Ofsted report appeal
created: Thursday Apr 10, 2008 by Susan Marsh

Reference recently published Ofsted report for St Nicholas CE VA Primary School,

URN 113796 Inspection Number 279251

As a result of discussions with our school`s Link Inspector, Jane McNeil and the previous Inspector for Small Schools in Dorset, Sue Davies, I have been urged to write and ask that some of the gradings for our report are reconsidered.  I recognise that there is a fine line between a grade 1and grade 2 but the wording of a neighbouring school`s report is very similiar to ours, yet the grades are different.  I believe Mr. Graham Sims, a parent at our school who is also an Inspector for Devon County Council, has also discussed the issue of inconsistency between these reports with staff from OfSTED.  The school concerned is St. Andrews Primary School, Fontmell Magna. 

We are aware that standards in KS1 are a focus for improvement and that this had an impact on the overall grade for Achievement and Standards; we agree with the grade of 2 for this section.  However there are concerns about other sections, particularly when viewed against the report for St Andrews.

Teaching and Learning.
For example
Teaching is consistently good throughout the school. It is rapidly improving and in some is outstanding (St. Nicholas)  We were graded 2. Teaching is good, with many outstanding features and in some lessons it is excellent. (St. Andrew)  Graded 1.
During a recent long term project with the National College of School Leadership on Leading Small Primary Schools, one of the key features of our school was the outstanding relationship between teachers and teaching assistants and the impact this had on children`s learning.  This is not evident in our report, although it is also noted in the LA Validation Award report, which was available to the two inspectors.   (Dorset`s Validation award is a recognition of those schools that have very good self-evaluation strategies linked to school development planning)

Curriculum and other activities
The comments made about St. Andrews (graded 1) could also be made about provision at St. Nicholas (graded 2).  As part of the LA Validation Scheme  there was a presentation by staff to a LA inspector and headteacher about the wide variety of curriculum and other activities e.g. out of school clubs, a speech and language club, occupational therapy club, peripatetic music, MFL, provision for able/SEN  pupils etc. Our school was praised for its re-organisation of the curriculum in the light of the Excellence and Enjoyment document; this was recorded in the LA final report. The range of out of school activities is almost identical, although we run an additional Latin Club for more able pupils and support a number of children on residential courses for Gifted and Talented children. The comment that pupils learn French and are very keen to speak it  rather understates the quality of provision for 4 -11 years olds.  Once again, lesson observations by our Link Inspector, deemed the teaching of French to be outstanding in our school.  Our teacher with responsibility for MFL was urged to publish her materials and share them with other schools.

Care Guidance and Support
The two reports are worded differently, yet all of the comments about St. Andrews (graded 1) could equally be applied to St. Nicholas (graded 2). Our procedures for transition into school are also very thorough but this was not discussed in any great detail with either me or the Foundation Stage Teacher.  It was unfortunate that her father was seriously ill in hospital on the day of the inspection and she did not perhaps give a full enough account.  Nonetheless it is an issue that could have been discussed with me and appropriate evidence provided.

Leadership and Management
In this section the partnership between the headteachers and deputy/assistant head is acknowledged and their impact on the clear educational direction was noted in both schools (St Nicholas graded 1 and St Andrews graded 1) However I feel that there is a lack of recognition of the contribution made by our assistant headteacher and subject leaders who have made a considerable difference to current and past school improvement.  This can be verified by LA inspectors.  It is possible that there was a misunderstanding about the temporary transfer of subject leaders responsibilities during this current term, where I am currently responsible for English, Geography and History. There is, too, a difference in the wording re Governance and yet some of the comments made about the governors at St. Andrews could apply equally to those at St. Nicholas.

My discussion with Mrs. McNeil, who was a registered inspector until August 2005, has raised my awareness of the grades of other schools and I understand that the grade for Leadership and Management at Christchurch Infant School, in Dorset was changed to outstanding following discussion with the lead inspector at the verbal feedback.  Unfortunately there were no LA inspectors available on the day of our inspection.

I feel embarrassed by this request for a review of our inspection report but have reflected fully and spoken with other heads and LA staff - surely the grades awarded should reflect the written text.   I trust that you will give this matter your full consideration and look forward to hearing from you.