Hundreds of schools could lose their Outstanding OFSTED rating...

[MayaAngelCool]

here

I actually think this sounds a good idea, though I think the article doesn't explain the arguments against it particularly well.

I can't help thinking that if they want to raise the standard of primary teaching, abolishing SATs would be a constructive way to start, as it would give teachers a lot more room to actually teach and infuse a love of learning, rather than focusing all that effort on exam preparation.

When there was that webchat with Sally Morgan, Chair of Ofsted a couple of months back I asked the exact question about what would happen to schools with outstanding ratings but not outstanding teaching and she said there were no plans to automatically demote them.

FFS. So what is actually going on?

Here was the bit from the Q&A:
Noblegiraffe: With Michael Gove talking about how schools shouldn't be awarded Outstanding if Teaching and Learning isn't Outstanding, will the schools affected lose their Outstanding status, or be put back on the normal inspection schedule and only maintain their Outstanding if T&L is improved?

Sally Morgan: We've agreed with the Department for Education that no school will automatically lose their outstanding judgement but we will be continuing to undertake stringent risk assessments of schools that are rated outstanding to make sure that they continue to deserve that grade.
Among the things that we look at in our risk assessment are the results that the pupils are attaining in school and the progress that they have made from their starting points. These are frequently a reflection of their teaching and learning. Responses on Parent View will also be part of the range of information that is looked at when making decisions about inspection, so it will help parents express concerns if the have any.
If an outstanding school appears to have declined as a result of the risk assessment they will be re-inspected.

I don't read the article as saying they'll be automatically demoted but rather that they'll be reinspected

Yes, but Sally Morgan says that they will be reinspected if the school appears to have declined. Now it looks like they'll be reinspected anyway. And sooner than they would have been reinspected if they were only good.

I can't keep up with ol' Wilshaw!

So the 'new' Ofsted framework is now the 'old' new framework, 'satisfactory' now means 'unsatisfactory' and 'outstanding' now means 'not outstanding'.

Oh, and everyone's got to be above average.

My 4 year old's literacy and numeracy makes more sense than that.

I thought Ofsted ratings were more or less a foregone conclusion - excellent Sats results - excellent Ofsted. Average or below Sats results - crap Oftsed.

I guess I wouldn't call 65% good. For schools around here they routinely get above 90%, lots would suggest that was not due to good teaching - it's a middle class area and children around here who aren't hitting national targets are tutored.

65% is considered to be very good?

Rosebud05 Nail on head.

I was discussing this with the Head of the school at which I am a governor. One problem is that the same teachers do not stay forever!

The school had a very strong team. One teacher retired, two senior teachers took maternity leave. Result = NQTs and supply teachers. Now, obviously, the Head was monitoring like crazy and trying to maintain continuity, but with the best will in the world the situation one year will not be replicated the next.

the school my son has just left, had outstanding in the last 2 reports. it now has a new head and the last year was bad - half kids taught by english by a music teacher; science teacher left so they had 6-8 temp teachers; and french - not sure my son could have made any progress at all bearing in mind the set he's now in.

so risk assessments and re-inspecting sound like a good idea to me. someone might have sorted out my son's education so he wasn't put in all the lower sets at his new school which is causing problems with gcse choices

custardcake - it's the children who are now all expected to be above average (Gove not Wilshaw to be fair, but I don't expect he disagrees).

Although the question of 'good' in relation to why arises? If some is 'good' but not 'very good', does it then become 'not good'?

Custardcake, good points about the effect of school ratings on the community.

So it seems that the problem isn't actually with Ofsted, but with Gove and the new legislation which exempts outstanding schools from inspection. If it's so easy for performance to slip, even where teaching was previously outstanding, this suggests that Gove's plan is not going to help anyone.

Excellent post by CustardCake
I'd like to suggest that both Gove and OFSTED put a dictionary on their Christmas lists, and look up the definitions of 'average' and 'satisfactory'.

Nah... it's all about PROGRESS.
Imagine: Ofsted inspectors observe a satisfactory/good lesson in a previously 'outstanding' school.

Clever HT discusses stupendous progress of children with Ofsted inspectors. They ask, in the context of these stupendous results: 'How can the teachers be merely good? Surely none can be satisfactory? They must all be outstanding.' Ofsted inspectors are putty in their hands. Job done. Outstanding.

More and more inspections seem to be led by clever talk and preconception.

Did anyone see this article in the TES last week?

www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6172449

The problem with OFSTED is that it depends on what 'fashionable aspect' they are going with that week! I have witnessed many times a colleague (and myself!) being rated differently, by different SLT/inspectors using the same lesson (and it was changed slightly to suit the students/differentiation/room etc). Whilst for 1 observer the lesson was good/outstanding for another it was satisfactory - how can you win?

My students make excellent progress; my GCSE results are always far higher than their FFTD targets but not every lesson is all singing and dancing as sometimes, we just need to get through the basic material/revise etc!

I was once inspected the day before an exam and I had no other choice but to do a revision lesson otherwise I would have failed my students. I ended up having quite a heated discussion with the observer as they were going to fail my lesson......

And the stakes are so high now, given that Gove and Wilshaw are clearly in cahoots.

If a 'satisfactory' school isn't 'good' within 18 months, it will get put in 'special measures'. The SofS can then impose an Academy order, disband the governing body, appoint an IEB and then hand over to a sponsor (possibly a profit-making chain).

There's very, very little chance of challenging classroom observations so, as the eminent Dylan William of the IfE points out, there are serious flaws in any claim as to Ofsted's 'integrity'.

This creates 2 tiers of schools instead of 2 schools with their fair share of problems and abilities. If school rating go up and down a bit more often and are based on teaching not intake,

Interesting comment and should be the case but according to what we have been told, under the new ofstead framework, any bad behaviour in any class in any school no matter how outstanding the teacher is means that teacher will never be able to get anything higher than a good for their observation.

Also every single child in the class has to show progress in a lesson observed or the teacher cannot be outstanding.

Hardly encourages schools to go the extra mile to work with the more challenging pupils, and keep them in the school, does it ?

all the latest 'crap' coming from Gove, DfE and Ofsted is all doing that BackforGood......

Off-topic slightly but social care inspection language is changing too. The Deputy Chief Inspector gave a speech the other week where he explained that for social care inspections, satisfactory will now be replaced with "adequate":

"You will know that Sir Michael has recently made it very clear that if a school is not a good school, then it can't be described as 'satisfactory'. It's a school that needs to improve. We absolutely take the same view in social care. A regulated service can decide that as long as it's meeting the requirements for registration, it thinks that's good enough. A local authority can decide that, as long as it's meeting statutory requirements, that is good enough, and that it has other priorities for improvement. But we're not going to say as an inspectorate that that's good enough, and I don't think society should. So in future, if a social care service only meets minimum requirements, whether it's a regulated service or whether it's a local authority, we're not going to say it's satisfactory. We're going to describe that as adequate because that's what meeting minimum requirements is. Our ambition for our children should be much greater than that."

Which would you prefer: satisfactory, needs improvement, adequate? Or, turning to the thesaurus entry for satisfactory, how about "tolerable" or even "peachy"?