I've realised how pointless OFSTED reports on Primary schools are now...

[SoupDragon]

... because they've made a judgement on DSs' school based on a 1 day visit, speaking to 10 pupils out of nearly 700 and observing 1 hour's teaching spread over 4 classes (there are 3 classes per year and 2 nursery classes).

What on earth is the point of that??

Does it make a difference as to whether they have the same conclusion than before? For a high-performing school under the same leadership then I would have thought that good audit practice would be to check a small sample of areas to see whether it is highly probable that the school as a whole still stood up to its previous standard. If however you tested the sample and found that standards had dropped then you would extend testing to see if this was a general trend.

Longwindedly 1 day would be fine if everything was consistent with previous findings, but not enough to draw a different conclusion.

Does the school still get slapped for not having a daily collective act of worship btw?

I think they solved the collective worshi thing

It got graded "satisfactory", LadyMuck. The head is disgusted by the whole farce. It is a change of "leadership team" since the last report but the head was deputy before then.

And no, I don't think the head's just being defensive about it - their children go there!

I honestly believe this inspection was a waste of time and is giving completely the wrong impression of the school.

I sort of agree with the OP, but don't know what the answer is.

I'd certainly prefer an inspector to come in off the street and observe me teach without prior notice, rather than panic for days/weeks/months trying to get everything 'perfect'.

I think they'd find many many schools consistently working hard and successfully, and a smaller number winging it, with barely there planning. Some teachers are good actors and can appear to be all singing/all dancing, whereas other equally good teachers find their teaching style changes when observed by a stranger. But at least they could prove through the work their children were managing, that they were competent.

Does that make any sense????

I really don't understand.

DC recently inspected; school informed on the Monday (is that what you mean by short notice?).

School then Inspected on the Wednesday AND Thursday of the same week.

Inspectors Observed all 13 classes during those 2 days. So certainly not at all like SoupDr. described (just 1 hour, etc.).

I'm not sure that I remember its original rating, though the previous report was very impressive though with the collective worship issue obviously standing out in my mind! So, yes, in this case I would agree that I would have expected an Inspector to make more observations before giving such different judgement on the school esp given its Beacon status etc.

Report isn't on the site yet. With my conspiracy theory hat on I wonder if it has been downgraded because they have a relatively unique way of doing things? I suspect that if they only had a day on site and were otherwise just looking at paperwork then they may have missed stuff.

Out of interest is the new report brief enough to indicate the short visit?

Haven't had school experience, but ds2 spent 3 mornings at playgroup in local church hall and 2 days at new nursery atteched to his current school. Both settings were OFSTEDed within 2 weeks of each other, with the nursery getting Outstanding and the plygroup getting satisfactory. Nursery were expecting a visit (as they were new) and paperwork was immaculate (the report mentioned the diarised entires for the manager to inspect all displays each half-term to ensure that they were "inclusive"!). Nevertheless I (and ds2) preferred the playgroup, and it was the latter that I recommended without hesitation to other parents. I do think that a lot of the inspection exercise is down to checking certain boxes.

It is due to their unique approach - it's not possible to get the idea of how it works in such a short time, especially if the inspector is more familiar with [ahem] "traditional" teaching. IIRC, they are rated "good" last time. It makes no sense at all given the Beacon status and the fact that it's used as an example (in a good way!) to other primaries interested in this approach.

I don't have a solution BTW. I simply think that this ridiculously short visit makes a farce of the "findings" and makes the reports pretty much meaningless.

There is a 1.5 A4 sides of wordy report, 1.5 of a table with grades on it and a hugely patronising letter to the children from the inspector!

There are 1.5 A4 sides of wordy report...

The point of the new oftsted framework is that it is based around the Self Evaluation Form (SEF) that every school has to complete and regularly update on-line. The school would have made judgements, using the ofsted 4 grade system, on the same areas recorded in an ofsted report. The point of the inspection is to make a judgement on the accuracy of the gradings that the school has made of itself. They will decide whether to concur with these or if they should be higher or lower. So, theoretically, they don't need to see every teacher teach, just enough lessons to check that they agree with the school's judgements on the quality of teaching and learning. If they trust the school's ability to grade lessons, then they can base their judgements on the school's gradings.

So, if they agree with the school's gradings, then one day might be enough to make a judgement. This is the reason why much of the inspection timetable is devoted to interviewing the head and senior managers/governors etc. It is their ability to make a judgement about their own school and to identify areas for improvement and plan to address these that they are inspecting.

However, in the OP's case, it seems that the inspectors did not agree with the school's own judgements (guessing this, as OP suggested that Head was not happy with the outcome) and in that case, one day would not be enough time to make a different judgement IMHO.

Our school is about half the size of yours Soupy, yet our Ofsted 'snap' inspection lasted 3 days with about 4 inspectors.

Seems a crazy system to me with no balance in how the inspections are carried out.

I think the new inspection system is far better. It is less stressful for staff and gives an accurate picture of what the school is like.

Its up to the head teacher to monitor the quality of lessons and his staff. If the head teacher is doing his job correctly then there is no need to inspect every teachers' lessons. All that OFSTED do is check that internal inspections are accurate.

OFSTED inspectors are qualified teachers and many of them are ex head teachers. Most of them are very good at their job. They can tell if a school is failing very quickly and frankly they are far more objective than a parent.

A few months ago the school where I work was inspected and the report was completely accurate.