Beechen Cliff Bath- 'Inadequate' Ofsted

Sorry to get lucky about this, but...there were five Ofsted inspectors. If they observed thirty six lessons over two days, that is seven lessons each, roughly. They also will have had in depth meetings, work scrutiny, interviews with students. It seems unlikely they each spent over a day of their time in lesson observations.

Are they saying 3 out of 36 classes observed? Or three out of the thirty six classes in years seven to nine that exist? Those are two very different things. If Ofsted observed 36 lessons over two days, that would be very surprising.

They are planning to have senior people monitor KS3 classes very closely and are also making new classes for children in Y8 and Y9 next year. My son is in Y8 and he says that one of his classes in particular is always very disruptive and thinks that was one of the 3.

In the meeting they said that said low level disruption was observed in 3 out of 36 classes. They did not acknowledge cultural problems explicitly but one of the governing body's jobs over the summer is to get in some outside help and to think about ways of increasing the diversity of the governing body, this does allude to potential cultural changes maybe.

They also said that Ofsted had done an inspection of their boarding in March and given them 'Good, with outstanding features', then not published it and come back in May and given it inadequate. This is boarding only obviously but seems odd.

Re support for the Head, I'm not entirely sure but would hazard a guess that more parents are supportive than not. Quite a lot of people haven't actually read the report in full, this might have something to do with it!

I don't know this school or area at all but as a teacher I've found this discussion very interesting. Have they responded to the issues raised on low level behaviour at all? I always take an Ofsted report with a pinch of salt, partly because when Ofsted come in students are on their best behaviour as they are loyal to their teachers and their school. The fact that they weren't does suggest serious issues with the culture of the school and it's worrying that the slt don't seem to want to acknowledge any failings.

Part of the problem is that it's much easier, as a current parent, to publicly praise the school that your child attends than to publicly criticise it. It's not a school renowned for listening to parents' issues that they raise. Essentially, if you have a big problem, you are given a fit in or leave choice. The style suits kids who are able to adapt, Work harder and in the style required. But many children, in this comprehensive school, can't do that. No one can promise to meet a child's every need, but it is the job of a comprehensive to try.

Most of my friends are supportive of the Head. I can't understand it. The really serious safe guarding failures only effect the vulnerable kids. Who is to say the kids that fell down the cracks, that the school created between itself and social services, were not being used as drugs mules for example. Yet there has been no apology or demand for one (that I have noticed).
I would be angry at the way the questionnaire that parents filled in, before they knew about the behind the scenes failings, is being used by the leadership to justify itself.

Truthfully, amongst my friends with sons there it is a split. On the head's side, passionately defending the school to the point of wearing special shirts are those friends whose sons are able, spotty and or musical. On the other are those whose sons have witnessed pretty nasty bullying, aren't on top set and have seen all the low level disruption in the report and feel a bit second class. They really want change.

Do most parents wish to see a change in leadership, or are they happy with the status quo?

I thought the meeting was okay. They defended certain points in the report but weren't just defensive, which was a relief. The steps they outlined seem positive and sensible, but I think we'll have to wait and see how things pan out.

You fail to realise that just because your son is ok most wont be. If this was a inner city school with a large ethnic minority it would be in special measures/ shut down.

The ofsted report will never say that the school will be forced to become a sponsored academy because that is the responsibility of the Regional Schools Commissioner not Ofsted.

I agree that the tone the Head sets at the meeting tonight will determine a lot. If he continues along the 'processes, systems and procedures' route without acknowledging the existence of underlying problems I will be v unimpressed. It will also be interesting to see what the prevailing mood is amongst the parents there.

@admission the ofsted report doesn't say the school will be forced into a MAT.
The BET still exists as a 'meeting' although the company has been wound up - as iit is superfluous in the days of MATs.
The school has very close relations with the nearby girls' school Hayesfield, but there's no way they will now join BC in a MAT.
Before the report was published and it was unsure if it would be a case of special measures + being forced into a MAT or 'just' being inadequate, there was much local discussion about which , if any, local MATs would be the lucky recipient.

Ask the Chair of Governors if...

a) The head has the confidence of the teachers.
b) The head has the confidence of the senior management team.
c) The head has the confidence of the governing body.

A valid yes comes from secret ballots or anonymous surveys.

I hope so too @localbathmum. See everyone there 😉!

I think it'll be very telling how the head approaches the parents' meetings tomorrow. It'll set the tone for how they intend to approach the next 18 months. If he properly acknowledges and addresses the issues raises, great. If it's a rallying call to support the school, not so much.

@localbathmum, I agree that my sons experience doesn't represent those who are most vulnerable and disadvantaged, as I said I'm horrified at what the report says. Those children's journey ( distance travelled if you like) is just as important as how many get A's, no actually I think it's more important! My son used to need extra time for academic tasks and no longer does since the support he's received at BC ( and home) This shows teachers do have the skills to maximise boys potential. It's very frustrating if this isn't happening for all the pupils and totally agree it must be addressed. I realise this is why Ofsted is necessary. What worries me is that some people will delight in the inadequate result and use it to perpetuate myths about the school ( snobbery etc). I have no problem with people who actually read the report and make constructive comments but just labelling the school as elitist or saying that only boys who like sport do well is inaccurate.
My son has also been on an trip every year, same type as other schools in the area offer, Germany, France, same kind of price as Other schools. The expensive trips are not the only ones on offer.

I think the PP who says the staff should be asked if they have confidence in the SLT is absolutely right.
I have worked in places ( not schools) where the staff are scared to speak up about management, audits etc been very good ( planned inspections) but the staff actually weren't allowed to say what was going wrong. I hope staff that are given an opportunity to speak openly with the new chair of governors without fear of any repercussions.
There has to be absolute honesty in order to make real changes. And this can only happen in way that doesn't seek to blame individuals but understand what's gone wrong within the whole school system.

Sometimes, when schools refuse to recognise a genuine problem identified by Ofsted, it is the first follow-up monitoring inspection where it all falls apart and the school finally realises that things do need to change.

That's always a shame, as it wastes time and means that those pupils already suffering carry on doing so for longer. But I have never come across a school where the school has remained essentially unchanged or have merely tinkered, and Ofsted have come back to monitor and said 'Ah, no, we were wrong, you're actually doing brilliantly. Don't change a thing'

The SLT, bar two, are self-identifying as outstanding. Presumably the remainder of the SLT consider these two isolated incidents of inadequacy. The GB has declared full confidence in itself. Have any other relevant bodies given their endorsement to the SLT? I really want to know what the majority of teachers think of the SLT. Surely they will be demoralised if they think the Head is the root cause of serious problems yet he remains in-situ.
Parents are showing great loyalty to the Head and are taking comfort from each other in that, but they are doing the school a great dis-service if the failings are not a figment Ofsted inspectors' imagination.