Ofsted Inspection & publishing of Reports

[PrimaryConcern]

Inspection was over 6 weeks ago, no report available yet from school or Ofsted website. Previous inspection was RI, I would be amazed if it got higher than that this time too.

Ofsted website seems to say they will be published within 28 working days at the maximum, which has passed. I assume school has some right to appeal, are there any timescales that have to be stuck to?

Not doing DBS and other pre-employment checks is a pretty basic but serious issue. Schools have been (temporarily) closed when Ofsted have discovered this failing.

Remember that Inadequate means that Ofsted will be in regularly to monitor delivery of the improvement plan (and they write a public letter after each visit, setting out their assessment of the progress being made). And your DC's school will be a big red light on the RSC's dashboard and taken into consideration when reviewing the academy chain performance

I don't want to totally out myself so can't go into the specifics, but moving them isn't an option. I am not so concerned about the ones that are currently there, it's the preschool DC I am losing sleep over.

I know, you can't even (rightly) volunteer to work behind the till in a charity shop without DBS and references, so what was going on at the school is just....boggling. I do believe they are now in control of that, but it never should have been out of control in the first place.

I'm sure the school will being going all out to make sure things are done for the monitoring. I don't think the Ofsted monitoring visits gives parents an opportunity to feedback, which is a shame really. I'd love to feedback my post-report views!

Reading back my posts, I should clarify Ofsted are wowed by the Executive Head, who isn't on site full-time (is a HT elsewhere) and that is the one I am not so taken with. The new Head of School I do have faith in, from what I have seen so far.

Sorry if I was a bit too forward in working out what school it was. The date published and category is the key. I will not, of course, name it.

Changing schools is always difficult and not everyone can just walk away. You can use Parent View on the Ofsted website. When my local school just escaped Serious Weaknesses some years ago, the Governors set up parent/governor forums to discuss the most important issues. Getting parents on board will be vital so the new Head may well give parents updates on progress and be less patronising.

I also think it is unbelievable that your MAT is not more understanding of the parent body, considering who they are! In addition I have noticed educational bodies, such as your type of MAT, being very stubborn and self-righteous! It can be a trait I think.

The experienced Board of Governors may well think differently too. They really will have to pull the school round very quickly and Ofsted will crawl all over them on the next visit. I think you will have to give them a chance. Usually in these cases the Improvement Plan has to be funded and the MAT should facilitate this because things such as extra training for teachers will not be cheap! Hopefully it will ensure a higher quality of education by the time you need it for your youngest DC. However, they may remove unsuitable staff and there may be turbulence before it gets better. I don't think decorating will wash with Ofsted - far too many big problems to sort out. You can, and should, ask for the GB minutes. You can have non confidential ones. It might give you an insight into the progress in addressing the issues.

Nothing to apologise for, I honestly really appreciate your interest and help with this. It's on my mind constantly and I've bored everyone I know to death with it already! I don't have a problem with the school working out a parent is talking about them, I am just trying not to make it too easy to work out which one it is

The MAT has set up a dedicated email address so when I am feeling calmer, I am going to email and ask for the things you have suggested, and for a general request to be kept in the parental information loop. The chair of the new Governors was there, but he was largely silent as he was only appointed a couple of weeks ago. First impressions weren't great, but I suppose time will tell how strongly they will hold the MAT to account.

I think January will be quite significant as that is when the New Early Years and Year 6 teacher will start. Currently covered by temporary teachers due to the sudden moving on of some staff. I'm not sure when Ofsted will do their first visit, school will obviously want it to be after Christmas and to give the new teachers a chance to get to settle in a bit, but I don't know how that will fit with the inspection schedule.

Thanks again for your input

I think it would have been inappropriate for the new Chairman of Governors to start making statements of intent after only a few weeks but I would ask, and maybe a group of parents could ask, that parent forums are set up and there are regular newsletters about progress on improvement. It is highly likely you will see changes fairly quickly but it is well known that parental engagement brings about changes more effectively.

In schools where there is a downward slide, teachers will leave. They are often not supported by the SLT and they can get jobs elsewhere. After the executive Head started, it is highly likely that some teachers who were not good enough started to feel the heat. Usually a new Head will be monitoring teaching very closely and will expect accurate monitoring of progress, appropriate work for the children and good classroom management etc. There is a huge problem at your school in that monitoring of progress and attainment was useless so it will be a big task for the school to get this accurate. One would hope the new Governors will expect this to happen as a matter of urgency.

Generally, the Governors hold the Head to account.They do this by getting accurate and detailed reports on pupil progress and all other matters, from the Head. They scrutinise this information, challenge the Head and visit the school to inform themselves of the progress that is being made. They set the Head targets as part of performance management. The Head also sets targets for the teachers.

It is normal for a school in this position to have support and advice from a school improvement partner. Where I live, the LA has a Learning Trust which has Improvement experts who work closely with the schools. Your MAT will need to consider where this advice is coming from. Possibly from themselves but not necessarily. It needs to analyse, very quickly, what is going in the Improvement Plan and how it will be delivered. It will have to prove, almost certainly within 6 months, that they are on the right track. Few schools are given longer than 6 months before a further inspection of progress is made and it could be 3 months given your problems.

I would hope that the new Y6 teacher is good. They will need to be! It is sometimes very possible to start to recruit good teachers once management improves and there is a real buzz about the school again. Some teachers do like this type of challenge and it is good for their career if they do well and can get promotion within the school. The existing teachers appear to have significant training needs so this should be a priority too. A teacher who is not capable of teaching phonics is not really employable elsewhere for example! So change is vital.

I hope that, before Christmas, the school is more in tune with parents. Good luck.

We have just waited 6 weeks for my DC's schhol Ofsted report and it was as I had feared considering the delay - inadequate. Feel really let down by the head who was brought in to turn the school around after it's RI rating 2 years ago. Especially as all the scores for teaching, outcomes for children and early years provision was scored good (as they were 2 years ago also) but they were judged inadequate on children's welfare due to safeguarding issues and therefore leadership was also judged inadequate and because of this, it was also their overall rating.

I imagine the school will now be forced down the academy route. would it be normal for the head to stay on or would the academy sponsors install a replacement?

Hersetta427, it's no wonder you're feeling let down. I'm inexperienced in what would happen, but I think the only reason my DC got a 3 for leadership and management when there were safeguarding failings is because the long-standing head had retired prior to the inspection, and Ofsted were satisfied the new management structure were able to improve. Is it inadequate serious weaknesses or inadequate special measures? You may get a better informed response if you put up your own thread as I'm sure I've bored a lot of people away on mine! I think academy conversion is inevitable. Hopefully the school will retain its good teachers and management will get the immediate problems sorted asap.

bojorojo the set-up is now slightly weird as the Executive Head is from the MAT and we also now have a head of school. I'm not really sure which one is responsible for what and how the Governors will deal with it. I think a parent group was formed recently but I couldn't make that meeting so I don't really know anything. It's on my list of things to find out.

Training is happening at the Executive Head's school which is nearish by. Early years is in total chaos - the temporary teachers are not able to control the children and from what I've heard there is little teaching going on. Compared to this time last year, there is only 1 full-time and 1 part time teacher that haven't gone from the school.

It will be the 4th Yr6 teacher since September so they need to be good! There was a job share arrangement previously so it's not quite as dramatic as it sounds, but still a lot of disruption in one of the key years.

Thanks again hopefully I will be able to report back that things have improved come March. It would be a challenge for them to get worse!

Hi Primary. It's inadequate special measures.

A damming indictment is that 2 weeks ago we got good for all categories except leadership which was RI (but that was expected as at the time of the inspection the school was between heads so had a temporary one in charge.

the new head has actually made the school go backwards overall and am worried about its future (youngest is only in yr 1 - eldest in yr 5). It was always prior to the 2014 inspection an outstanding school but left to coast along for far too long with no on-going improvements. Luckily the teaching is so good and children do far better than the national average otherwise I think there would be uproar.

my main worry is retaining some of the fantastic teaching staff that we do have.

Thant should be 2 years ago (not weeks) oops.

All I can say is Ofsted are making it very clear management has to change. My DC school got inadequate in every single other part - teaching, Early years, behaviour, outcomes, the lot and walked away with a 3 for management and inadequate - serious weaknesses.

As unsettling as it is, as everything else about your school is good I should think it will be easy to turnaround. You'll probably find a change in Governors too as they have responsibility for checking on safeguarding etc.I'd imagine it would be an attractive prospect for a new head as the teaching and results are good. I could see it going from inadequate SM to good/outstanding at its next inspection. The existing teachers can hold their heads high that they achieved good teaching in an inadequately managed school.

It is bloody awful to read the overall rating. I knew ours would be bad but the failings were pretty unbelievable. Hold tight, but I would be optimistic for a quick turnaround for your school.

Hope so primary however that's what we thought when the current head took over and every really expected the rating to improve to good.

Were there any comments by Ofsted on the Governors? Ours were inexperienced and admitted so, not challenging the school enough and not really carrying out their full range of duties. We now have a professional executive board who are experienced and (hopefully) know their powers and responsibilities. From what I understand, Safeguarding crosses over into the Governors remit as well.

My kids were in a formerly good to outstanding school which moved into inadequate. It was taken over by an company who turn round failing schools tand within 18 months had a good Ofsted. So, the company immediately moved the head to another school to do the same and brought in a new head. The 3 year contract with the trust ends next year and they will move out. That will mean yet another head. I moved my kids, no regrets at all, I could see this coming. I would seriously long term plan for other options. The issue isn't just in turning the school around it is in sustaining that long term through changes of leadership which happen too often when schools are part of a wider group.

Governors do have a responsibility for Safeguarding and must have a Safeguarding Governor who monitors the procedures in the school as well as ensuring there is a robust policy and recording of any incidents. The fact that records were missing was, clearly, down to the previous Head. It would also bother me that the Clerking of the Governing Body was inadequate. We have a list of recurring tasks and reports that must be done, and appear on the agenda. For example, Safeguarding Report, Financial Benchmarking, Headteacher Appraisal, Pay Review Committee, and many more. We continually check progress data and receive reports on teaching quality (you have to trust the Head or external reviewers on this) and all manner of other things. DBS checks are so basic,one would not expect Governors to have to chase that one up, but they should have mechanisms for interpreting progress data, pupil premium data, SEN data, and very many more checks and balances so they know where there are issues. Governors are responsible for the strategic direction of the school, but do have to be informed about what quality of education the school is offering. If they do not know this, it is virtually impossible to improve. The new Governors will be getting to grips with this.

Usually an "Executive Head" is a sounding board for the full-time Head, and not normally full-time in school. However, the big challenge in any school that has haemoraged teachers is getting committed staff (job share can be good if it gets the right people in) who are good teachers. The school will also be suffering from a loss of "middle" managers who are curriculum leaders or pupil premium/SEN leaders, for example. It is very difficult (impossible?) to get a school to function properly with supply teachers is very many posts. It is not just about "can an individual teach?" To overcome problems the school must have a first class SLT and middle management must be delivering the curriulum leadership too. Obviously they have not been, but no-one seemed to notice. Totally agree that keeping the improvements going is always a challenge but if a Head does stay, and is good, this can be done.

It will not be good enough to train teachers at another school. Collaboration is, of course, good but this school will need expert advice. Usually this comes from a learning trust or a much bigger organisatgion with experts. It is highly unlikely that pupil premium, SEN and Early Years issues and accurately recording progress can be sorted out by looking at a neighbouring school. In fact, I am staggered the school had not received a "health check" by the MAT's officers. This is totally normal in schools these days and alerts the MAT, and the school, to the issues before Ofsted arrive. If you know the issues, and are addressing them, Ofsted may be a tiny bit kinder!

Any school that fails on safeguarding can, fairly easily, put that right. However, to have not known there was a problem is unforgivable and Ofsted have taken it very seriously. Schools and Governors have had so much help available for ensuring safeguarding is robust. Policies written for them, Governors appointed, procedures clearly laid out for them, training offered - an endless list. How could they be so stupid as to get it wrong? It, hopefully, will not affect teacher retention as it is a specific management issue and does not affect good teaching, good progress and attainment and the vast majority of the children. The teachers may well be disappointed in the Head or lead safeguarding teacher and the Governors.

primary, it doesn't pinpoint the governors but says says 'leaders and governors have failed to secure a culture where safeguarding is effective'.

We did hear at a parent meeting that they have recruited a dedicated safeguarding governor to monitor training, processes and procedures but was a little disturbed to see that she is only coming into school once a term aside from sitting in on training sessions for staff.

bojorojo, there may be other training for the teachers, I just know that the school admin staff have to go there for training. And there was a lot of talk of collaboration between the schools. The other school is Ofsted RI so I hope there is other training available! The Exec Head comes over for 2/3 days as week, so she has a presence on site. They are very distinct that the new fulltime Head is Head of School not Head Teacher. I have no idea if there is a significant difference.

I am still a bit stuck on the premium pupil and SEN funds not having been spent effectively. Do they just get to write it off and walk away? If you mess up your tax return you are risking being fined and if it is particularly dodgy, prison, but here the school are with public funds and there seems to be no consequence. I don't want a head on a stick (ok maybe just a little) but it's a bit more than a little boo-boo.

Hersetta427 - I am out of my depth on this, but it would seem that my DC school Academy Trust were advised to review the governors by Ofsted and decided that a professional body replace the old one. If it does go to an Academy I expect they would make a similar move for your school. But again I am just guessing here really!

Hersetta - I think your school is pretty much certain to become an academy now. Getting the right MAT will make a real difference to the school's chances so I'd push for parents to be kept in the loop as far as possible on this.

Hersetta,
When the report says "'leaders and governors have failed to secure a culture where safeguarding is effective" what it really means is that safeguarding in the school is not being carried out properly.
The good thing is that if you are going to go into special measures over anything then safeguarding whilst totally unacceptable and unforgivable, is the easiest thing to sort out. If they have not sorted it out in three months they are not trying and at that point deserve to be sacked whether as a staff member or governor.
Unfortunately you will not be out of special measures in 3 months, it is likely to be more like 12. Also Ofsted will be looking very closely at all the other areas where there was any concerns, even if they got good, so no complacency is needed.
As to whether they will be forced to become an academy that will to some extent depend how the Regional Schools Commissioner views the situation. They may see this as an easy win and not bother to push to become an academy as they have far more urgent cases to resolve, for instance like PrimaryConcerns where most things seem to be wrong.

Primary. The new Governing Body will not be "professional" in the true sense of the word, but they will be very experienced in school governance. It is possible for new Governors, without experience, to get up to speed fairly quickly, but if the ethos of the governing Body has not been to bother with training, not to ask challenging questions, not to expect robust management information from the Head and not ensure they are doing their legal duties, then they are useless, really. Therefore a new Governing Body will bring with it a "professional" approach to Governance and this is what is currently required of all schools (although lots do not seem to have noticed or changed their recruitment to reflect the current requirements of a Governing Body ). It should not be concerned parents, the great and the good from the community or indeed full of Churchgoers. It must be experienced in getting to grips with the legal requirements of a Governing Body and fully trained to do the role.

hersetta. Where I am a Governor, the Safeguarding Governor only sees the Head for a dedicated meeting on Safeguarding once a term but this is because there are very few (if any) safeguarding issues. However, there is training, ensuring our processes are robust if there is an issue, and reviewing any changes to safeguarding policy from the Government. If it is a school where safeguarding is a regular occurance, then one would expect more frequent visits. However, the Governor does not replace the dedicated Safeguarding Officer at the school on day to day safeguarding matters. They do not direct what happens. They monitor that it has and that procedures are robust and followed. That is an essential difference between Governance and Headship. Where there are shortcomings, ensuring that the prescribed system/policy is working (it will be laid down in the Safeguarding Policy adopted by the school) is very important, but the Governor will not know details about each case.

bojorojo - sorry I did mean experienced rather than professional. Though 2 of the new board members are governance consultants and 1 is a Chair on the county Governors Association so they should be well equipped. Will they be likely to review the existing policies? The school recently started to charge for swimming lessons and as they own the pool this is a no-no (though a separate to school management company run it and it is not sole-use of the school).

They updated the charging policy to say we were lucky to have the pool so parents are asked for a donation, but the letters out actually refer to it as a charge for swimming lessons, not a donation. Obviously it is small fry compared to the school's other problems but I wonder if they will be expected to a) realise it is not allowed and b) rectify it.