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

Sorry to be so impassioned, but I do feel unable to speak out locally. On the nail localbathmum

The more I think about this, the more I think the Head just has to go. I don't see how they can deal with what is quite obviously a deep-rooted cultural problem with him still at the helm. They seriously need a new broom. I doubt he'll be able to see the problems clearly enough to address them.

I don't agree about that. The Head seems to have handled it well, it was the governors who should and have left.

How has the head handled it well? Genuine question.

Since the Ofsted report, has the head come out and said 'yes, we understand what Ofsted has seen; we ourselves had already identified those weaknesses and were already working to impove them ; see our action plan on the website over the next 2 weeks'

OR

has he said 'This doesn't reflect the longstanding strengths of our school; everyone here says it's fine; over-focus on an isolated incident; sit tight and this will all blow over?

If he said the former (or has made clear steps towards saying it), he should stay. If he said the latter, he will HAVE to leave for the cultural problems to be properly addressed.

Phrases from the immediate response from other schools which have had drops in Ofsted results (not as dramatic as Beechen Hill)

"although a shock .... clearly identified [X problem]".
“recognises many strengths of the school [list]. We agree, however, [detail of weakness discussed in report]"
"We are obviously disappointed ..."
"The basic issue that Ofsted identified is .... so we need to ..... "
"We will swiftly address the issues... so that we return to.... as soon as possible"
"Please be assured that we will act extremely quickly ...."
"contact us at school if you have any questions related to the Ofsted report...."

Are those similar to the phrases in the Beechen Hill Head's response? Or is their response one of denial? Denial is a REALLY BAD SIGN and should result in the departure of the head ASAP if the school is to improve.

Found the head's response now. The 'alarm bell' phrase for me is

"To reinstate an Ofsted grading that better reflects our school when we are re-inspected within two years"

In other words, the head fundamentally believes that the school, as it is, is fine. He thinks it SHOULD have had an Outstanding this time, and he thinks that in two years time a school which is substantially the same as at present should gain that grading again.

On the poinf of 'unannounced inspecations' - it is quite a long time now since any school had more than 24 hours' notice of an inspection. usual procedure now is a phone call at around lunchtime the day before, though where there are serious safeguarding concerns, a call from the car park that morning is possible.

Detailed procedures are here. Outline procedures are here

I'd say he has acknowledged that issues need to be addressed but has also been quite defensive. They seem to think they have been particularly penalised on the achievement bit and put it down to these iGCSE things but when you read the report it says that pupils doing A Levels are underachieving too. They also have a problem with the way that Ofsted went about things but I don't know why.

Basically, he's acknowledging a fault with systems and procedures but not going as far as to acknowledge problems with culture, which I think is the real problem, IYSWIM.

Hmmm yes, I see what you mean about that phrase.

Although I suppose you could argue that he means that the next Ofsted grading will reflect the school once He's made all the necessary changes?

Either way, I think they probably have a better chance of tackling the problem properly without him.

There is ONE bullet point about the iGCSE. ONE. Amongst many, many points about poor quality teaching, and the lack of progress and underachievement of particular groups.

The fact that the school has put out a response bascally saying 'well, our headline results look lovely' shows how very, very far they are behind the educational times. These days, it is about progress, and progress of specific individuals and groups, at that, and they've just completely missed that ....

Good point cantkeep. Well, if the Head isn't going then they need some external input. I wonder how the staff feel about it... It must be very demoralising for them, as it is I think, for pupils.

They also have a problem with the way that Ofsted went about things but I don't know why.

This does happen when Ofsted arrives with a particular 'agenda' - for this school, it will have been safeguarding, poor documentation in key areas and progress of particular groups (I imagine, though, that the use of 'extended study leave' to avoid exclusions, poor teaching; weak governance and poor behaviour were things that arose during the inspection) - that the school can feel that their own narrative about the school is brushed aside.

In this case, Ofsted's concerns were so much 'about the heart of education', and the school's so trivial (extracurricular provision) or outdated (headline results) by comparison that I don't think the school is particularly justified in its complaint.

However, I have known other schools where Ofsted has arrived with a narrative about e.g. progress of particular groups, and have brushed aside (sometimes to the point of abuse of the head and other teachers) the school's points about very significant non-school factors that affect those groups (e.g. homelessness; entrenched worklessness in the community; imprisonment etc etc etc), and that has been very difficult for the schools concerned.

So I'm not saying that Ofsted DOESN'T get their approach wrong, just that the school protesting about Ofsted's methodology when the weaknesses identified are so severe, so worrying, and so widespread (a Safeguarding -based fail where all other areas are Good is one thing, but this report has nothing above Requires Improvement) feels like they just haven't acknowledged the fact the school has a genuine problem.

I think the pupils seem OK, they are just pretty busy and now getting ready for the summer holidays, after doing their exams. They had an assembly about it in school last week.

I was referring to handling the incident. It seems it was the governors intervention which led to them leaving. On a personal level I think the Head seems approachable and the sort of person to get things done, that means a lot.

LovelyBath,

This Ofsted report is NOT about a specific incident, though it may have been triggered by it. One incident alone, if well handled, would not have led to even a safeguarding fail. One incident which was badly handled and revealed underlying safeguarding weaknesses could possibly have led to a safeguarding fail with everything else Good or above.

The report is, genuinely, awful, on all levels, about pretty much every aspect of the school's culture and performance (except perhaps, the performance of the very brightest at A-level, which reaches nationally-expected levels, and the relatively trivial point about extra-curricular elite sport). Pretending that the departure of the governors makes it all right because they were the ones who handled hat incident badly misses the point, though it is of course what the school wants you to believe, because they want you to think the report is about that one incident, and about iGCSE. Read the report again - how many bullet points are ACTUALLY about either of these?

Yes, i was replying to the comment above about what has the head specifically dealt with well. I know the report mentions other things as well.

I wasn't going to wade in with personal experience because I appreciate that one parents perspective does not mean Ofsted are wrong. As I've said earlier the school clearly has serious matters to address, and as someone who works with vulnerable families I am horrified if the school is not doing it's very best for disadvantaged pupils. But (sorry!) I my son has been at the school 3 years. He is not sporty at all or a high flyer academically. He has been valued by teachers ( including the head) and is very happy at school. He is confident, not arrogant and has often comes home talking about the assemblies and PHSE lessons that focus on racism, homophobia etc. BC's career talks to boys last year focused on not gender stereotyping certain job roles. In year 7 I would say his confidence was a bit low as he was kind of overlooked at primary ( middle of the road, no problem) and he has absolutely grown in confidence and academically since being at BC. I know this is only my perspective but, naively maybe, I thought there would be some indication/ impact on him if the school was inadequate. He tells me he has never seen any bullying and he is a very perceptive child ( yes I know I'm biased!) I don't want people to think that the school is some kind of racist hotbed for bullying rugby playing elitist snobs. That is not the experience of my son or his large circle of friends. There are failings, and this has to be tackled head on, I am expecting the school to be transparent and involve parents and the community every step of the way.

LovelyBath, how can you possibly know that pupils seem ok? I think that knowing your school is inadequate would have a detrimental effect, even subconsciously. Anecdotally, my son and his friends certainly seem demoralised.

And the Head may have handled the event well in terms of expelling pupils, which seems the intuitively correct thing to do. However, if he expelled them without following due process then he didn't handle it well at all and the Governors who may have overturned the expulsions on points of procedure rather than 'moral correctness' shouldn't be blamed.

Slowtrain, this is exactly why Ofsted, for all its flaws, exists. It's highly unlikely that even a school with serious flaws will be universally bad for its students. But this report says in so many places that actual progress for groups of students, except the most able, is poor, especially the most vulnerable and disadvantaged. Your son may not be the most able, but I'm guessing he falls outside "disadvantaged and vulnerable".

The school has been mistaking attainment for achievement for years. It isn't a selective school and has a responsibility to educate those boys who come through its doors, whatever their background.
There is a massive, being charitable, misunderstanding on the part of leaders on this. They may well think they are doing the best by all their boys, but a look from those who are least emotionally invested in the school and who certainly do not want to give inadequate ratings, says otherwise.

Newdocket, I know from speaking to my son who is at the school about how him and his friends are about it. He says it's just normal, everything is fine.

I also agree with what Slowtrain is saying. My son sounds kind of similar, unsporty etc and mild SEN, has grown in confidence, no bullying, and had gentle and kind support form school.

So mainly speaking from personal experience. Kind of wishing I hadn't started this thread if that is the perception people have. I was not looking for that.

I think with mine he knows there is a difference from the schools he knows and that some inspectors came in and found some things need changed and gave the school a certain grading. He isn't taking it personally.

Localbathmum totally agree, hopefully it will help in some of the ways. I'm keeping my fingers crossed the school keeps the good things and works on those things and it comes out well. and everyone isn't demoralised. I think the staff seem to put in so much and hope they are OK and not disillusioned by it all. It is nice to be recognised for what you do and it must feel horrible.

Lovelymum77, speaking of the teachers - you could ask for them to hold a confidential vote of confidence in the head (as in "is he competent" not "is he a nice bloke"). I can well imagine how difficult it would be to say anything critical in the upcoming meeting with parents, but this would just be asking for pertinent information.
I believe that for a variety of reasons, over the years, this Head has got totally out of his depth, and this has been masked by how supportive he has been to some pupils in some circumstances, his enthusiasm, and his laying on of outstanding extra-curricular activities.

Yes, I see. Although this is the same Head who brought the school to the stage of the previous Ofsted, too.

I understand the school needs to work with a partner or something, I wonder who / what that will be / mean.

As the school is in special measures, the school opens themselves up to be deemed to be required to become a sponsored academy. On the website it talks about the school being part of Bath Educational Trust but this was closed as a company in late 2016 and is now just a collaborative body of schools in the Bath area.

Beechen Cliff is actually a stand alone Academy .This leaves the Regional School Commissioner with an interesting problem to resolve as to what to do. Do they insist that the school is re-brokered to another Trust or do they leave it where it is. If they leave it as a stand alone academy then the RSC will have to be very confident that the current Trust Board can turn the school around.

It is interesting to read that the chair and vice chair have resigned to allow a new Chair to bring a new vision and focus to the GB. However their first act was to say that the SLT of the school have their full confidence and will sort out the problems.I wonder whether that is because they have had suitable conversations with the RSC or not. The Trust Board in their public announcements do not seem to believe that the school will be re-brokered but time will tell what the future holds for Beechen Cliff as a stand alone academy. My experience is that schools with significant safeguarding issues tend to end up with a new Trust Board.

It's not in special measures.