New academy - Ofsted not publishing a report

[JohnnyBarthes]

To cut a very long story short; the head is a "character". A couple of years ago the LA wanted to close the school as there are hundreds of empty desks in the authority and a large proportion of the pupils at the school came from neighbouring areas (parents living closer preferring other schools in the city). Head had also refused to go coed, which meant that another school which wanted to go coed couldn't do so. There was a lot of unmet demand for coed, non-denominational school places.

Head evaded closure by taking advantage of the government's policy to allow schools graded as Outstanding to convert to academies (although they had to start admitting boys, which at least allowed the boys school to admit girls).

Ofsted report not long after gave another Outstanding. Then a little over a year later, in December 2013, the school had a surprise Section 8(?) safeguarding inspection. This became a full inspection, which concluded mid-December 2013.

The safeguarding inspection report has been published, but the full report has not. Neither the head nor Ofsted are saying why. The whole thing is extremely fishy and it's not something I've heard of happening before - this isn't just a case of a school challenging a report, from what I can see.

Sorry that's way longer than I hoped

The local paper is all over it but I've seen nothing in TES or elsewhere:

Local news article - one of several!

I couldn't believe the comment about the teacher allegedly being shouted at for leaving a carcass on her classroom floor which was in fact a fly that had died overnight. Likewise the Head allegedly presenting the cleaners with envelopes with dust in them to show them what they had missed.

It all just seems unbelievably awful and I thought Waterloo Road was a bit far fetched!!!

Well, Michael Gove's reforms were designed to encourage megalomaniacs, bullies and profiteers...

'The document has been seen by the Chronicle but for legal reasons we cannot report most of its contents. But one draft of it would have given [the school] an overall rating of inadequate and plunged it into special measures'

Blimey. (from today's local paper )

The Bath Chronicle today reports www.bathchronicle.co.uk/Children-s-charity-posts-unpublished-Oldfield/story-20784322-detail/story.html that a childrens charity - Fair Play for Children - has published the report that hitherto the inspectorate, with the agreement of the DfE, has declined to publish.

You can find it here: www.fairplayforchildren.org/index.php?page=HTML_News&story_id=28395 The site seems to have been very busy.

Jane, that's what I linked to

The Chron has been really good on this story, as has one of the local councillors.

As for the school itself, it is testament to the teaching staff that they manage to get such great results despite the school's appalling leadership.

I'm so glad that they praised the teachers, who have always been good or trying their best in difficult circumstances.

I'm also glad they didn't hold back when it came to the leadership.

How come the charity can make this public when the school have effectively 'gagged' the Bath Chronicle from publishing it? All very strange and smacks of some kind of cover up. How are the school able to keep their 'Outstanding' grading?

Just a shame it wasn't published Beth.

Interesting

justa, I expect it was passed onto the charity by one of the few people who've seen it.

The Chron couldn't publish it because Ofsted pulled it. Curiouser and curiouser.

Isn't it just, Talk.

Well, now it's out in the public domain it will be interesting to see what happens next.

I read a LOT of OFSTED reports because of DH's work
and as I said up thread, being somebody who writes nasty reports I'm ever so aware of how to couch terms
holey, moley, fanoley that report is a roasting.
The inspectors were clearly livid about what they found
the private memo that they send to dfe for any special measures must be peachy !

put it this way, the last person on the receiving end of a report that strong from me is currently in prison!

The Chronicle explained why they could not publish the report (Or rather, chose not to take the risk). They had been advised that the report because it had not been published did not attract "limited privilidge". That means that anyone criticised in the report, who were to consider anything said in the report to be defamatory, could sue whoever published it for libel.

And the Chronicle have reported, as they are allowed to do, that lawyers employed by the academy chain were in touch with them to warn them off.

It has now been published by the charity. They could be sued now. It must be a risk they were prepared to take. Either they do not expect the threat of being sued to be carried out, or they are prepared to go to court over it. Its a very courageous and risky position to take. An action for defamation against them could close them down.

In the meantime, no one repeat any of the content of the report here, otherwise you might put mumsnet in the firing line!

But I would say that the language of the report is startlingly direct.

I'll not quote from it : I've already got Queen Ethelburgas threatening me with defamation

Bloody hell, that report

I can see why Ofsted thought it outside their remit though, it's not about the school, the teaching or the education of the pupils, rather a management style.

It has to come under someone's remit though.

Johnny.

It might not be published, but it's out there now and thanks to the local paper people know about it, and can find it until it's taken down.

I didn't realise they could stick OFSTED reports on the shelf, especially ones like that.

Assuming this is genuine (and I have no reason to believe it isn't) it is damning.

From an admissions viewpoint the report says the arrangements are not being implemented correctly but the only specific example I can see is that the head is pressuring parents of SEN children not to send them to this school. Whilst I do not in any way condone this practice the head is by no means the only one to behave in this way. In some other areas the report also seems a little inadequate. I would, for example, like to see more information about the safeguarding failures.

The whole situation seems very odd. If this report is genuine why has it not been published? And why does is the letter at odds with the report?

Where is report? I can see letter re Ofsted Feb 2014 but not Ofsted Report.

It is the one labeled December 2013 Ofsted report.

As MrsCakes says, it's the December 2013 one (which took place a little over a year after the previous Outstanding report) that has been leaked.

There are so many questions! I'm generally averse to witch hunts and conspiracy theories but the whole thing (much of which has been rumbling on for years) seems irregular (to put it mildly). This situation isn't a common one, is it?

There is a spectacular amount of nonsense spoken here about this report. It is a Sect 8 - I recommend people read what this means. It was a report specifically about Safegarding - yet no one here comments on this.

It was kind of the charity to publish what the paper would not, but given the comments on this strand one wonders if they spent their time wisely.

Academies give me the shudders.

Just wow...
What a peculiar report.
So, officially, what is the Ofsted status of this school now?