Nightingale Primary School, Haringey - first Gove forced academy

[Rosebud05]

Nightingale Primary School, Haringey is the first victim of the powers that Gove strengthened in the Nov '11 Education Act. They received an e-mail on Tuesday informing them that their governing body was sacked from immediate effect and replaced with an interim executive board.

antiacademies.org.uk/2012/02/press-statement-by-former-nightingale-school-governors-sacked-by-gove/

To pre-empt responses about 'schools which have been under performing for years', the facts of the situation are that Nightingale has never been below the floor targets, and was put into an Ofsted category of 'notice to improve' for the first time last October. The Governors were taking robust steps to improve the school - new Interim Head, robust school improvement plan - and asked the DfE to let them consult and to see how the Ofsted monitoring visit due in a few weeks went before taking action.

The DfE didn't respond to this letter, but instead sacked the governing body and issued an Academy Order.

Does anyone still believe that Gove's academy agenda is a) non-apolitical b) about improving standards?

Rosebud,
The bottom line here is that you do not believe in academies and never will.

Whether the school was in the bottom 200 in the country is not really relevant because the SoS has the legal power to make a decision to put in an IEB and change the school to being an Academy and he has chosen to do so.

Why he made that decision is for him, the DfE, the school and LA to know not us mere mortals. What is clear to me is that the school is struggling and if this is the way to get a better education for all the pupils in the school then I have no problems with that.

No, admission. The bottom line is that I don't believe in forced primary academies (I've already made that very clear further up the thread) with no evidence base to justify this action.

Yes, it does matter whether the school was identified in either the 200 or 500 list. The point is that Gove went to great lengths to specify the objectivity of which schools he identified, based on a retrospective analysis of floor trgets over 5 years. It is somewhat totalitarian to do this but then, just because he has the legal power, to decide to pick on a previously unidentified school.

The school was providing a satisfactory standard of education with pupils making satisfactory progress, according to Ofsted. There is absolutely no guarantee that it being forcibly converted will provide a better education and, given the evidence emerging about the failings in secondary academies, plenty to suggest that it won't.

An IEB appointed by the LA is not "completely different". The only difference is who does the appointing plus the fact the LA need the Secretary of State's approval to appoint an IEB. In all other respects an IEB appointed by the LA is identical to one appointed by the Secretary of State. I believe that Michael Gove's predecessor, Ed Balls, also used his powers to appoint an IEB in a few cases.

Can I remind you that the last government concluded that Haringey is one of ten LAs with a particularly high level of failing schools and that the LA was not taking any effective action to address the issue nor was it offering meaningful support to the failing schools. That would seem to be a perfectly adequate reason to bypass the LA.

You keep focussing on the 200 and 500 lists and ignoring the fact that Gove also said that failing schools in these ten LAs would come under pressure to convert to academy status. The ten LAs have been identified objectively and are of a variety of political colours. Nightingale is a failing school in one of the ten LAs.

This school is rated inadequate in the most recent inspection and its capacity for sustained improvement is also rated inadequate, as are outcomes for individuals and groups of pupils. Overall it was rated inadequate in 11 areas and only managed one "good". Ofsted found a few nice things to say about the school in their report and in the letter to pupils but overall the inspection report shows that this is a school with severe problems. This is the third time this school has been on notice to improve in 5 years. Clearly any previous improvements have not been sustained, which would tend to confirm Ofsted's judgement and would also tend to confirm the ineffectiveness of both the governors and the LA.

If a school is failing there is a requirement to consider converting to academy status. This existed under the last government (although primary schools could not convert at that time). In some cases an IEB appointed by the LA has led to a school converting to academy status.

But Nightingale isn't a 'failing school' by any criteria. It has never been below the floor target and even the Ofsted that issued it a 'notice to improve' states clearly that it provides an adequate standard of education and that children make satisfactory progress.

I'm not sure where you're getting your figures from PRH. The school was found to be making 'good' progress in the monitoring visit for 'satisfactory' schools in 2009 and received an over all judgement of 'satisfactory' in 2009. It was placed in an Ofsted category for the first time in Oct 2011. It was judged to be making 'inadequate' progress in 2010 but so were 100s of schools in the country, many which have been performing much less well that Nightingale for some time and have been in an Ofsted category for some time - why not pick on them?

Might I just comment that I find the variable weight that you give to Ofsted judgements, from instances like this where you treat it as more important than the publically available school data, to instances where you say you have no faith in what it measures interesting.

Sorry, 'good' progress in 2007 and 'satisfactory' in 2009. It hasn't been on a notice to improve 3 times in 5 years - it didn't go into an Ofsted category until Oct 2011.

I disagree, by the way, that the 10 areas have been identified objectively. the issue isn't their political colour but the fact that they're in urban areas of deprivation so that the academy chains can move in.

Sorry - I skimmed through the Ofsted reports too quickly.

I cannot comment on any monitoring visit in 2009 - there is none shown on the Ofsted website. However, whilst the school was given a rating of satisfactory overall in the full inspection of January 2009 the Section 8 inspection report of November 2010 indicates that it was told that improvements were required. The November 2010 inspection found inadequate progress in making improvements and inadequate progress in demonstrating a better capacity for sustained improvement. It is now on notice to improve.

Why not pick on other schools? Some other schools are, of course, being "picked on", as you put it, by having an IEB imposed, either by the LA or the DfE, but not getting the publicity that the campaign in Haringey is generating. I have already indicated why I am not surprised at the action taken - a school which has been placed on notice to improve, where Ofsted say it is making inadequate progress in improving and believe it does not have the capacity for sustained improvement, and where the LA has been judged as failing its schools.

I do have concerns about Ofsted. I think it is too easy for a school to get a rating of satisfactory or better when the teaching is poor. But my views on Ofsted are irrelevant here. The Secretary of State clearly has to rely on Ofsted judgements when deciding if a school is faililng and what actions to take. So, in looking at his actions, we need to look at the Ofsted reports.

Even if it were true (and it isn't), I fail to see how the failing LAs being in urban areas of deprivation means they have not been identified objectively. These are the LAs with the highest concentrations of failing schools. That is an objective measure. One can argue about the reasons for it but that does not make the measure any less objective. There are many other LAs in equally deprived areas achieving better results then these LAs.

My concerns about Ofsted is how politically they are being used by the DfE. We have schools with 'inadequate' attainment judged as 'good' and schools being put in categories with 'adequate' attainment.

Within the context of Gove's direct political attack on Haringey (and some other urban areas), and the high stakes of Ofsted being used to put as many schools into categories as possible, I have absolutely no faith in the integrity of Ofsted.

And it seems that Murdoch - that well known educational expert - also plans to make as much profit as possible from our schools.

Nearly half the community schools (excluding special schools) in Norfolk are below the floor target, many in rural areas. This seems quite a high proportion - why aren't these schools being targeted?

Nearly half the community schools (excluding special schools) in Norfolk are below the floor target

Rubbish.

Assuming we are talking about primary schools and based on the most recent results, 27 out of 145 community schools were below floor target (18.6%). Looking at other types of school, 6 out of 42 VA schools, 11 out of 60 VC schools and none of the 17 foundation schools were below floor target. So overall that is 44 out of 264 primary schools reporting results were below floor target (16.6%). However you cut it, that is nowhere near half the community schools.

Yes, you're right. I misread the table.

Though I think you have too. There are 27 schools below 50% in Norfolk, and 63 below the 60% floor target.

In contrast, only 2 out of 53 schools in Haringey achieved less than 50%, which is very significantly below the floor target.

Anyway, we can compare and contrast until the cows come home but the fact remains that the DfE are targeting schools in particular areas to be used in a political experiment, whilst schools in other areas which are performing considerably more poorly are being left alone.

Which, I suspect, is the reason for the DfE's refusal to release information about which schools it is targeting.

There are three elements to the floor target:

• 60% or more of the pupils achieving level 4 or above in English and Maths at KS2

• at least the national average percentage of pupils achieving the expected progress from KS1 to KS2 in English (for 2011 that means 84% achieving that level of progress)

• at least the national average percentage of pupils achieving the expected progress from KS1 to KS2 in Maths (for 2011 that is 83%)

A school is above the floor target if it achieves any one of those three measures. So, for example, Aldburgh with Denton CofE Primary only has 43% of pupils achieving level 4+ in Maths and English and only 29% of its pupils made the expected progress in Maths. However, despite those results, it is above the floor target because 86% of its pupils achieved the expected progress in English.

The fact that a school only has to achieve one of these three standards to be above the floor target is, as far as I am concerned, an indictment of the schools that consistently fall below the floor target. I understand the argument that a school in a deprived area will have an intake that is less advanced than schools in other areas and therefore cannot be expected to achieve the 60% level. I don't agree with that argument as I believe that education is the main way children can escape from deprivation and therefore failing to achieve that standard is letting them down. Nonetheless, I understand the argument. However, I can see no excuse for a school in a deprived area allowing its children to fall even further behind.

To return to the facts, the problem in Haringey is that it has a particularly high concentration of schools that have consistently failed to achieve the floor standard. The performance measures chosen by the DfE in identifying the 200, the 500 and the underperforming LAs are clear. If you want to sit down with the league tables for the 5 years in question you can identify them. All the evidence I have seen to date indicates that the schools and LAs being targeted are indeed those identified by the measures that have been publicised. I note that the measures used by the previous government identified largely the same schools and exactly the same LAs. Was their identification of these schools and LAs also "politically motivated"? Or is it perhaps the case that these are genuinely schools and LAs that have consistently underperformed?

Yes, in answer to your last question. If you remember, when Ed Balls was Secretary of State he directed Ofsted to ignore any positives in Children's Services and hammer them, which is why Sharon Shoesmith was hounded. It's very clear to those of us who live here that this is now happening to schools.

There is more to politics than blue and red.

The funding disparity in Haringey means that it gets compared to inner London schools, despite receiving considerably less funding. Enough to double the teaching staff in a 2 form primary school. No sensible debate about 'performance' can take place outside of this context.

In response to the above comments about how I don't like academies. There is some truth in that. I would be happy to alter my view if there was any evidence that showed they are a reliable method of school improvement but, as yet, there isn't.

I don't recall Ed Balls giving any such direction to Ofsted but I am willing to be enlightened. He did appear to change Ofsted's priorities a number of times.

That aside, the identification of the 200, 500 and the underperforming LAs has nothing to do with Ofsted. It is based entirely on SATS results. All the evidence I have seen suggests that the schools targeted are those identified by the measures that have been publicised. The anti campaign seems to suggest that the schools being targeted are not those identified by the official measures. I have found no evidence to support that claim. It is perfectly valid to argue that the official measures are the wrong ones but if the campaign wishes to continue suggesting that the DfE is choosing schools for political reasons it really needs to identify at least one school that has been targeted contrary to the official measures.

I have no idea how the situation arose that Haringey is classed as outer London for ACA purposes but is required to pay inner London salaries to its teachers. I agree that needs to be addressed.

By the way, my personal view on the floor target is that a school which fails to achieve the 60% mark should have to achieve both the other targets in order to be above floor. Making that change would not remove any schools from the 200 or the 500, nor would it affect the list of underperforming LAs, but it would in my view be a better measure. So, in my view, the school I mentioned in my last post should be regarded as below the floor target.

Sorry to link from the Daily Mail, but there are a number of sources for this online if you look.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1262812/Baby-P-report-Sharon-Shoesmith-beefed-justify-sacking.html

Sorry - I thought you were talking about a general directive, not just the Shoesmith case. I knew about that.

The Secretary of State intervened in the due process of Ofsted. He put pressure on them to produce a result which gave him the power to do what he wanted (in this case to find a scape goat).

Ofsted long lost any claims to neutrality in this part of the world.