SAT's results maladministration

[frustratedprimaryparent]

Hi there,
Just reading previous comments from previous years and it appears that this issue still very much remains.
I have experience of an outstanding school which now finds itself with a narcissistic head (3 yrs in position) who is bullying staff, children and governors. It is a large school and all but two members of original staff/governors have left. We have reported and presented evidence in various forms (including evidence of it happening in this head's previous school) to the LEA, Ofsted and the Department of Education. All of which is proving difficult and we have now been threatened with legal action. We now have evidence that the LEA told KS1 staff 're-submit' KS1 SAT's papers as the school did not even meet the national average. The most upsetting aspect has been the effect on our children. They ended their primary education this week and returned to us as lifeless, soul-less puppets with all sense of spirit well and truly removed.
If any parent is reading this and can honestly say that their child's primary school is like this - please, please REMOVE them

[Norestformrz]

"Not alone (Ks1) but part of all data" the KS1 data which is the teacher assessment not the test results (which aren't reported)

[Iamagreyhoundhearmeroar]

please, please REMOVE them
Why the fuck didn’t you remove yours if it’s anything approaching your description?
Or didn’t you realise until your children were “returned” to you at the end of Year 6?? Have they been held hostage until now?

[frustratedprimaryparent]

Norestformrz - the school had a 'quasi-inspection' carried out by the SIA this year. Apparently, the staff were given the results of the inspection at a later date verbally by the SIA, which were not good. That afternoon, the Head went off on the sick for almost two weeks. On the day she returned, parents received details of the report that had been carried out. The original report was never shown. Instead, parents were given a re-iterated version by the Head and Chair.

[frustratedprimaryparent]

Iamagreyhoundhearmeroar - thanks for your comment. A few reasons why my child stayed at the school:

• I've lived in the local community for over 20 years
  
• my other children have attended the school
  
• my child's friends were still there and living in the area
  
• a move would have affected the secondary school process
  
• I cannot afford a whole new uniform
  
• my child was determined to complete the year/primary education in same school
  
• my child wanted to take part in the usual year 6 activities after SAT's
  
• other schools in the area are full
  
  Despite all of that, her attendance percentage did go down in year 6.

[AspireAchieve]

OP it is a positive step that STA are involved. It is usual that STA request the LA to carry out the investigation. The LA are required to have an officer responsible for this and it is likely that they will provide more than one LA staff member. Now you can be assured that STA will consider all evidence in a fair and robust manner.

[Norestformrz]

"Norestformrz - the school had a 'quasi-inspection' carried out by the SIA this year. Apparently, the staff were given the results of the inspection at a later date verbally by the SIA, which were not good. " very poor practice and as I said frowned upon by OFSTED

[BubblesBuddy]

It’s not really known about by Ofsted. My LA has a traffic light system and, with a red school (in danger of RI or worse) the Head and the Governors can use members of the School Improvement Team to look at the school in a similar way to Ofsted. This then informs the schools Improvement Plan and hopefully least good aspects are tackled. It’s a dialogue and it’s supportive. It’s not quite the same as an inspection but school leaders are challenged to support their judgements with evidence. It really shows everyone is doing their job.

Thanks AspireAchieve for fleshing our what I meant. Where there are discrepancies in progress from KS1 to Ks2 Sats it is picked up. All data is analysed. Many junior schools have found over optimistic KS1 assessments mean the junior schools have to work hard to show progress in Y3. Working together helps with trust and knowing the KS1 achievements are robust is important.

I’m so sorry my original post disappointed!

[Norestformrz]

It's well known which is why the head of OFSTED has said it shouldn't be happening.

[Norestformrz]

"Where there are discrepancies in progress from KS1 to Ks2 Sats it is picked up. All data is analysed. Many junior schools have found over optimistic KS1 assessments mean the junior schools have to work hard to show progress in Y3."

Which is totally irrelevant to the OPs post about resubmitting KS1 test papers. Key Stage 1 test papers are purely for internal use and not submitted.

" All data is analysed." Key Stage 1 test data isn't submitted so doesn't form any part of the analysis. The data used is the statutory teacher assessment.

[BubblesBuddy]

I was explaining why data is relevant and is used by schools and Ofsted. All data. Ks1 sats are a judgement on attainment by teachers. If no-one knows about it, why do it? If course it’s relevant.

What Ofsted might recommend will not necessarily happen. If it’s useful to have school improvement partners work with schools to see what they need to do to improve, so it will happen. Perhaps you don’t get involved with school improvement norest as you seem so agitated by a school taking sensible steps to improve. As I said, it’s not offered to all schools. Only where there are identified weaknesses. Why Ofsted are against schools getting help is beyond me but perhaps some improvement partners are over zealous and not helpful. I can see why this would be a negative.

[spanieleyes]

KS1 data is analysed but NOT Ks1 test data. this simply forms part of the teacher assessment. So tests could be completed as many times as you like but this still only informs the teacher assessment. Which is why it is unclear why anyone would "resubmit" test data when it is not submitted in the first place!

[Feenie]

Why Ofsted are against schools getting help is beyond me

Does the following help?

College and school leaders should never have been allowed to direct their funding towards these non-teacher, non-leader, non-inspector figures who, let’s face it, have probably been managed out of somewhere else. Often they are used to prop up a culture of fear, acting as highly-paid sycophants to a failing leadership. Many, riding their wagon into town like education’s own incarnation of Dr Terminus, try to sell a gimicky formula to fearful leaderships who then pass on the utterly-pointless additional workload to their already-overburdened staff. Given that Ofsted’s role is not to dictate how things should be done, but to evaluate the ways that institutions choose to do them, it should be assumed that any leadership reaching out to these consultants is conceding their own incapacity.

www.tes.com/news/mocksted-consultants-sell-message-fear-and-play-insecurities

[Norestformrz]

" All data. Ks1 sats are a judgement on attainment by teachers. If no-one knows about it, why do it? If course it’s relevant. " it's used internally by the class teacher as a small part of their overall judgement. It isn't submitted to the DfE it isn't available to OFSTED.

[Norestformrz]

"Perhaps you don’t get involved with school improvement norest as you seem so agitated by a school taking sensible steps to improve. " as a member of the Senior Leadership Team for my school I'm very involved in school improvement thanks Bubbles. We will just have to disagree about how sensible it is to waste school funds on inviting in "Mocksted" but I'm pleased to say my opinion is one supported by OFSTED and the DfE while yours is not.

[Norestformrz]

.

[Imtryingveryhard]

Does the headteachers surname start with B. A school near me had a similar issue with a head teacher late 2016/early 2017 and no one knows where the head teacher has gone to after resigning. First name begins with M.

[BubblesBuddy]

None of the above applied to our school Feenie. It’s a shame several posters don’t understsnd how schools work with their school improvement teams from the LA. We buy in services from our LA, which is an Educational Trust, not consultants whom we do not know or trust, and school improvement advice is one of them. We have access to inspectors, highly qualified and experienced ex Heads and subject Advisers who have not been managed out of anywhere. We know they are worth having a dialogue with and value their advice. I think the above quote is scaremongering rubbish. We value professional advice and certainly know the quality it represents or we would not buy in the service. The service does not upset anyone and is embraced by school staff. Also the enhanced service is only offered to red and amber light schools. It makes sure every angle is looked at and informs school improvement planning and monitoring.

When I joined the GB, there had been a period of turbulence. There were significant problems. This was recognised by the LA. After two years we wanted a in depth check on our progress from outside. The school was amber but was heading towards green. It gave us confidence that the strategies put in place were working and backed up our own evidence and evaluation.

If you are not a Head, Norest, may I suggest you are not making the ultimate strategic decisions for your school. The Head is. Together with the Governors. Anyway, the good news is that Ofsted have just agreed with our evaluation and have given a clear endorsement of our leadership.

[spanieleyes]

I know exactly how my school works with the school improvement team! But we don't run mini ofsted style scrutinies, they couldn't tell me anything I don't already know.

[admission]

In the two LAs that I work with, they both have a similar system as BubblesBuddy's LA uses, which is about at an LA having some capacity to help schools where weaknesses have been identified. At the end of the day it is for each individual school to decide whether they will accept that help or not or whether the school would prefer to utilise somebody else they trust to help them.
However what does need to happen is a recognition that the school needs some help by the senior leadership in the school. Some of the posts from Norestformrz tend to follow the line seen in too many schools that some how all teachers and senior leaders are wonderful and how dare somebody else outside the school try to tell us what to do. That is an incredibly blinkered view. All staff in schools, including the senior leadership team and governing board should be prepared to accept that there is always something more to be learned. The best way to achieve that is by being open and honest in inviting people into the school. At the end of the day, it is still the senior leadership's decision as to whether the advice is accepted or rejected.

[RaindropsOnKittens43]

But we don't run mini ofsted style scrutinies, they couldn't tell me anything I don't already know.
Unless you're the head of the school the OP is talking about, it doesn't really matter what your school does, or how well you know it.

(Mind you, anyone who says that no inspection could tell them anything they don't already know would give me cause for concern! Most professionals are subject to some form of inspection or checking, and have a positive attitude that they may learn and improve from the findings ).

[spanieleyes]

I didn't say that scrutiny was not a positive aspect of school improvement, there is always something new to learn. But Moksted inspections, no thanks!

[Norestformrz]

"I know exactly how my school works with the school improvement team! But we don't run mini ofsted style scrutinies, they couldn't tell me anything I don't already know."

Ditto.

It sounds as if my school is much more democratic than BubblesBuddy's with every member of staff and governing body contributing to the school improvement plan.

[Feenie]

We have access to inspectors

Not for mocksteds - there was a major crackdown on moonlighting inspectors in 2015..

I’m SMT and governor - the worrying bit would be if a mocksted DID tell you something you didn’t know. Most schools’ monitoring should be much tighter than that.

[Norestformrz]

"Some of the posts from Norestformrz tend to follow the line seen in too many schools that some how all teachers and senior leaders are wonderful and how dare somebody else outside the school try to tell us what to do. " Admissions please point me to where I've suggested that. I've simply pointed out the OP and B.B. are misinformed about KS1 tests as to the rest of the OPs allegations I can't (and haven't commented.
I've also provided information about the DfE and OFSTEDs views about schools that use Mocksted. It seems both you and B.B. disagree with them.

[admission]

If you read back your posts that is what comes across to me.
My view is that there is no good place for formal Mocksteds as such. However no school should be sat on their backside thinking they are good enough. You only learn how to improve by seeing others in the school teach, by appropriate professionals coming into the school or you going to their place of work. That is a very different scenario from a formal mocksted.