Beechen Cliff Bath- 'Inadequate' Ofsted

localbath, yes the streaming in Y7 involves being put in one class for all subjects, so you are in the same class for everything. As such, you could eg be an overperformer in English and an underperformer, relative to others in your class, for Maths. So it's not streaming in the same way as Hayesfield, where you are streamed from the outset for every subject on the basis of your SATs. I guess Y7 classes are probably more mixed ability because of this than they would be at HF.

I do think they over-rely on CAT scores, these are outdated and not the best measure of ability. I really don't understand why they can't work with SATs scores at the outset.

This notice of closure thing is concerning but surely they can't actually close the school, they'd have to introduce new management rather than do that? It says in the news that they gave the notice to the school on the 5th, which means they would have known about this and not told parents at the meeting which, if the case, is terrible.

I'm afraid that the evidence from a wide range of studies that setting only benefits the most able is roundly ignored by most schools. Beechen claims not to set got maths and English in year seven and to teach in mixed ability groups for these subjects, or at least it did when I looked at their prospectus when choosing schools. This is pretty misleading though. Beechen is very unusual in using CATs taken before starting at the school to stream from the outset.

The problem with streaming, where they are (correct me if I'm wrong) placed in teaching groups for most or all subjects based on test results in some subjects is that children might be able in maths but not English and find themselves not being taught to their strength because of the stream they are in. The website says "very occasionally, mistakes are made in the groupings and boys nice groups" suggesting that they have a lot of faith in those decisions and kids are pretty much stuck. This is not good at all.

I would be unsurprised if some of the low level disruption reported by Ofsted, and anecdotally by friends of mine, comes from a sense of despondency at not getting Work to challenge them or seeing a possibility of moving. Setting only works well when it's very fluid, and still shows benefits only for the able children and negative effects for the less able.

In most other secondaries in Bath, setting occurs at Christmas at the very earliest and then only for maths. It is very challenging to reach mixed ability groups for maths, and it's a compromise. Setting in other subjects starts in year 8, but not in all subjects and schools take different approaches.

Sorry to put this in such detail, but I think it's important to understand all this.

I'm not convinced that local schools would be queuing up to include Beechen in a MAT because of its reaction to the Ofsted and its general "go our own way" approach so I agree, some other route would be needed.

I'm not convinced that local schools would be queuing up to include Beechen in a MAT because of its reaction to the Ofsted and its general "go our own way" approach so I agree, some other route would be needed.

I don't think that it has really got through to lots of parents at the school, whose sons are having a great time, that the reality is not perfect and that Ofsted don't hand out reports like this because of single incidents, political conspiracies or just to bring down a fine establishment.

Lets be clear, it would not be possible to just close the school because of the number of pupils in the school and the relative lack of places available across the Bath area. So it will stay open but in what form is what will be decided over the next few weeks and months.

The DfE are taking a hard line on this school because of its reaction to the Ofsted report, which is suggesting that there is little wrong, when the Ofsted report says there is a lot wrong. If the school and specifically the governing / trust board of the school do not start talking in much more realistic tones about what needs to happen in the school, what will happen, in my opinion, is that the DfE via the Regional School Commissioner will remove the governing/trust board and replace it with an Interim Executive Board or whatever is the current term used for this in an academy.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5955679/Top-state-secondary-school-children-tied-black-pupil-lamppost-faces-closure.html

It sounds appalling.

Beechen has a reputation for doing things its own way and not always for the best for all pupils. Joining a MAT would very much help it to get its feet back on the ground and be a bit more of a team player. Might be something of a poisoned chalice for the MAT it joins unless it really has the intention to change.

Posters like teachergirl presumably WANT there to be a conspiracy to explain away the fact that Ofsted has identified that the school is failing. IME this is quite common when a 'publicly well regarded' school gets a poor Ofsted, as many people find the conspiracy / political theory easier to accept than the idea that the school might not be as good as they thought it was.

Some years ago, there was a government policy that all schools should be part of MATs. However, the policy position has changed considerably This parliamentary report summarises it quite neatly and I would say that while there remains pressure on non-academies to form academies, there is much less pressure / will, if any, for stand-alone academies which are performing well to join MATs any more.

Sorry ignore the random question mark!

That’s a rhetorical question by the way?

Lovely - what the other posters are telling you is Beechen Cliff has huge problems. The Ofsted report has NOT been engineered in any way as a political exercise to make it join a MAT.
Frankly why would any successful academy even want to be associated with BC?

Lovely,

I think there is a difference between:

'As a result of its very poor Ofsted and the help it will need to improve, Beechen Hill will be required to join other academies in a successful Multi Academy Trust' and

'Politically, the powers that be wanted Beechen Hill to join a MAT and this the Ofsted report was specifically rigged to be awful in order to force this to happen' - the latter is what Teachergirl is suggesting has happened.

The first states that the school is poor, and current government policy is that poor schools join MATs to aid their improvement (whether that is a GOOD policy is open to debate, but it is policy).

The second states that the school is, in fact, really good, but was artificially given a poor Ofsted in order to engineer it joining a MAT for political purposes. I can't see that the data for this school, and for the Ofsteds of other stand-alone academies country-wide, supports this assertion.

Leaders are insinuating the whole report is invalid and just a public telling off for the auction. As is clear from the report and this thread that's rubbish. Is the problem with stand alone academies that it's really hard to get rid of incompetent Heads and governing bodies? Is that why there is pressure to join a MAT? Why wasn't the school put in special measures?

Hmmm... so a school which was already considering forming a MAT was given a horrendously poor Ofsted report which makes this a much less attractive prospect...?

Definitely a political move to make it join a MAT. How obvious - how could I have doubted it?