|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Dec 7, 2023 19:18:22 GMT
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,884 
Likes: 1,603
|
Post by benaj on Dec 8, 2023 7:01:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Dec 8, 2023 8:38:51 GMT
I attach a certain level of scepticism to the line that it went from outstanding to inadequate to good as a result of leadership change alone (which is not to dismiss it). Firstly, the overall rating of "inadequate" was based on one category being inadequate. The rest were Good. From what I recall* the inadequate around safeguarding was particularly reflecting record keeping issues, rather that actual incidents or parental concerns. While that clearly is important, should the overall rating for the school have been "Inadequate" because of that ? I'd suggest that alone reflects a flaw in the rating system (all good bar one so = inadequate). Secondly, the 12 year gap means that there were substantive changes to the inspection framework in between. So its not clear that the regime which resulted in outstanding 12 years previously would have returned the same rating under the framework used in the later inspection. Finally, the fact that since then it has been re-rated as Good tends to emphasise that the issues found were likely relatively easy to solve: you don't change the culture of a workplace in a short space of time. Or that OFSTED were particularly keen to show an improvement after the change of head, but that would be overly cynical. I should add that perhaps the primary point / learning lesson from this is the apparent lack of any support network. And from what we are hearing (is it an inquiry?) the lack of any training for inspectors, or recognition in OFSTED processes, of the potential impacts, requirement to identify such, or channels to provide support. * Of course narratives as presented in the press are always in danger of bias (not necessarily of the press but the quoted 'storyteller' given the heightened emotional circumstances
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,884
Likes: 1,603
|
Post by benaj on Dec 8, 2023 9:47:19 GMT
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,014
Likes: 4,825
|
Post by adrianc on Dec 8, 2023 9:47:42 GMT
Now imagine our government cabinet get a sudden inspection from OFGOV, what the rating would be? Unfortunately, "inadequate" is the lowest of the four ratings. This whole emphasis on how terrible the "single word" is... If a school is inadequate in one area, surely it's inadequate generally? If it isn't good enough, why can't it be pointed out? It's really no different to the "scores on the doors" food hygiene scoring, surely? If a restaurant is inadequate in one area, tell me. I want to know. I don't want to eat there. Even if that failing is "only" over record-keeping - it's kinda important to keep those records...  BTW, an OFSTED joke... What's the difference between an OFSTED inspector and a plastic surgeon? One tucks up features.
|
|
james100
Member of DD Central
Posts: 992
Likes: 1,197
|
Post by james100 on Dec 8, 2023 14:46:18 GMT
A body of impartial assessment and oversight for state schools is clearly a good thing in principle. However Ofsted has been - for many years - characterised by an inspection system staffed by many people who lack sufficient or balanced understanding of the subject area they are supposed to be assessing. The frequency of assessments, is (or certainly was) betrayed the point of having a system in the first place which, I would have hoped, was current-ish relative and benchmarked safety and performance status. And, as so often seems to be the case with such bodies, there appears to be a cover up when it comes to due diligence (in this care regarding basic measures to acknowledge mental health impacts on teachers) which I can understand would be necessary given the link between a downrating, funding implications for a downgraded school (which will then have fewer applications) and community status.
None of this negates the need for child safeguarding assessments on a regular basis. They should be done far more frequently (every couple of years max in my opinion). But I know of several schools where safeguarding is IMO inadequate (particularly for girls) and yet the school is a proud owner of one of the 'superior' assessment ratings. Likewise, aspects of the National Curriculum are arguably severely detrimental to to basic safeguarding but if schools don't follow that they are also likely to get their knuckles rapped. And don't get me started on private schools.
Ruth clearly cared very much about the school, the pupils and its reputation. She also raised the severe impact on here mental health in an appropriate manner through appropriate channels on multiple occasions, and what happened was absolutely heartbreaking.
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,884
Likes: 1,603
|
Post by benaj on Dec 8, 2023 15:21:01 GMT
I get the point that parents would also be unhappy about the "outstanding" school being rated as "inadequate". However, sometimes the headteachers are being so defensive about their drop of rating instead of focusing their students and find a way to improve their rating sooner.
No one cares about the ofsted ratings of the school we studied, it's not even related to individual performance nor character.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,875
Likes: 2,313
|
Post by keitha on Dec 9, 2023 10:03:04 GMT
My understanding is that the "inadequate" rating was required because of issues around safeguarding, As other have said my understanding is it was a record keeping issue, but having said that from years of working in local Government it did become a thing in later years that a Project that hit all it's targets including budgets and timescales and gave the users exactly what they wanted, would be ranked less successful than one that went over budget and timescale, the users weren't happy, but all the paper work was perfect.
I hear the same from friends in the NHS "it's ok to leave a patient in a wet bed to do paperwork"
I think the idea of inspectors to inspect OFSTED is madness, what next inspectors to inspect the inspectors that inspect the inspectors that inspect the schools.
We can't go back to the old system of schools "marking" themselves
|
|
