From the study

Ofsted introduced yet another inspection ‘framework’ in September 2019.After a two-day inspection undertaken in November by four inspectors, King James’s was confirmed to be a ‘Good’ school.

IAN RIMMER

YOU may have heard that, in November, the School was once again inspected by Ofsted, the schools’ inspection service.The role of Ofsted has been debated for much time and each person’s view of the organisation and its processes may be determined to some extent by their connection to a school or the education system more generally. Most now agree, however, that the stakes associated with an Ofsted inspection these days are far too high, with the resultant pressure passed on to Headteachers and their staff. It is no exaggeration to suggest that heads roll, or rather that Heads’ heads roll, if the process does not go well.

Before 2005 each school was inspected for a week every six years, with two months’ notice to prepare. In 2005 a new system of inspections came into being; generally two/three-day visits every three years, with two days’ notice.They focussed on how well the school was managed, and what processes were in place to ensure standards of teaching and learning improve. After an inspection, Ofsted published a re- port and, in addition to written comments, schools were assessed on a 4-point scale: l 1 Outstanding l 2 Good l 3 Satisfactory l 4 Inadequate.

Schools rated ‘Outstanding’ or ‘Good’ might not be inspected again for five years, while schools judged less favourably were inspected more frequently, and might receive little or no notice of inspection visits.

January 2012 saw the introduction of a new framework, which itself was replaced in September 2012. Among other changes, the ‘Satisfactory’ category was relabelled as ‘Requires improvement’, with an expectation that schools should not remain at that level.

The latest framework was introduced from September 2019. This new framework, with less emphasis placed on final GCSE results and more on the quality of what is happening in school day after day, has been welcomed by many in the profession. Even colleagues who have had a result that wasn’t good, say Ofsted helped, whereas under the old regime it was always “we’ve been done over”.

But even with these improvements, many concerns remain. Can a reliable judgement, from which so much is decided and on which so much depends, really be made in two days? Inspectors have to make significant, complex judgements about a school in a very short space of time with limited evidence upon which to draw. Inevitably incorrect conclusions are made. And in order to ensure that inspectors have all the available evidence (being “Ofsted-ready”), schools are then generating sig nificant additional workload. Because the implications of dropping a grade can be so high, in terms of additional inspections, falling school rolls and staff recruitment difficulties to name but three, headteachers’ reaction can be one of panic and vulnerability. This can lead to a ‘tick-box’ culture, where compliance with what Ofsted is perceived to want has become the overwhelming driver of improvement activity. The gradings, which no doubt are all that most look at, are the problem.

Quality of Education Behaviour and Attitudes

Personal Development Leadership and Management

So, despite all of what has been stated above, how did we get on, I hear you ask!

Well, if I may go back a step first, you may recall that on 3rd October last year, the School underwent a short inspection and retained its status of being a ‘Good’ school. However, given potential concerns over a couple of areas, which the team did not have time to explore fully, a new team would return within one to two years to complete a more thorough inspection. On this occasion, we could be given any one of the four available grades (as above). So when the call came at 11.00 am on Monday, 4th November the stakes were high. This time a 90-minute phone call with the lead inspector set out the key lines of enquiry for the inspection proper, which would be undertaken by a team of four over two days. I could not begin to reflect adequately, in the space available, the degree of scrutiny under which systems and staff are placed. In summary, meetings with key senior team leads and the chosen heads of faculty (Science, English, Modern Foreign Languages and Art, Design & Business) set up Day One’s examination of the Quality of Education. Lesson observations and scrutiny of students’ work followed and meetings with selected children and their teachers completed that part of the process. Meanwhile discussions with key staff on Safeguarding, the Curriculum and Pastoral issues also took place. On Day Two, further meetings with staff including some focussing on Special Educational Needs, Pupil Premium (support for those children from disadvantaged backgrounds), Behaviour and Attitudes as well as Personal Development.

At the end of the process, a two-hour meeting (to which I was invited but could

How do we compare with other schools nationally?

Using overall national figures, 55% of schools are, like KJS, currently rated ‘Good’. However, the distribution of grades according to areas of deprivation paints a different picture (right). 36% of schools in least deprived areas are graded ‘Outstanding’ compared with 14% in deprived areas. It’s not a level playing field.

take no part) saw the inspectors discussing their findings and coming to conclusions over the gradings. I say gradings, as four areas were considered: Quality of Education, Behaviour and Attitudes, Personal Development and Leadership and Management. I am delighted to report that all four were graded as ‘Good’, leading to an Overall Effectiveness grade of ‘Good’. As ever there are areas for development, which this time were identified as: l As a result of leaders’ actions, the subjects where pupils were making less progress have improved. However, leaders know that there is still work to do to ensure that the improvements noted result in improved GCSE results in the relatively weaker subject areas. l Improvements in the provision for disadvantaged pupils are clear. However, this focus must continue, to ensure that the achievement of disadvantaged pupils leaving the school matches more closely that of their peers. l Leaders work hard to support pupils who struggle with their behaviour and, as a result, overall exclusions are low and only used as a last resort. However, leaders must continue to reduce further the number of disadvantaged pupils who are excluded from School.

It was lovely to read, amongst many other very positive comments, that the inspectors felt “The School is a caring place in which pupils feel safe and secure. Pupils, parents and carers told us about the family atmosphere in the school. We agree.”

You can find the full report here: https://tinyurl.com/yeytdvrq. n