Governor response to Ofsted Part II: On governance

I did not expect to have to write a public response to Ofsted following their visit in October 2018. We had no reason for serious disagreement with the outcome of previous inspections. Including when we were judged 'Requires Improvememnt' in 2013. This time it's different. In Part 1 we looked at performance data. Now for Part II, in which the primary focus is on governance. 

Aside from pupil outcomes the HMI Mr. Smith asked governors what other strategic priorities we had set for the school. Attendance was given as an example. Historically pupil attendance had been below national and persistent absence above national. The 2017/18 figures showed a reversal of that trend, with attendance above national and persistent absence below. The HMI treated this claim with some scepticism, demanding to know the reason for what he took to be a sudden turnaround. We explained that this was not a sudden turnaround at all, but the result of consistent strategies for raising pupil attendance over time, as acknowledged in the 2015 Ofsted report.  

As Governor involvement in ensuring Safeguarding and Child Protection had not been raised by Mr. Smith, we brought it up and explained how procedures are followed.  

We were not given an opportunity to show how the Board of Governors expect the school to maintain a broad and balanced curriculum and ensure value for money, or mention our strategic priorities for site development. More detail was provided in the follow-up note to the HMI. Contrary to what is stated in the Inspection Report, governors did not claim that we had been involved in “helping leaders to manage complex projects, such as the new build currently taking shape.” You won't find us in donkey jackets and hard hats supervising construction of the new maths and science block. 

Based on previous experience of Ofsted inspections, we expected the HMI to be probing, yet open minded and fair in his discussions with members of the Board of Governors. Those present in the meeting with Mr. Smith found him overly adversarial in approach, to the point of rudeness. He seemed to be trying to find evidence to fit a pre-determined negative view of the school. Perceived weaknesses were magnified. Strengths were minimised or dismissed. Following the meeting with Mr. Smith I rang the National Governance Association’s helpline to ask for guidance on what we should do when an inspector seemed not to be acting in line with the Ofsted framework. They advised that we should make our concerns known to the HMI during the inspection, which we did in the form of a note addressed to Mr. Smith.  

When Mr. Smith announced the outcome of the inspection in the feedback meeting, he opined that governors had accepted an overly generous self-evaluation of the school that was not in keeping with reality. He said we had failed to challenge a claim in a Headteacher’s report (Term 6 2017/18) that pupil outcomes overall were ‘outstanding’. It would have been difficult for us to challenge any such claim, because none was made. In his feedback the HMI accused the school of failing to improve outcomes for disadvantaged students. This seemed especially unfair, given that the 2017 ‘Pupil Premium' results were adversely affected by a single 'outlier' who moved out of county and then took no exams. Plus, that the 2018 attainment gap was minimal, with disadvantaged progress above national. See Part I. 

The governors do not believe that 'Requires Improvement' was a fair or accurate reflection of the school. The judgement has had a potentially demoralising effect on our staff and students and has potentially damaged the standing of the school in the community. Apart from an expensive legal process, the only means of redress for schools who are unhappy with Ofsted judgements is the inspectorate’s complaints procedure. It is very seldom that Ofsted will overturn the judgement of their own inspection teams. Openness, transparency and fairness would be better served if appeals were handled by a body external to Ofsted.  As yet the inspectorate has not responed to our Freedom of Information request that the 'evidence base' of the inspection be released to us. Ofsted likes to style itself as a champion of  'muscular liberalism'. But the inspectorate's commitment to liberal democratic values seems to be lacking when it comes to its own operations. 'The 7 principles of public life' drawn up by Lord Nolan include 'Accountability' and 'Openness', here.  

Be that as it may, the Board of Governors remain determined that weaknesses in the school will be addressed and areas of strength improved upon still further. As recommended in the Ofsted report we commissioned an External Review of Governance. These formal reviews are undertaken by specially trained National Leaders of Governance at a cost to the school of over £1,000. Their aim is to ensure that weaknesses in the governing board are identified and addressed. The resulting report concluded,

The Governing Body presented as active, sophisticated and engaged. Its grasp of statutory activities was very good, and it was evident that there was expertise and commitment. There was both documentary and anecdotal evidence that the Governing Body was operating in a determined and comprehensive way; in the reviewer’s experience considerably more effectively than many other schools. Indeed, it proved to be difficult to identify any significant areas of underperformance and, by comparison to other Reviews conducted, it was a matter of some bafflement as to how the GB was criticised in such a way [by Ofsted].

One week after inspecting Matravers School, HMI Steve Smith led the inspection of a Bristol Academy. The Academy was downgraded from Good to Requires Improvement. Due to concerns identified in Ofsted’s ‘quality assurance’ process Mr. Smith’s inspection was deemed 'incomplete'. Additional HMIs were sent in to ‘secure the evidence base’ before the report was published. Hearing that doesn't exactly fill you with confidence. 

Coda 

Ofsted seems to judge schools in towns like Westbury rather harshly. In a recent speech the chief inspector, Amanda Speilman said there is “no doubt” that schools in white working class communities have a “harder job to do than others”. She admitted,  “We can’t pretend that Ofsted judgements are not lower in certain areas – many of them with a high proportion of white working class children." Context matters. As pointed out in Part 1, Westbury has a higher percentage of disadvantaged pupils than schools in Warminster and Trowbridge. We do not use that as an excuse for underachievement, however. It gives us all the more reason to give our students the best possible start in life. The excellent progress made by disadvantaged pupils detailed in Part 1 is proof enough of that. It's a pity that Ofsted has made a difficult job even harder by their RI judgement. But 'resilience' is one of our core values. We will bounce back and crack on with making our ambitious Vision for the school a reality:

"Our Vision is for Matravers School to be a world-class centre for teaching and learning at the heart of our region, the secondary school of choice for young people."

"Achieving this involves ensuring that every Matravers student exceeds expectations in all aspects of their education. We will enable our students to gain the highest possible qualifications and equip them with the knowledge, skills and values they need to face life with confidence."

School leaders and staff relentlessly work to achieve this vision for the sake of our students. Nothing but the best will do for the young people of Westbury and beyond.

Guy Davies 

Co-Chair of the Board of Governors