Anything Political


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

True enough but none quite so 'in your face' or as blatant. To paraphrase Mone "I didn't lie to hide the the fact we're making £60 million and hiding it in a trust, it was to to protect my family

Why do you feel the need to influence others? What is your motivation for so doing? Is it because you think you know better than they? Is it because it feeds your ego if and when you succeed?  Is it b

HSR: Col is given a 'free rein to spout his opinions' for exactly the reasons you are, only he does so with more civility.   Recently there have been a couple of attacks on the validity of t

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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'.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 . 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 schools 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 staffs 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 schools
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
schools 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 peoples 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 schools 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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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..

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brew said:

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

Views vary in detail but they all agree that the One Word assessment which ignores all the Good etc., and calls the whole school inadequate based on one inadequate  element, is wrong.

That must be a dozen times I've said that now. I don't oppose Inspection, or the use of the word inadequate where appropriate, but not the extrapolation I've already  mentioned. 

This is not difficult, but I'm beginning to wonder if I'm subconsciously postingvin some alien language !;) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In a change of topic.. 

My view of Laura Kuenssberg is at best, somewhat wary.. but her Sunday morning programme does seem to attract very interesting  characters at the forefront  of the political  news.

I've just caught up on today's programme and can recommend  it. 

First we had Jenrick desperately trying to justify his existence,  then Gove being Oh, so careful to stay on the fence without actually  saying anything.

A moderate  Tory repeated the claim  that Boats represent 3% of total migration.

Liz Kendall firing into open goals for Labour. Starmer take note.

But by a country mile the most interesting piece was an interview  with Olana ? Zelensky, wife of the Ukrainian President. Truly humbling.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Liz Kendall firing into open goals for Labour. Starmer take note.

 

Liz Kendall is almost as clever at avoiding answering a question as Michael Howard. I knew a little about her but she has crashed dived in my opinion she came across to me as thoroughly untrustworthy. She came not to extoll the virtues of Labour policy but to simply throw rocks at the government. She had an agenda and was damned if answering questions was going to get in her way.

 

Jenrick said little that was not blowing his own trumpet, he's manoeuvring for reasons yet to become clear. Gove was Gove though he appeared to be on slightly more solid ground, not his his usual evasive self.

 

The moderate you quote was somewhat disingenuous in quoting 3% without saying how big a number 3% represents. Though the topic was immigration the focus was the boats and Rwanda, something he avoided.

 

As an interviewer Kuenssberg made a better fist of it than Bruce, keeping better control of the interviewees etc. although she has a lot more time to play with and fewer numbers. Perhaps Question Time could use  bit of a reformat.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, DJ360 said:

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.

Unfortunately for you OFSTED work to their rules not yours.

20 hours ago, DJ360 said:

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.

Perhaps the people you’ve approached know that if they don’t agree with you, they’ll face hours of you telling them why they’re wrong so just go along with you.

 

16 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Views vary in detail but they all agree that the One Word assessment which ignores all the Good etc., and calls the whole school inadequate based on one inadequate  element, is wrong.

It’s not like the published report is a single word. It’s a grading of the overall findings. The reports run into many pages detailing the findings. They report all the good the bad and the ugly. The positives aren’t ignored but everything is reported in detail. You’re fixating on the one word.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, DJ360 said:

This is not difficult, but I'm beginning to wonder if I'm subconsciously posting in some alien language !;)

Perhaps people understand you perfectly well but simply have a different view. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something else ‘Political’ but not of local interest ……..

Robert Courts MP,  a schoolfriend of our son, has just been appointed Solicitor General.  The boy is doing well.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2023 at 8:45 PM, Brew said:

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.

 

You won't be surprised that I continue to disagree, both with your view of ONE WORD Assessments, and with your attempts to justify them.

 

I'll go back to the student example one last time. If a student sits, say TEN GCSE's and passes NINE but fails ONE.

 

1. What would be the value and purpose of a ONE WORD Assessment of that student? 

2. How truly informative would ANY word be?

 

Would you use 'Inadequate', based on one failed subject?  That's what OFSTED do..

 

Or maybe 'Good'?, which says little of value?

 

Or maybe 'Outstanding', because relative to 'the herd', 9 GCSEs is an excellent achievement?

 

Or would you simply list the Ten GCSEs and their results, without making a ONE WORD Assessment? You're going to list them anyway... since as you admit, the OFSTED report goes into detail. So why create all the unneccessary controversy and confusion around ONE WORD?

 

As as number of commentators have observed, the OFSTED defence of ONE WORD, represents stubbornness.. nothing more.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Brew said:

As an interviewer Kuenssberg made a better fist of it than Bruce, keeping better control of the interviewees etc. although she has a lot more time to play with and fewer numbers. Perhaps Question Time could use  bit of a reformat.

 

Both are known Tories. Kuenssberg has learned, Bruce hasn't.

 

I don't know how Kuennsberg's 'Guests' are chosen, but they represent a balance of sorts.  Bruce's QT 'panel, suffers from misplaced BBC notions of 'balance', which results in political outliers getting more airtime than their support base justifies.

Question Time still faces accusations of allowing 'plants' to control the questions from the floor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, letsavagoo said:

Unfortunately for you OFSTED work to their rules not yours.

 

OFSTED is an arm of Govt. and as such it is fair game for criticism by any voter.

 

20 hours ago, letsavagoo said:

Perhaps the people you’ve approached know that if they don’t agree with you, they’ll face hours of you telling them why they’re wrong so just go along with you.

 

Childish speculation and personally insulting.

 

I'll be fairer to you than you are to me.  I agree that you understand my point. I accept your right to disagree, but I reserve my right to continue debating. There are other participants in this debate and yet more observing.

 

Quote

You're fixating on the one word

 

I'm arguing that it is unneccessary, confusing, unfair and counterproductive, for all of the reasons I've given above. What is the point of it if it is going to be so heavily 'qualified' by the detail that follows?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...