Satisfactory is no longer satisfactory...

[bigTillyMint]

Did anyone see Sir Michael Wilshaw on breakfast TV this morning? Satisfactory is going

Oh, hooray, yet something else to beat the education system with

Has Sir Wilshaw not cottoned on to the fact that in the Unsatisfactory category there is already a subcategory of 'Notice to Improve' - so surely that covers anywhere that has areas to improve?

Unfortunately, there won't be an end to this until everywhere is achieving Outstanding, and every child is in the top 1% (yes, I know!)

Can't be good for staff morale, can it?
And surely every school is already on notice to Improve; none of them are supposed to be complacent. Have to keep up to date with changes in best Practice guidance, etc.

Exactly - even outstanding schools are given areas to improve on!

Blimey. I'm sending DS1 to school in September, to a local 'satisfactory' rating school. I don't have any other options, as we are in a rural village (probably one of those described as "in well areas, where performance is not necessarily inadequate but has failed to impress"). It's been satisfactory for years and years. I know very little about the education system, other than Ofsteds, SATS and speaking with local mums. In one way, the idea of sending him to an 'inadequate' school fills me with guilt and fear, but then I think if something does give the school a kick up the bum to improve teaching, it's worth it.

I'm also sure after a few terms, my opinions on education, schooling system will change, once I know how the school works and have first hand experience. Hopefully that will give me confidence that its Ofsted's 'satisfactory' rating has undermined. At the moment, all I have to go on, as I say is Ofsted and SATs and local mums opinions.

Totally and completely admits I am on a steep learning curve about what makes a 'good' school (in broadest sense, not Ofsted's sense).

Satisfactory means that the school is doing everything it should do, and is meeting everything that it needs to meet.

Bear in mind:

Under the old Ofsted system, a school that gets satisfactory at the moment, would probably have got a 'good'.

Under the new system, a school that a few years ago would have been deemed 'good' will now be seen to not even be satisfactory.

The only thing that has changed is the goalposts. The school itself might not be any worse but it could be deemed that way. The staff don't necessarily need a kick up the bum to improve things, what would actually help massively is not having systems and targets moved so regularly by outside agencies that there's no time to actually implement anything fully or see if what IS implemented actually makes a real difference.

OK. So have the ratios of schools getting o / g / s / i changed then?

I see where you're coming from. I just wish there was some way of assessing a schools 'performance' objectively and relatively. DHs opinion is that we live in a lovely village, loads of outdoor space, kids you meet in the street are always well behaved, nice area etc. So I keep have this nagging doubt - why does a good area get a 'satisfactory' rating then? When other areas around us have 'outstanding' schools in not so nice areas? What would one my DSs do 'best' at, where they get a love for learning and be the best they can be?

Thanks for posting, I'm trying to build up some understanding of it all. As I say, it's all new to me and I am coming at it from a very blank slate . Threads like this and discussion it sparks is of interest.

I agree with Flisspaps. The goal posts move constantly, you only just start to get your head round something and they change it again. I've been childminding for 6yrs and in that time they have had birth to three and then eyfs and now in September the eyfs rules change yet again. It's hard keeping up with the latest things whilst working the hours I do on top of the other paperwork and my own familys needs tbh the thing is childrens learning is basically as it was when I was a child (blocks, playdough, parks, craft, water play, trains, lego, books etc) the only difference is that they given everything new labels and everything now needs to be recorded when in reality the time and energy would be better spent actually looking after and playing with the children.

I would enjoy my job a lot more if I could just concentrate on the care and learning side and not have things in the back of mind that I should be doing like taking a photo and thinking which section of eyfs does that go under? Eventually this will be the thing that makes me quit and that is a great shame because even though I say so myself I'm brilliant at myjob, the children are happy, clean, well fed, taken out to places daily and I have 8 very happy famillies who are grateful for the care I provide AND that matters to me more than what OFSTED say about me.

I'd be inclined to side with your DH on this one.

What Ofsted say is often based on paperwork and box ticking (I've worked in a secondary school and am now a registered CM so have seen an inspection from an admin point of view and as someone actually being inspected) rather than anything 'real' IMO.

Totally agree with you Flisspaps and Lovemygirls

I should be worrying about teaching my pupils, not how to jump through the latest Ofsted hoops.

definition of satisfactory - fulfilling all demands or requirements - unless used by ofsted in which case it means unsatisfactory.

I have often wondered why they ever used that term !

DDs school got satisfactory not good this time for no apparent reason other than goal post moving.
Given every school isn't inspected every year it makes comparisons impossible. If they change the rules again you could be comparing schools with good, satisfactory and needs to improve on their reports that were all good in the old system.

The Government want to label as many schools as possible as failing, so that they can force them to become academies with sponsors. Downhills Primary School in Haringey reached Government targets in SATs last year, and although was under Notice to Improve, was deemed to be improving after an interim inspection. This is a school embedded in the local community, which is being forced against the will of parents, teachers, governors, and the democratically elected Local Authority to be taken over by non-elected sponsors. This is the back door to privatisation in the same way as the NHS is being privatised.

Our local inner London primary school is outstanding, evidence being that some of the parents could easily afford private alternatives and positively choose this instead. The dedication and professionalism of the teachers is excellent - you just couldn't ask for more. But one of the reasons it is outstanding is because the longstanding head would do what she thought was best for the education of the children - result was 'Satisfactory" from Ofsted and you had to think from reading their report that it was because they were miffed the school wouldn't tick the boxes in the way they wanted. Now she has retired and a new interim head has been brought in specifically to get the 'Outstanding' rating the LEA wants - strange my daughter doesn't think much of the changes she has made!

Satisfactory as judged under the old criteria did mean anything but satisfactory. IME it meant this school is a bit shit but you have done well at covering your tracks.

Will this include childminders? My childminder is satisfactory, precisely because as Lovemygirls says, she spends time playing with them, then takes them for a walk instead of observing them play then writing up her observations. Which is what I want. She told Ofsted she'd rather quit than jump through their hoops. I'd hate for this to mean that she'll leave because I'd be hard pushed to find a replacement like her.

It seems that ofsted rating is based on schools providing the evidence (through detailed monitoring) that they are jumping through the hoops currently deemed relevant (not necessarily the same hoops as last year). In the fear of not being able to provide the evidence and hence being marked down by ofsted, lots of spontaneity and imagination in teaching is lost, and teaching to the test becomes the norm.

Not the best way to help each child reach its potential - despite that being the underlying aspiration espoused by the state education system :(

That's not necessarily true kellogg. It might mean 'this school is really great but has a high % of FSM, lots of mobility, lots of other kinds of social challengse eg pupils from social groups who traditionally 'under attain' at school, so doesn't feature near the top of the league tables but does well by the children'.

Agree completely with cecine: the DFE seems hellbent on categorising as many schools as possible to be 'failing' so that Gove can use his powers under the Education Act that was passed in Nov '11 and hand primaries over to his mates in the private sector.

Sally Morgan, the new Chair of Ofsted, is continuing to work for ARK (an academy chain). This is a very clear conflict of interest. ARK like to benignly call themselves a 'charitable trust' though try to keep quiet they also own lots of profit making subsidaries like teacher training and building work, so that can cyphon as much public money as possible into their own pockets.

Just in case anyone is still labouring under the DfE's illusion that academies are some kind of magic wand, the Financial Times informs us that 8 secondary academies have had to be bailed out at the cost of nearly £11 million.

www.ft.com/cms/s/0/60ecf0c4-3864-11e1-9d07-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1jttN8e6E

That's in addition to the many that are now failing academically.

Rosebud05 - You clearly aren't very familiar with charities. Many charities own subsidiary trading companies as these have fewer restrictions on their trading activity. As such subsidiaries are wholly owned by the charity the profits are either retained by the subsidiary or passed to the charity.

By law, the trustees of a charity are unpaid (apart from out of pocket expenses) and cannot benefit from their connection with the charity, so they cannot, for example, be paid for acting as directors of subsidiaries. There are some exceptions to this rule but they are very limited.

ARK's subsidiaries do not allow the trustees to siphon any money into their own pockets, public or otherwise. They don't keep quiet about their subsidiaries either. ARK Schools clearly records in it accounts that it owns ARK Academies Projects Ltd and receives any profits it makes. Absolute Return for Kids (the parent charity) clearly records in its accounts the fact that it owns ARK Schools. These accounts are available online - it took me less than 5 minutes to find them.

I suggest you think again before alleging serious criminal behaviour on the part of ARK's trustees.

I'm not alleging serious criminal behaviour. That's the point. It's perfectly legal.

This is very simple economics. An academy chain takes over a school, receives central government funding, then spends that on its own services. It can then say that school is a 'charity' whilst lining the pockets of its subsidaries (which it also owns).

But, yes, as said above perfectly legal.

You are indeed alleging criminal behaviour. Talking about siphoning public money into their own pockets implies that money given to the charity for its charitable purposes is being deliberately manipulated in order to generate a profit to be spent on non-charitable purposes. That would be criminal behaviour if it were true.

You clearly still haven't understood what is going on. So let me try again. ARK Academies Projects Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of ARK Schools. That means any profit it makes goes to ARK Schools which must, by law, spend its assets in line with its charitable objects. It does not go to anyone else.

So you are alleging that ARK Schools spends money with its subsidiary so that its subsidiary makes a profit which then goes back to ARK Schools for spending on ARK Schools charitable objects. In other words, all the money ARK Schools receives from the government is spent on the schools. Every single penny.

I fail to see what you think is wrong with that.

No, ARK purchases services or goods from its subsidiaries, which makes a profit for that subsidiary or off shoot.

It's easy enough to move money around to avoid profits showing (plenty of companies do it for tax purposes).

I think we have fundamentally different views on this. I'm deeply suspicious of the increasing privatisation of our education (and health) system, whilst you leap to infer all sorts of accusations from criminality out of simple scepticism about motives.

I remain very concerned about the links between ex and current directors/advisors to academy chains with Ofsted, who claim to be 'independent and impartial'.