2019 – Ofsted #1
And so it came to pass that the head teacher was able to pull the wool over Ofsted’s eyes when our school was first inspected under their leadership in 2019. I guess it helped that we, the staff, wanted what was best for our school; we had put a lot of work to get it to where it was; we had done our best to make it shine. Sure, we didn’t trust the head (we were wise to their narcissism and their potential for ruthlessness had already become very apparent), but we did it for the children, out of professional pride and to uphold the legacy of our previous head.
Initially, it came as a shock that our previous head had been thrown under the bus, her legacy lied about by the current head who had portrayed the school as failing. With hindsight, it was to be expected. The inspectors had bought the lie that 1) the culture of the school was not up to scratch; 2) had been turned around under the new leadership. The lack of impact of past leadership had apparently been stemmed in less than a year. The report went so far as to state that the new head was an excellent role model to staff! The fact that, since their arrival, there has been one of the largest school staff turnovers in the borough's recent history would tend to invalidate such a hollow claim (see these previous posts 1 and 2)…
Much to our frustration, and again showing total disregard for the previous inspirational leader, the current head was given credit for the quality of teaching at the school which allegedly had been inconsistent beforehand. According to the report, staff were grateful for the vast opportunities to develop our skills through extensive professional development. What piffle. However, I can certainly remember colleagues complaining about the turgid staff meetings we had to endure, the constant stream of propaganda, and the failed attempt at establishing a cult of personality.
2018 revisited
It must be noted that the previous inspection, under the previous head, had taken place just one year prior to the above. The 2019 report completely undermined the judgements it contained, I would argue principally because of the current head’s talent for twisting facts and attempt at taking on the persona of a saviour figure.
The 2018 report clearly stated that the previous head had clearly been a strong and highly effective practitioner, noting a significant improvement on the previous inspection from 2014. The latter report itself was highly complimentary about her innovative leadership. How can inspectors ignore the judgements of their predecessors to such an extent? This is not a game.
2024 – Ofsted #2
And then November 2024: another inspection. However, the Ofsted report has only just been published, a full three months later.
Isn’t that odd? Three months’ gap between the inspection and the publication? And it’s quite a peculiar report to boot.
Early on it mentions that the school has faced challenges, but doesn’t expand on what these are/were. It flags gaps between curriculum expectations in the classroom and the school’s own expectations; it says that teachers don’t always take account of what students already know, so learning can be inconsistent; it also mentions that learning could be broader.
The school managed to get an overall rating of good with elements of outstanding. To be honest, I am astounded. Of course, I’m happy for the children and community, and for those members of staff who actually deserve it, but I’m genuinely puzzled at the overall grading. It just does not seem to reflect the report’s findings.
This is because the report leaves the strong impression that the school is uneven and could offer more rounded teaching. Could it possibly be that turnover has been so high that as a result the staff team in place are just too inexperienced?
Turnover is not directly referenced (of either staff or children), even though it arguably represents the most serious challenge the school has faced over the past few years. Lack of skills and knowledge in the staff team, however, is ongoing. The report makes it clear that SLT needs to make sure that staff receive adequate training to ensure high quality teaching and learning. Developing and sustaining the staff team may be really basic stuff, but there’s quite of few of us who know only too well what a low priority this was for the head.
It’s also really odd for an Ofsted report not to reference the leadership in any way. You might guess at a bit of a disconnect between the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) and staff. As a result, the report has nothing at all about the SLT. The head teacher is not mentioned once by name, or even by position. This is unusual. You get the impression that the grade was achieved despite the leadership.
One thing for sure: this report is far inferior to the previous one of 2019, and yet good with elements of outstanding. The mind boggles.
It would be helpful to know if there was some disagreement between the inspectors and the head of the school about what the report would contain. You never know: maybe the Ofsted inspectors paid attention to the letters received from parents and ex-staff to complain about the toxic environment imposed by the head, and raised these at the inspection.
Oh, to have been a fly on the wall during the Ofsted interviews. I am sure these must have been quite something...
