Beechen Cliff Bath- 'Inadequate' Ofsted

Zombie thread but a update might be useful (my youngest is there now) Things have improved a lot imo. Beechen is in a large MAT and has a new headteacher, well not so new now, but a change of head. It feels more like the school has been brought into line not just doing things it's own way. Some of the old school staff brigade have moved on and imo it's been good for the culture of the school. Results are good (though to be fair I don't think that's ever been an issue as they get a generally good achieving intake.) Skimming through this thread I see comments about the boarding and taking boys from out of area which is still the case but I wouldn't rate the boarding anyway. My ds has friends in boarding and it's a shit show, they seem to be looked after by keen younger staff who do their best but seem run ragged without proper leadership. But my ds is happy at the school, communication has improved and the school seems back on tack

Beechen Cliff has been hammered again for its unfair admissions policy. It's been given two months to get its act together to comply with the School Admissions Code www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/beechen-cliff-school-must-change-1989580.

That's my experience, yes. My son is in 8x. I remember being quite surprised to find out in the Y7 parents' evening that they streamed for Maths in Y8 and not for English or Science.

The school's website suggests that streaming only occurs in Year 7.

For Year 8:
^The year splits in half (8A and 8x) depending on the language choice made.The two halves of the year run in parallel.
Pupils are set on attainment/ability in Maths and Computing and to some extent in Science, Humanities and English.
Other subjects have mixed ability classes. Year 7 assessment results will help to determine setting in subjects where it occurs.^

Summer exams in Year 8 and 9 also determine setting for key subjects. Is this not the case?

I read your original thread with interest. When I was choosing schools I heard a story about the BC Head taking pupils into his office to show them guns. Then on an open morning they were showing a bizarre photo to promote the school, it showed the Head surrounded with pupils posing/posturing with guns. He looked like the leader of a cult with brainwashed child soldiers. If this photo is still on display maybe it gave Inspectors the same impression it gave me.

Perhaps now you know the school is working with Midsomer Norton MAT you could find a contact there and confidentially get your concerns across. I thought the tone of BC's latest statement was a bit better and wondered if that was outside influence.

I would agree. Quietly, some of my friends who have sons at the school say just the same. The thing is, it's very easy to come out in wholehearted, public support of the school. Those with concerns are balancing their desire to speak out against the way this will be regarded by the school.

I think the high volume of good results in the school's key subjects, maths and science, is a distraction from the deficiencies of its streaming system. My year 9 son, top set maths bottom set English, definitely would not fulfil his potential at BC. Not only this but any boy feeling inferior or superior based on their status within the streaming system is having their personal development damaged. This will not be the way the current school leadership see it.

IGCSE English counted in the league tables in 2016 and their open score was crap then too.

Evidence is key
Results in the open element of Progress 8 were in the bottom 20% of all schools in both 2016 and 2017. This indicates that pupils are not gaining qualifications in a wide range of high-quality courses. Indeed, nearly one third of pupils in Year 11 in 2017 did not achieve the open element in the Progress 8 measurement. As a result, leaders are limiting pupils’ potential to achieve well

Am I right in thinking that IGCSE English Language/Literature has also affected this measure - as the lower of the two English results is included in the open element? So, if you've got GCSE maths, triple science, geography, French, IGCSE English Language/Literature (8 subjects) - you haven't achieved well and you're in the bottom 20%?

Yes. Evidence is key. They clearly could not substantiate their assertions and believed their own rhetoric. Ofsted is very evidence based. I always suggest posters read the Ofsted Handbook for a little light night reading!!!

Until the new GCSE syllabus, iGCSE had an extended syllabus above the standard GCSE. Getting an A* in iGCSE was better prep for A level because the syllabus overlapped a bit at the top end so students hit AS level running. Now that’s not the case and one assumes the inspectors felt the iGCSE was now redundant in terms of the needs of the pupils.

iGCSEs are easier, they are easier to get good grades in than the new GCSEs

Ofsted has no interest in "hammering" schools that are meeting the needs of all their pupils. It is very often the case that leadership teams will be working very hard to find evidence to counteract the findings of the inspectors and are given every chance to do so. I have been in situations where that is the case. Early on, Beechen will have been aware this is the way it was heading and either couldn't, or chose not to, present evidence to support an alternate view.

admission that isn't really what I was asking. I appreciate safeguarding is a big issue and that on that alone they should be given the lowest possible grade. My question was about whether there is a chance they could have been motivated to give a hammering across the piece, not only related to safeguarding.

I have never bought the "igcse is harder so we will enter our students for a course that will potentially lower our grades". If you have very able students, you teach beyond the GCSE syllabus so that they are challenged and achieve high grades. Win win. Igcse was/is great for schools for whom high grades are their currency.

I meant ...by not preparing...

Having read the leaked oldfield report, I think the key difference is that the failings were so clearly to do with Kim Sparling and her governors that, once she'd gone, it really was possible to say it was outstanding. The achievement of the pupils was outstanding. These days, it wouldn't be possible to grade achievement of pupils outstanding if safeguarding not right, but nonetheless, they did not find the problems they did at Beechen.

The iGCSE thing is political, they are used as a wheeze by private schools to gain an advantage in the university admissions process. It is morally wrong for a state school to try and gain an unfair advantage over other state schools. The government don't want it's new GCSE undermined. Beechen has now wasted time preparing pupils for the much harder new GCSEs.

Second para refers to Beechen Cliff.

The Oldfeld case is interesting. Despite an inadequate report in December 2013 largely due to safeguarding and other issues, it was not published. However snippets of it were leaked on www.learningspy.com if you want to read it. Obviously some sort of deal was done and the HT removed but it’s very odd!

Schools are being inspected under a new framework and I think there is a problem that the school insisted it was a highly academic school to the RI. In effect they didn’t know that their results and outcomes were not stellar and had not benchmarked. They hadn’t taken steps to improve because they thought they were “highly academic” and didn’t need to. Hence the RI has taken them down a peg or two because they had not done any rigourous evaluation of their outcomes and shortcomings.