Beechen Cliff Bath- 'Inadequate' Ofsted

[LovelyBath77]

Just seen this, doesn't look very good.

www.beechencliff.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Ofsted-2018-Full-Inspection-Report.pdf

and previously-
files.api.beta.ofsted.gov.uk/136520__4.PDF

"The study finds that fear of reactions from parents, who often expect children to be grouped in sets or streams, as well as a more general caution in schools, may be playing a part in these decisions.

It cites previous evidence that setting, where pupils are grouped in classes based on prior results in tests or other judgements the school may make about their ‘ability’, is overwhelmingly used for maths in English secondary schools.

It is also widely used in English in secondary schools and has extended into primary schools. This is despite established research showing that, while ‘high-attaining’ pupils may make some gains from the practice, the reverse is true for those in lower sets, including many students from poorer backgrounds."

OK so it does say it is often used in school but right from the start? I don;t think the other school nearby does this as much.

I'm afraid that the evidence from a wide range of studies that setting only benefits the most able is roundly ignored by most schools. Beechen claims not to set got maths and English in year seven and to teach in mixed ability groups for these subjects, or at least it did when I looked at their prospectus when choosing schools. This is pretty misleading though. Beechen is very unusual in using CATs taken before starting at the school to stream from the outset.

The problem with streaming, where they are (correct me if I'm wrong) placed in teaching groups for most or all subjects based on test results in some subjects is that children might be able in maths but not English and find themselves not being taught to their strength because of the stream they are in. The website says "very occasionally, mistakes are made in the groupings and boys nice groups" suggesting that they have a lot of faith in those decisions and kids are pretty much stuck. This is not good at all.

I would be unsurprised if some of the low level disruption reported by Ofsted, and anecdotally by friends of mine, comes from a sense of despondency at not getting Work to challenge them or seeing a possibility of moving. Setting only works well when it's very fluid, and still shows benefits only for the able children and negative effects for the less able.

In most other secondaries in Bath, setting occurs at Christmas at the very earliest and then only for maths. It is very challenging to reach mixed ability groups for maths, and it's a compromise. Setting in other subjects starts in year 8, but not in all subjects and schools take different approaches.

Sorry to put this in such detail, but I think it's important to understand all this.

localbath, yes the streaming in Y7 involves being put in one class for all subjects, so you are in the same class for everything. As such, you could eg be an overperformer in English and an underperformer, relative to others in your class, for Maths. So it's not streaming in the same way as Hayesfield, where you are streamed from the outset for every subject on the basis of your SATs. I guess Y7 classes are probably more mixed ability because of this than they would be at HF.

I do think they over-rely on CAT scores, these are outdated and not the best measure of ability. I really don't understand why they can't work with SATs scores at the outset.

This notice of closure thing is concerning but surely they can't actually close the school, they'd have to introduce new management rather than do that? It says in the news that they gave the notice to the school on the 5th, which means they would have known about this and not told parents at the meeting which, if the case, is terrible.

We had an email from the school today about how they are working with a MAT and the letter is part of the process. More in the letter anyway.

They've put it on their website,

You may have read reports in the press over the weekend relating to the future of the School.

The press articles stem from a letter entitled ‘Termination Warning Notice’ that is sent by the Regional Schools Commissioner (RSC) to any school receiving an inadequate grading from Ofsted. This letter is a ‘standard’ process letter and is focussed on the RSC and School’s commitment to tackling the issues raised in the Inspection Report. The letter, as a matter of course includes the RSC right to withdraw funding but in Beechen Cliff’s case is firmly focussed on putting in place the right support to help drive the School’s improvement plan. The School is already engaged with Midsomer Norton Multi Academy Trust which is providing invaluable support to the School.

The future of Beechen Cliff School is not in question and the Governors, Head and staff are focussed on implementing Ofsted’s recommendations ensuring Beechen Cliff is an excellent, safe and happy school for all its pupils.

There are a few statements in the Ofsted report that might indicate a certain bias from the inspectors regarding teaching:

Moreover, despite leaders’ assertions that the school provides ‘a strong academic curriculum’, only a third of boys study separate sciences at GCSE

That's pretty low compared to other schools, or so I thought - apparently not...the stats show that 38% of pupils were entered for triple science in 2016 - the local authority average was only 27%, England average 25%. Comparing Beechen Cliff with 3 'outstanding' schools in Hampshire: Bohunt entered 38%, Thornden 30% and Kings' 32%. In fact, science at Beechen Cliff appears to be a strength at KS3 and KS4 - value added and achievement are very good for all groups of pupils in science.

Progress in Maths to GCSE is acknowledged to be very good in the report. Humanities and Languages seem good from the Gov. stats - or am I missing something? How did the school arrive at +36 for Progress 8 (including IGCSE English)?

Leaders made a decision to enter all Year 11 pupils for the iGCSE in English language and literature. This qualification has not provided the level of challenge appropriate for pupils with significantly higher than average prior attainment

Well, these are the same qualifications used by some of the top private schools in England. The school have chosen Cambridge 0627 and 0477 - both 100% final exam (2 x 2hr, 3 x 1.5hr), no coursework, compulsory Shakespeare etc.

In 2017, in mathematics students with similar prior attainment achieved grades that ranged from U to A*. This indicates that teaching is having an inconsistent impact on students’ outcomes

Is this unusual for Maths? For comparison, Peter Symonds College had 70 pupils scoring a U grading for AS Maths in 2017, despite the minimum entry requirement being grade A at GCSE. Perhaps Beechen Cliff don't 'cull' between Year 12 and Year 13 - perhaps they should?

What I don't understand is as the Head was the same and school basically the same why weren't all these things a problem in the previous inspection, when it was "Outstanding" seems very odd the change when things were basically the same..

I guess regulations could have changed between 2014 and now. New safeguarding guidelines come out every academic year so it's quite possible that what was okay in 2014 wouldn't be okay now maybe?

If the results are good and the kids and parents happy, I wouldn't really care what else Ofsted say. Failing on safe guarding means they probably didn't fill in the paperwork correctly or something - very small fry educationally speaking but a big deal in inspection terms.

My daughter's nursery failed its Ofsted for safe guarding. I had no issues with it before or since.

Failing on safe guarding means they probably didn't fill in the paperwork correctly

I just saw this school in the national press. They covered up racist incidents, allowed staff to start working before they cleared safeguarding checks, dumped disruptive Y11s out on the streets on ‘extended study leave’, didn’t report serious safeguarding concerns promptly...the report is truly shocking for a large and apparently well-regarded state secondary school.

How can people think this is a conspiracy?

Add it to the number of reasons why outstanding schools should be reinspected regularly.

The HT hasn't gone. If you look up the school on Twitter, you can see a hard core of articulate and affluent parents backing the school to the hilt. But it does feel that there is a resentment that BC has been found wanting and a flat out denial of problems that seems a bit, well, arrogant. It's really weird that OFSTED have found such an affluent and traditional school wanting.

Apparently they had a mock inspection 2 years ago which still found it outstanding.

All that shows is that you get what you pay for.

Ofsted inspectors don’t come to a school with a blank slate and look at stuff as it comes up, they will come to a school with specific lines of enquiry based on things that have been turned up by the data, or safeguarding concerns.

Given the inspection was no-notice and triggered by safeguarding, Ofsted would have spent more time on those issues than they might have otherwise. As it was no-notice, the school won’t have been able to steer the inspectors in the way they might have done if they had the usual half day notice, and the school won’t have had a chance to do the usual spit and polish and shove dodgy stuff in a cupboard.

thatmustbenigelwiththebrie have you read the report?

It may have been triggered by safeguarding, but there is a LOT more than safeguarding wrong.

Good headline results can - and in this case absolutely do - cover up very poor progress by some overlooked subgroups, quite possibly those who aren't the ones who are able to the vocal about just how happy they are.

And parental opinion of a school can be horrifically wrong. It won't be independent of the previous 'Outstanding' rating (as in 'I fought to get my child to this Outstanding school, of course I'm happy'), and in general, parental opinion of any school is a) always at least 5 years out of date and b) influenced much more heavily by the socio-economics of the intake than the quality of the school and its teaching.

As I say, I have read reports of schools where the report has been triggered by a safeguarding concern or a qualifying complaint - and if they have been genuinely good schools, they have emerged with largely positive or even glowing reports, with a single precise recommendation around the area of the problem / complaint.

Beechen Hill, by contract, might have been triggered by safeguarding but boy, what a can of worms when they did get in there without the school having the time to stack the skeletons neatly in the cupboards...

In fact, Oldfield School in Bath had an Ofsted triggered by a safeguarding concern and whilst a chain of events was put into action that led to the head leaving (good thing too-she was toxic), it retains its outstanding rating.

Outcomes for students in the sixth form on A-level courses in 2017 were significantly below average overall...

This statement in the Ofsted report appears to be incorrect - overall outcomes on A-level courses in 2017 are average not significantly below average.

Safeguarding aside, the inspectors have definitely put a 'negative spin' on some of their findings;

Retention of pupils on two-year courses in the sixth form is improving as a consequence of better advice and guidance in Year 11. Students are better matched to their courses from the outset of their 16 to 19 study programmes. The number of students who do not carry on from Year 12 to Year 13 is reducing as a result

Improving and reducing suggest a low starting point, but in fact retention from Year 12 to 13 is very good and above average; for A-level courses it's 88% (England average 81.4%) and vocational courses (25 students) it's 94.7% (England average 71.2%)

Wellsway School - a nearby school in the same local authority was given a 'Good' Ofsted report in January this year - progress at A level is below average and not as good as Beechen Cliff, Progress 8 is minus for high prior attainers (50% of the cohort) and there's a big gap in results between girls and boys at GCSE.

I think Beechen Cliff have a good case to challenge some of the academic findings in the report.

Yes, but did you see up post the report for Oldfield around that time? It was not good- inadequate as well.

This is a genuine question asked out of a wish to know, not because I am buying into conspiracy theories. I recognise that having a child at the school and not being personally affected by issues does not equate to a lack of serious and systemic problems.

But for those in the know - is it totally out of the question that Ofsted could have given the school a worse than was fair overall report on the basis that they needed to be seen to be coming down hard on them because of the much-reported incident?

This statement in the Ofsted report appears to be incorrect - overall outcomes on A-level courses in 2017 are average not significantly below average.

The average points score for Beechen Cliff was 30.36, and the national average was 32.39, according to the dashboard. Are you confusing outcomes with progress?

The average points score for Beechen Cliff was 30.36, and the national average was 32.39, according to the dashboard. Are you confusing outcomes with progress?

No, I don't think I'm confused - I'm comparing the 'yellow coloured' progress box for A levels for Beechen Cliff which clearly states 'average' progress and the 'orange coloured' progress box for Wellsway School, which clearly states 'below average' progress. Beechen Cliff is definitely not significantly below average. Wellsway only scores 29.51 points.

The Ofsted report says outcomes are significantly below average, not that progress is significantly below average.

I don’t know the school at all, and I’m no fan of Ofsted but if you want to argue Ofsted are lying, you need to be clear about what they’re saying.

Plus or minus 2 points as an average is not significant if 60 points are awarded for an A* at A-level and the score is above average for the local authority.

I'm not suggesting that Ofsted are lying - the inspection only represents the opinion of a handful of people and that particular phraseology may be a simple error. I think they've been a bit over zealous with their criticisms in some areas.