Oftsed reports - true indicator of bad/good?

[user1489951453]

Hi,

We are looking at moving to a new area where the only schools nearby all 3 are Ofsted "Requires Improvement" how much of an indicator of good/bad school are the Ofsted reports?

Area is East Bracknell/Martins Heron for what it's worth

I didn't say the other things were wrong, it just seems a little odd to me that 3 schools in same area (it's rural so there aren't many secondary schools) have this as their main fault. My own DD's school is now making urgent changes to accessibility for fear this will also be used against them, despite having an improved report recently.

The concern in our area is that other schools put into special measures within the last couple of years have been merged into academies as part of chains. While DD's school is an academy, it is independently run and became an academy during the very first group years ago.

Those added to academy chains have not had any improvement in pupil progress/achievement so whatever Ofsted wanted to do it didn't work.

You might have guessed I really go by Ofted ratings, I've read too many stories from teachers who work in Outstanding schools where the pressure to keep that rating is ridiculous.

I would bet a lot of money that this was not the "main fault". Reports are never worded like that. There is a list of faults and to be SM, it would be a lot more than one. They are not lesser or greater faults, they add up to a whole picture. Also, in an area, it is unlikely the same inspectors visiting each school and having a set agenda on accessibility and security. The data they have beforehand would not tellthem about these issues unless someone had complained. I guess it is the school who is saying "poor us" - we were hard done by. What were the other "lesser" issues in the reports?

If a school has had a recent inspection, they willl not get another one very soon if they were good. If they were RI, there will be a fairly quick visit to check on progress . Never be fooled into thinking a good school is all about gates and locks. It is not. They would need to be accessible if they had disabled staff or pupils who required adaptations to the building. They are responsible for that and not doing it is discrimination.

Ofsted make recommendations. It is down to the MATs or Academy chains and the leadership in the schools to improve. If they did not have Ofsted looking at them, how much worse would they be? At least Ofsted give schools and parents a steer regarding what should be improved. I also do not buy this notion that outstanding schools are hot houses and awful places. Many, many schools are striving to be good or better and those that are RI or SM really do not want to be there. I can assure you, that is where the pressure is. SM in particular. However, schools find it difficult to improve without impressive leadership and plenty of good teachers. Finding these outstanding people is very hard and there are not enough to go round. Becoming an academy is not always the answer if they still cannot recruit the right people.

My DS's School had an inspection that RI while he was there..There was a lot of work went into the school, there was money too and training for the staff..Next inspection it got Good.

So a Requires improvement can mean the school are working hard to improve.

The couple of reports I read said things about measuring pupil KS2 results against national averages, something which I guess you can't "fake" on the day.

yes of course the data can be, and is faked

There is so much rubbish talked about prep for Ofsted and showing the best of the school. If you are not doing a good job, day in day out, there is no way this can be masked

Does anyone really think that experienced educationalists and teachers/heads/advisors that are inspectors do not see past that, even if it could be done?

This is the issue though, isn't it.

You can do a good job, day in, day out.

Or you can do prep for ofsted day in and day out.

But you can't do both.

Ofsted is a load of rubbish, I've taught in a school graded "outstanding" which simply meant that the management were good at jiggery pokery and smoke and mirrors. Nearly half the staff resigned after , as they had been relying on ofsted to do something about it, but ofsted hadn't even realised what the issues were.

I've worked in a brilliant school that has been judged as "Requiring improvement" twice in a row

I don't believe you. You do an excellent job day in day out and you will get at least a Good rating. 'Ticking Ofsted's boxes' is mainly doing an excellent job. Some specific requirements can be onerous (frequent policy changes, new website requirements) but the biggest problems come from the DfE constantly changing the curriculum and the grading system.

We have termly visits from our LA adviser who are themselves ex head and Ofsted trained. It would be impossible to fake being good every time they came in.

I don't believe you. You do an excellent job day in day out and you will get at least a Good rating

absolutely not, doing a good job, and doing what pleases ofsted are commonly diametrically opposed.

To put the other side of the coin into the debate I've worked at a school which is officially Ofsted good, but is actually at risk of becoming an academy because it's so poor. They haven't stopped waving the "we're good" banner, even when told by the local authority that they're not where near RI.

Look at all three schools and see which one seems the best fit would be my advice.

If you believe doing a good job and doing what pleases Ofsted are diametrically opposed either you really don't know why doing a good job is, or you have not worked in a school for a long time.

If you believe doing a good job and doing what pleases Ofsted are diametrically opposed either you really don't know why doing a good job is, or you have not worked in a school for a long time

I've worked in schools for decades, the best schools almost always get low ofsted ratings, and the last two occasions I have been in schools judged to be "outstanding", the schools were terrible, and on the last occasion, most staff resigned in protest at the grading.

The points made above are interesting as I hadn't appreciated the way they look at pupil progress data over time.

For many people, good it is not much different to outstanding. The average parent just would not suss out the differences. The schools I know to be outstanding have children making excellent progress and mostly excellent teachers. The schools are well run and people like working there. Any notion of teachers leaving en masse is a joke! Lots of the schools are fairly small and one reason they are good is stability of staff, excellent leadership and no turmoil!

I really don't recognise what user says. It is not normal for outstanding schools to lose staff. Unless the staff think they can coast elsewhere of course and have an easier life.

In my experience staff in SM and RI schools do have to work hard and will be replaced if they are poor. Being an excellent teacher and making sure children make progress is pleasing everyone: the children, the parents, leadership and Ofsted. As the vast majority of primary schools are rated at least Good, clearly most teachers are doing both.

User 453. Children are tracked all the way through primary from early years. Their records go to new schools if they change. There are debates about how much progress a child has made and assessment of their work is tricky at times. All the teachers I know want their children to do well. They want them to enjoy school and have a love of learning. I like schools with plenty going on - not just work! Look for Drama, music, sport, art, clubs after school etc. These are schools that are preparing children well with a broader education and not just cramming the basics. It is a good school that will have the confidence and enthusiasm to do this. And - teachers that care!

The really disturbing thing about bojorojo's post is the casual assumption that the definition of evil is a teacher "coasting" or looking for an "easier life", because we all know, if teachers are not literally working into they sweat blood, they are failing as human beings .....

heaven forbid they might want a life of their own, or time to eat with their own children or to actually get to bed to sleep occasionally, or anything like that.

" It is not normal for outstanding schools to lose staff." Totally normal IMHE

Mrz. Not losing half the staff after a successful Ofsted inspection! That's rare! Obviously schools lose staff, but not because of an outstanding inspection. I can clearly see some teachers work more effectively than others but most teachers like working where they can do a good job, are valued, have opportunities for pay progression and work hard when required, and have a work/home balance. Like most jobs really!

Yes because of the unreasonable pressure placed on staff by senior management in order to achieve or retain that rating.

http://schoolsweek.co.uk/ofsted-will-consider-scrapping-outstanding-grade-says-new-chief-inspector/

I would say that recent Ofsteds (late 2015 onwards) of relatively similar schools are reasonably comparable.

So to compare primary schools in the same area, with similar demographics, all inspected within the last 12-18 months, then I would say that the ofsted reporrts will all ow reasonable comparisons to be made between them in terms of how they were at that point. To decide between them, you would then need to read the reports in detail and visit the schools to see what had changed since then.

It is NOT a valid comparison, though, to compare e.g. an old Outstanding (as outstanding schools are not reinspected regularly, these can be 7 or 8 years old) with a Good judgement obtained in 2016, and to declare that the Outsanding school must be better. Nor is it appropriate to compare e.g,. a selective school in a nice suburb with 2% PP children with an inner city comprehensive with 75% PP children on the basis of their Ofsted grades.

Which school your child will be HAPPIEST at is, of course, a different question!

You're so right, Cantkeep, there are Outstanding schools that families go mad for (lying about addresses, moving house etc) that haven't been inspected for nearly 10 years. In that time, the whole staff might have changed and certainly the criteria is incomparable. Of course, these schools might well still be fantastic, but I'm not sure how much any of us parents really knows about how good our children's schools are.

I also agree with you about the relative affluence of schools playing a part. It's been shown that the higher the ability of children on arrival, the more likely they are to be assessed as outstanding. Attendance figures play a big part and I know that my children's school has issues with certain families who don't necessarily value education and that the local oversubscribed CofE school does not have the same challenges.

It seems to me (though what do I know) that some schools seem to be rewarded for having easy-to-teach children. They then get an outstanding ofsted and are left alone for 10 years, in the meantime attracting increasingly easy--to-teach children. Who knows if they're any good or not?

We left an 'outstanding' setting for a 'good' one. The outstanding setting were not inclusive and failed to meet the agreed plan for a dc with sn. The good setting were much more caring and both educational progress and personal / social development was better there.

All sn policies/what was said by staff in person and on website of the outstanding setting about sn and pastoral care sounded amazing but the reality was rather different.

I now do not trust ofsted reports to give a real picture.