ it was my work.

[Brew 5,419]

4 hours ago, siddha said:

Good Safeguarding arrangements are necessary.

 

Of that there is no argument, however in the two terrible cases you quote neither schools nor Ofsted had any involvement. 

 

I don't doubt you have experience and in depth knowledge of the way the system works,  but can't imagine how you can be so certain in this particular instance unless directly involved. The focus in your post is safeguarding, the school failed on four elements in that area. how did they not do their job?

 

Victoria before  her death, the police, the social services department of four local authorities, the National Health Service, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and local churches all had contact with her and noted signs of abuse. However, in what the judge in the trial following Victoria's death described as "blinding incompetence", all failed to properly investigate the case and little action was taken. 

 

Baby P was similarly failed by those who had contact.

 

In both cases there was no criticism of failure by the school system and over the intervening 20 yrs there has been significant changes.

 

The point I'm making is widening the topic to include extreme historical examples such a these invites unrelated comment and draws attention away from the current discussion, I can't see how they are relevant. Child protection is something entirely different.

 

 

 

 

[DJ360 6,730]

21 hours ago, Brew said:

It would follow therefore they are best qualified to judge.

 

Well you would think so wouldn't you, especially considering they also have training in how to do inspections. However, they operate within the framework set by OFSTED, and they report their findings in the manner prescribed by OFSTED.

It is the way in which a school can be judged 'inadequate', due to weaknesses in a single area, which I believe is wrong.

 

I'm struggling to think of any other profession where people who are judged to have even partially failed, as far as I can see without even any right of appeal, are placed under such pressure that they kill themselves.  I can think of many, many people who have failed in far worse ways, but who weren't so personally invested that they felt compelled to take their own lives. I include many politicians in that number.

 

21 hours ago, Brew said:

OK,  but where do we draw the line? There has to be a standard, and far from a single item there were at least four areas of concern,

 

I don't think any reasonable person would argue against having standards, but I can only repeat that something is clearly wrong with a system which causes so much fear, and even death.

In most other circumstances, an appraisal would build on positives, not the reverse.

 

21 hours ago, Brew said:

There are 2500 schools in Ofsteds  mandate, of those only 130 failed to gain at least a 'good' rating. Hardly the draconian result that the press are alluding to. Ofsted are taking some flak with the media  frantically searching to find tales of woe from the profession, the more onerous the better.

 

Again..as you know, there has been disquiet about OFSTED for some time and I don't think that anyone has argued that allowing standards to fall is the solution. Even Good and Outstanding schools and their staff go through hell during OFSTED inspections. As I read it, for some reason it was I think 9 years since Ruth Perry's previous inspection. that would be time for attention to slip on something, we all do it.

 

For what it's worth, I was appraised regularly.  Usually, the 'appraiser' would find something to criticise. Two reasons for that stand out.

1. They are usually bosses and have to maintain the mythical difference in competence between themselves and their 'minions', rather than recognising that their role is different, not necessarily more skilled.

2. The very dubious concept of 'continuous improvement'. To make that work you have to find something to 'improve.'

 

I was also pretty much forced to become an NVQ Assessor, so that as well as our normal process of 'peer to peer' review, I was also required to assess people doing NVQs in 'Guidance' which I freely admit I found farcical.

 

21 hours ago, Brew said:

There is no criticism from those schools rated good or outstanding indeed they are very quick to boast about it, but that's not newsworthy and we rarely see mention of it. A school fails and its headlines...

 

Human nature, and as above, it says nothing about OFSTEDS methods.

 

21 hours ago, Brew said:

No organisation is perfect, but in short Ofsted are staffed by well qualified professionals, well funded and accountable to parliament. any changes to the system will simply be Ofsted by another name.

 

I can only repeat again... OFSTED is clearly not accountable enough.  In any sane world, the body charged with inspecting schools, would be DIRECTLY responsible to the Minister for Education, not vaguely reporting to Parliament.

[Brew 5,419]

17 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

I'm struggling to think of any other profession where people who are judged to have even partially failed, as far as I can see without even any right of appeal, are placed under such pressure that they kill themselves.  I can think of many, many people who have failed in far worse ways, but who weren't so personally invested that they felt compelled to take their own lives. I include many politicians in that number

 

There are at least two ways to appeal Ofsted decisions and I can't see where an Ofsted bad report puts pressure on anyone except to follow the recommendations,  it is what it is.

 

To speculate further is to try and analyse the type of personality of those involved, their personal circumstances or mental state. I will not comment on things of that nature when I'm not qualified to do so.

 

32 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

I can only repeat that something is clearly wrong with a system which causes so much fear, and even death.

In most other circumstances, an appraisal would build on positives, not the reverse

 

From what I have read every other element of the inspection was positive.

What would we think if the result of  ignoring the situation or downrating the assessment as per Brent council ended in harm?

We have to remember there are four grades, they could have given. Grade 1 and 2 the highest then down to grade 3 (requires improvement). To be graded as a 4 (inadequate), something must have been very wrong and well below the expected standard. This was not an individuals judgement, it had to be a team agreement and I doubt that decision  was taken  lightly.

 

Blame for suicides is difficult to establish. Skilled trades are at the highest risk with plasters, painters and decorators having twice the national average, agricultural workers are next...

 

57 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

For what it's worth, I was appraised regularly.  Usually, the 'appraiser' would find something to criticise.

As were many of us myself included. Usually it was a tick box exercise much like a school report which aways ended with recommended 'areas to concentrate on', and were universally ignored by both assessed and assessors

 

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

In any sane world, the body charged with inspecting schools, would be DIRECTLY responsible to the Minister for Education, not vaguely reporting to Parliament.

 

Not entirely sure I agree, By being non-ministerial they are able to maintain a degree of impartiality, free from influence by unqualified politicos who have an axe to  grind or a budget to cut.  Neither of the two Ministers or the Secretary of State for education are qualified in any area of education.

[DJ360 6,730]

15 hours ago, Brew said:

There are at least two ways to appeal Ofsted decisions

 

OK. But I very much doubt that appeal can be heard before publication of the report and its ONE WORD assessment of the whole school.

 

15 hours ago, Brew said:

I can't see where an Ofsted bad report puts pressure on anyone except to follow the recommendations,  it is what it is.

 

That is an extreme expression of your customary pragmatism. It is both obvious and widely accepted that OFSTED reports are taken very seriously by schools, staff, governors and of course parents.

 

15 hours ago, Brew said:

To speculate further is to try and analyse the type of personality of those involved, their personal circumstances or mental state. I will not comment on things of that nature when I'm not qualified to do so.

 

Recognising that not only Ruth Perry, but at least two other suicides and countless other very negative outcomes in terms of career futures etc., have been connected to OFSTED outcomes, is not speculation.

 

15 hours ago, Brew said:

From what I have read every other element of the inspection was positive.

 

Exactly.. and yet the ONE WORD assessment of the school was 'Inadequate'.  It is those ONE WORD assessments which schools typically quote on their websites... and which can persuade parents that anything less than 'Outstanding' implies failure.

 

How about this..

 

"School X was found to be good/outstanding in the following nX areas. However, it was found that elements of record keeping and administration surrounding Safeguarding, require immediate improvement/corrective action, are judged 'Inadequate' and will be reviewed within (time frame).

 

Do you see the difference?  Both approaches address the issue, but one condemns the whole school as 'Inadequate', whereas th other recognises the strengths of the school and demands improvement of ONE aspect.

 

15 hours ago, Brew said:

Blame for suicides is difficult to establish. Skilled trades are at the highest risk with plasters, painters and decorators having twice the national average, agricultural workers are next...

 

Not sure the word 'blame' is appropriate here.. I'd use 'cause', but in any case you are drawing a false equivalence, unless you are considering skilled tradesmen who commit suicide as a direct result of having their quality of work publicly judged and impuned. It's also a fact that young adult males constitute the group with the highest overall suicide rate, as well as including many 'skilled tradesmen'.

 

15 hours ago, Brew said:

As were many of us myself included. Usually it was a tick box exercise much like a school report which aways ended with recommended 'areas to concentrate on', and were universally ignored by both assessed and assessors

 

An even more cynical view of 'Appraisals' than mine, but I'd suggest that it only really becomes a 'tick box' exercise if it is performed only to comply with some Business Quality kitemark such as ISO 9000 or similar bumf.

 

https://asq.org/quality-resources/iso-9000

 

If it is done properly, areas for improvement will be agreed, and reviewed at the next assessment.

 

15 hours ago, Brew said:

Not entirely sure I agree, By being non-ministerial they are able to maintain a degree of impartiality, free from influence by unqualified politicos who have an axe to  grind or a budget to cut.  Neither of the two Ministers or the Secretary of State for education are qualified in any area of education.

 

A fair point, but I'm not asking for the Minister to be Judge and Jury. Only that Ministers are sufficiently 'across' their brief to pick up on such issues and ensure that they are properly addressed.

 

As it is, the Education Select Committee launched an enquiry into the activities of OFSTED in June 2023. They have already opened and closed a call for written evidence and as far as I can see are now in the process of taking verbal evidence from witnesses.

I don't know what or who exactly provoked this, or when it is proposed to report on it.

 

However, I've just spent some time reading a transcript of evidence given by Amanda Speilman.. outgoing head of OFSTED, to the Education Select Committee. I'm not sure why she is 'Outgoing' at this point in time... She starts by telling us all the wonderful stuff she has done during her tenure.  In my view, she wasn't asked this, and it's a very good example of 'Getting your retaliation in first', YMMV.

 

Here: https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/13764/pdf/

 

Some of what she says appears to support your view, but there's also an awful lot which points to issues with consistency, the quality and relevant experience of 'Inspectors' and much more. A thoroughly interesting read, which I haven't yet finished, but I'll just say that the whole issue of 'one word' assessments crops up, from Q123 if I recall correctly.

 

It's also apparent that Ms Speilman is arguing that the outcomes of reports are partly down to a 'narrow' definition of inspection, basically 'Diagnostic' rather than 'Supportive', imposed by Govt. In other words "It wasn't me Guv".  IMHO, it's not a good look.

 

P.S. There is also some reference in the questioning of Ms Speilman, to the 'Automatic Academisation' of school judged 'inadequate'.  I need to research this further, but it was also hinted at in something I read about Ruth Perry's situation.  Reading between the lines, it's a Govt. Policy, very politically motivated and it would certainly undermine your assertion that an OFSTED report is simply 'what it is', as it would almost certainly lead to major disruption of any school, and almost inevitable a change of Head.

 

It's here: https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2023/05/02/what-are-academy-schools-and-what-is-forced-academisation/

 

From which:

 

Quote

Can schools be forced to be an academy?

Around 73% of academy schools have voluntarily chosen to become an academy.

However, the law requires schools which have received an ‘Inadequate’ rating from Ofsted to become academies. Schools which have received two or more consecutive ratings below ‘Good’ may also be converted into academies.

For schools in this position, the Secretary of State for Education will send the school something called an ‘academy order’, which will start the process for the school to become an academy.

In these circumstances, schools will be transferred to a trust with a strong track record of ensuring pupils receive the highest standard of education.

We believe that joining a MAT is the best way to support schools to provide the best education possible, transforming outcomes for pupils.

Schools transferring to academy status will be supported by a project-lead to guide them through the process.

 

So much for avoiding political interference.

[letsavagoo 963]

On 12/8/2023 at 12:50 AM, DJ360 said:

Today  a Coroner ruled that Headteacher Ruth Perry's  suicide after an Ofsted inspection, was at least partially  the result of an Ofsted Inspection.

The point seems to me to be basically that a school can be judged 'inadequate' simply  because ONE aspect of its performance  is not 100%.

Would you say that a child who fails ONE out of TEN GCSE's is Inadequate?

Yet another Tory failure.

I believe that failing the safeguarding aspect of an inspection is considered so vital that it will ‘overrule’ the good and or adequate areas and render the whole inspection as inadequate with the opportunity to monitor and address with prompt follow up inspections. 
Equating to your GCSE example is it not like seeking a university place to study science and passing 9 but failing science. 

[DJ360 6,730]

2 hours ago, letsavagoo said:

I believe that failing the safeguarding aspect of an inspection is considered so vital that it will ‘overrule’ the good and or adequate areas and render the whole inspection as inadequate with the opportunity to monitor and address with prompt follow up inspections. 

 

Do you mean that it is your opinion that safeguarding' 'trumps' all other aspects, or that it is your understanding that OFSTED takes that view?

Eitherway...

I still disagree with the 'One Word' assessment. It is the use of the ONE WORD assessment which is at the root of this whole debate.

The school in the case under discussion cannot in any sense be described as 'Inadequate', the Inspectors Report itself says as much. ONE aspect is judged 'Inadequate'. I don't think anyone is saying that the findings can be ignored, or that they should not be promptly re-inspected, but such is the perversity of the 'system', that when Inspectors returned, they judged that the school and its Governors were now too focused on Safeguarding, to the detriment of other areas!

 

2 hours ago, letsavagoo said:

Equating to your GCSE example is it not like seeking a university place to study science and passing 9 but failing science. 

 

No. And for a number of reasons.

 

1. You are drawing a false equivalence.

 

2. If I'm picky about it, GCSE 'Science' is unlikely to get anyone into a University Degree Course in Science because GCSEs are 'Level 2' qualifications and acceptance onto University Degrees  generally requires adequate grades in Level 3 Qualifications, mostly A Levels, but also Level 3 Diploma Courses, which I'm a bit out of date on now, but basically Level 3 courses such as the old BTEC National Diplomas etc., and some newly developed ones which have come 'onstream' since I retired. The GCSE's which are typically 'required' for access to all degree courses, alongside stipulated grades in suitable A levels, are usually Maths and English.

 

https://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/student-advice/applying-to-uni/entry-requirements

 

3. Would anyone seriously give a judgement that a GCSE Student was 'Inadequate', under any circumstances and in any sense, if they had passed 9 GCSEs out of 10?   Admittedly, failing GCSE Science doesn't bode well for a future in Undergraduate study of Science, but equally, there could be numerous reasons why that student failed Science and generally at GCSE results time, they are still 2 years away from applying for university courses, so it's far from a 'done deal'.

 

 

[Brew 5,419]

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

That is an extreme expression of your customary pragmatism. It is both obvious and widely accepted that OFSTED reports are taken very seriously by schools, staff, governors and of course parents.

 

I did not say reports were not taken seriously.

The report, like any exam result judged by an outside source is dispassionate, not emotive. Be as gentle as you like but where criticism is due then criticise you must.

 

Concentrating on one word is misleading and takes us away from the reports purpose.

Synonyms for inadequate include incompetent, poor and deficient among others. Which would think is a better word to use without downgrading the seriousness implied by the word.

There are as i pointed out two degrees of failure. The school was judged 'good' in most areas. In 'leadership and management' it was not judged 'needs improvement' it was an outright fail, a fault they considered so serious it warranted the lowest grade. Also the inadequate report is over a year out of date the school is now rated good, grade 2 

 

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Not sure the word 'blame' is appropriate here.. I'd use 'cause', but in any case you are drawing a false equivalence, unless you are considering skilled tradesmen who commit suicide as a direct result of having their quality of work publicly judged and impuned.

 

I'm simply drawing a comparison the whereby statistics have seen fit to include occupation, the inference being that the work they do may be a contributing factor. Working in education seems not to drive as many to end their lives despite the number that go through the humiliation of a poor report

 

Spielman is in my view held her own in cross examination, I find little to criticise.  Anna Firth just wants to show how good she is a corporate-speak.

Much is made of semantics. The word 'judgement' with the chair offering 'academic circles' criticisms, which is in itself a judgment. They could easily go round and round on that one word alone

 

I wrote the second paragraph before i read your link, it would seem Spielman and I sing from the same hymn sheet. The criticism you raise of 'one word' judgement is raised and discussed fromQ128

 

 

 

[letsavagoo 963]

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

Do you mean that it is your opinion that safeguarding' 'trumps' all other aspects, or that it is your understanding that OFSTED takes that view?

 

It is my interpretation of what OFSTED say. Fail safeguarding and yes it trumps all. Other areas can fail but still get an overall ‘pass’ but not safeguarding.

With respect it doesn’t matter if you agree or not, it’s the rules OFSTED work to. Safeguarding trumps all. If a child came to harm due to a safeguarding issue at a school that had passed an inspection you’d soon be bleating Tory failing. 
 

I won’t pursue the GCSE argument as it’s a very poor comparison you bought up and a very poor analogy of absolutely no relevance not worthy comment. Waffling on about grades, level 3 qualifications etc etc doesn’t make it any better, seems like you’re clutching at straws and doesn’t mean a thing. I should have ignored it . 

[DJ360 6,730]

50 minutes ago, Brew said:

Be as gentle as you like but where criticism is due then criticise you must.

 

I have not at any point said otherwise.

 

51 minutes ago, Brew said:

Concentrating on one word is misleading and takes us away from the reports purpose.

Synonyms for inadequate include incompetent, poor and deficient among others. Which would think is a better word to use without downgrading the seriousness implied by the word.

 

I disagree. Of course, if you'll excuse the pun, 'inadequate' is a perfectly adequate descriptor, but I'm beginning to despair that you will ever grasp my point!

If, as we and OFSTED agree, all aspects of the school were at least 'Good', with the exception of some aspects of Safeguarding,(And even there..no evidence of any actual harm caused), then why insist on using 'Inadequate' as a ONE WORD descriptor of the whole school?  It is plain crazy and nothing will convince me otherwise.

 

The solution is simple. Stop using the bloody stupid ONE WORD  descriptor!

Also, stop allowing schools to use it on tgheir websites.

Set up a system where there is a standardised method of reporting inspection findings on all criteria that were inspected. How hard can it be?

 

These are the actual relevant sections of the OFSTED Report in Question:

 

Quote

School report
Inspection of Caversham Primary
School
Hemdean Road, Caversham, Reading, Berkshire RG4 7RA
Inspection dates: 15 and 16 November 2022
Overall effectiveness Inadequate
The quality of education Good
Behaviour and attitudes Good
Personal development Good
Leadership and management Inadequate
Early years provision Good
Previous inspection grade Outstanding
This school was last inspected 13 years ago and judged ‘Outstanding’ under a
previous inspection framework. This reflected the school’s overall effectiveness
under the inspection framework in use at the time. From then until November 2020,
the school was exempted by law from routine inspection, so there has been a longer
gap than usual between inspections. Judgements in this report are based on the
current inspection framework and also reflect changes that may have happened at
any point since the last inspection.

 

 

Inspection report: Caversham Primary School
15 and 16 November 2022 2
What is it like to attend this school?
Pupils enjoy coming to this welcoming and vibrant school. They respect and
celebrate differences between themselves and others. Pupils can discuss what a
healthy and unhealthy relationship looks like and how to be a good friend. They
know how to stay safe, including online.
Most pupils behave sensibly and rise to the staff’s high expectations. Pupils are kind
to each other, listen and respond appropriately to each other. Pupils know who to
turn to if they have a worry or a problem, feeling confident that they will get the
help they need. Relationships between staff and pupils are warm and supportive.
Incidents of bullying are rare.
Pupils appreciate the wider opportunities and experiences they have that enhance
their learning. These include a range of visits, visitors and clubs that build upon
pupils’ interests and talents. Pupils are enthusiastic about the many positions of
leadership they hold because they know they make a positive difference to others.
Pupils are doing well overall and are well prepared for their next stage of education.
However, leaders do not have the required knowledge to keep pupils safe from
harm. They have not taken prompt and proper actions when pupils are at risk. They
have not ensured that safeguarding is effective throughout the school.
What does the school do well and what does it need to do
better?
Governors have an ambitious vision for pupils and staff. However, they have not
ensured that they fulfil their statutory safeguarding responsibilities. Until the
inspection, they were unaware of significant weaknesses in the school’s
arrangements to keep pupils safe.
Leaders have worked with determination to strengthen the quality of education.
They have given priority to early reading, English and wider subjects such as history
and physical education. Their hard work and sound thinking have paid off. This has
led to greater consistency and pupils are achieving well. Changes to the
mathematics curriculum demonstrate leaders’ high expectations. However, some
teachers require further training and support to ensure they are implementing the
mathematics curriculum consistently and effectively.
Reading is a high priority. Staff in Reception and key stage 1 closely follow the
school’s phonic programme. This helps pupils get off to a flying start with their
reading. Any pupils who are finding reading tricky get the right help to catch up
quickly. Staff promote a love of reading. Pupils thoroughly enjoy hearing their
teachers read well-chosen books that extend their vocabulary and enhance their
understanding.
Clear routines and expectations mean that children in Reception get off to a strong
start with their learning. They share, take turns and play together well. Interactions

 

 

Inspection report: Caversham Primary School
15 and 16 November 2022 3
between adults and children support learning and rightly focus on developing
communication and language.
Pupils’ behaviour in lessons is exemplary. They love to learn and they relish the
challenges that teachers provide. Pupils who struggle with their behaviour benefit
from the pastoral care they receive from leaders and staff. During unsupervised
times, including during wet playtimes, some older pupils make poor behaviour
choices which go unnoticed and can put others at risk of harm. Overall, pupils’
attendance is very high, but there is a small group of pupils, including disadvantaged
pupils, who are persistently absent. School leaders do not have robust processes in
place to help these pupils attend school regularly.
Staff start every lesson with a recap to help pupils reconnect with previous learning.
Leaders identify any additional needs pupils have as soon as they join the school.
Teachers adapt lessons to meet the needs of pupils with special educational needs
and/or disabilities (SEND). However, the expectations that staff have for some
pupils, including some pupils with SEND, are not always as high as those set out by
leaders. In these cases, pupils do not achieve as well as they could.
Leaders provide pupils with extensive opportunities for personal development. They
are passionate about making sure that every pupil has access to the wide range of
visits, visitors, clubs and events that are available. Personal, social, health and
economic education is well sequenced and ensures that pupils are ready for their
move to secondary school. Pupils have a strong understanding of democracy and
show respect for other people’s points of view. They learn how to stay healthy both
physically and mentally.
Staff are supportive of senior leaders. They feel respected and appreciate the
consideration leaders place on well-being and workload. Those who replied to the
staff survey were unanimous in their view that they enjoy working at this school.
Equally, parents spoken to and those who completed the survey were very positive.
One parent, who echoed the sentiment of many, said, ‘I am impressed with how
happy my child is at the school. The staff are brilliant and caring, inspiring them to
be the very best they can be.’
Safeguarding
The arrangements for safeguarding are not effective.
Leaders have a weak understanding of safeguarding requirements and procedures.
They have not exercised sufficient leadership or oversight of this important work. As
a result, records of safeguarding concerns and the tracking of subsequent actions
are poor. Leaders have not ensured that all required employment checks are
complete for some staff employed at the school. These weaknesses pose potential
risks to pupils.
Some staff have not had the necessary training to be able to record concerns
accurately using the school’s online system. However, staff know how to identify

concerns about pupils and to report these to the appropriate leader. The pastoral
support provided for pupils is a strength and they appreciate this level of care.

What does the school need to do to improve?
(Information for the school and appropriate authority)
 Leaders do not fulfil their safeguarding responsibilities effectively. They have not
exercised sufficient oversight and rigorous monitoring of safeguarding processes.
Leaders need to improve their own safeguarding expertise and ensure that roles
and responsibilities are clearly defined and understood by all staff at the school.
 Leaders, including governors, have not maintained effective oversight of
safeguarding. They do not have strong systems in place to ensure that record-
keeping and subsequent follow-up work are effective. Leaders and governors
must ensure that robust systems are implemented so that they are assured
actions taken are prompt and proper.
 Leaders have not ensured that there is always appropriate supervision during
breaktimes. This means that pupils are potentially at risk of harm. Leaders need
to urgently address these significant weaknesses in safeguarding arrangements.
 Leaders and governors’ oversight of attendance is not as strong as it needs to be.
They do not have an appropriate policy or systems in place to identify patterns
and trends quickly enough or connect these with vulnerable groups of pupils.
Leaders must address this swiftly.
 Staff expectations of pupils with SEND are not always as high as they could be.
As a result, some pupils with SEND are not achieving as well as they could.
School leaders need to ensure that the curriculum is consistently implemented
and that expectations of pupils with SEND are consistently high.
 

 

I have highlighted the offending judgement in red. I'm not in any sense arguing that it isn't correct, but I repeat, yet again, that it is an overall condemnation of the school which is only qualified later. It is if you like the MAIN finding of the Inspection, after which many will not read further. It is, in my view completely wrong to operate in this way.

 

Now, take out the 'Overall Effectiveness' judgement ( Because a judgement is what it is.. nothing else..)

Quote

School report
Inspection of Caversham Primary
School
Hemdean Road, Caversham, Reading, Berkshire RG4 7RA
Inspection dates: 15 and 16 November 2022
Areas Inspected, with gradings.
The quality of education Good
Behaviour and attitudes Good
Personal development Good
Leadership and management Inadequate
Early years provision Good
Previous inspection grade Outstanding

 

Surely this is better?

 

Also, further down in the report OFSTED claim that.

 

Quote

Staff expectations of pupils with SEND are not always as high as they could be.
As a result, some pupils with SEND are not achieving as well as they could.

 

Seriously?  Are we expected to believe that Inspectors not only read minds ('expectations'), but are also able to prove a connection between those assumed expectations and subsequent attainment?

[DJ360 6,730]

23 minutes ago, letsavagoo said:

It is my interpretation of what OFSTED say. Fail safeguarding and yes it trumps all. Other areas can fail but still get an overall ‘pass’ but not safeguarding.

 

I won't argue with that.

24 minutes ago, letsavagoo said:

With respect it doesn’t matter if you agree or not, it’s the rules OFSTED work to. Safeguarding trumps all. If a child came to harm due to a safeguarding issue at a school that had passed an inspection you’d soon be bleating Tory failing. 

 

Quite possibly, but that still doesn't mean that a weakness in Safeguarding PROCEDURE and ADMINISTRATION,which, lets face it, was so 'awful' that it was rectified in months, should be used to characterise a whole school.

 

28 minutes ago, letsavagoo said:

I won’t pursue the GCSE argument as it’s a very poor comparison you bought up and a very poor analogy of absolutely no relevance not worthy comment. Waffling on about grades, level 3 qualifications etc etc doesn’t make it any better, seems like you’re clutching at straws and doesn’t mean a thing. I should have ignored it . 

 

It seems it's a very poor comparison because it foxed you.

[Brew 5,419]

53 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

I disagree. Of course, if you'll excuse the pun, 'inadequate' is a perfectly adequate descriptor, but I'm beginning to despair that you will ever grasp my point!

 

I take you mean the word  is so onerous and overarching the effect is judgemental and a damnation. It's one dimensional without any sort of nuance or room for interpretation, definitive. There is no wiggle room whereby it can be explained away and there is a finality about it. It tars all with the same brush

Correct me if I've misunderstood.

 

This aspect Spielman covers from Q128 on. Basically she says no matter what word you use it will quickly acquire the same disagreeable and distasteful connotations as inadequate, with much the same effect.

 

In my view should they choose a more descriptive, multi-word statement it immediately becomes open to argument and differing interpretations. With one word there is no interpretation, no argument as to its meaning. It does exactly what it says on the tin.

 

[letsavagoo 963]

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

It seems it's a very poor comparison because it foxed you.

Obviously.

[DJ360 6,730]

@BrewYou have misunderstood.

Once more...

I have no problem  with the word 'inadequate'.

I have no problem  with safeguarding  procedures being described as inadequate if that is the case.

 

I have a BIG problem with OFSTED thinking that it is OK to extrapolate from ONE inadequate  area, to label the whole school inadequate. It is  dishonest an unnecessary.

Now do you get my point?

[Brew 5,419]

Like i said, tarring the whole school with the same brush, but I think you're over thinking it and attaching too much to it..

 

[DJ360 6,730]

I still disagree. I've had numerous  conversations about this issue with neighbours, acquaintances, others online elsewhere etc. ALL agree that the one word overall assessment is unacceptable.

[Brew 5,419]

But seems have failed in their estimation to present a viable case???

 

[DJ360 6,730]

In whose estimation?

[Brew 5,419]

Didn't phrase that well. did they present a cogent argument of their own or simply agree with you?

[Brew 5,419]

I really do think too much is being made of this, a fail is a fail and the margin of failure is largely irrelevant. 

The tragedy associated with this report, even it's though out of date and has long been corrected is giving the word way more import that it deserves.

As people look for a reason, a way to explain what happed they will seize on anything to  assuage their grief or attribute blame.

 

The are many instances and examples we can quote but it would descend into a yeahbutworrabout contest.