OfSTED Inspection - and Two Departures

One of the real “hot potatoes” for discussion around Marton Primary School has been the OfSTED inspection of April 2005, and its subsequent effect. Now, I am not an education specialist, and my role as a parent meant that (like most other people), I had a fairly limited knowledge of what the purposes of such an inspection may be, how it should be conducted, and how to interpret the results. I have learnt a lot more in this particular department since 2005, and (without going into too much detail) I feel it is appropriate to share my new knowledge here.

Basically, an OfSTED inspection is a Government tool to measure the effectiveness of a school, and to make suitable recommendations for improvement where appropriate. As a result of that inspection, the Government can impose certain demands on a school and the LEA, should the standards of education be found to be “unsatisfactory”. The inspections themselves are conducted by private companies operating to government contracts, and the inspectors visiting the schools will normally have served as teachers or head teachers themselves. The 2005 inspection was conducted by a company called “Peakhause”, who lost their contract shortly afterwards to another called “Nord Anglia”. The rules by which these companies operate have recently been changed, principally in an effort to “tighten up” the standards by giving considerably less notice of a visit. Further details relating to these periods of notice have already been posted by Richard Thornton on the Discussion Forum, so I do not intend to repeat them here.

Prior to the 2005 inspection there had been two other OfSTED inspections at Marton – both of which found the school to be operating to a “good” standard, and with several mentions of “excellent” in some areas. Some relatively minor action points had been noted on each occasion, and these were already either in place, or noted for action prior to Mrs Coupe’s arrival. In the summer of 2004 there was no reason for anyone to feel that the school was declining in its standards in any way. The previous incumbent had already proved her abilities as head teacher, and she was careful to ensure her successor would receive the school and its staff in as good a condition as possible. As stated in the introduction, some preparatory work had already been made for recommendations for change to the curriculum and working practices.

So – with such a good background to its academic standards, what was it that brought about that result of “under-achieving” in the 2005 report?

With the benefit of hindsight, I believe it was a mixture of genuine incompetence, poor decision making, and selfish greed. Firstly, while Ruth Coupe had made an excellent impression at her interview, her approach to her colleagues during her first few weeks at Marton displayed an appalling example of people skills – skills that are surely an essential quality for a head teacher. Quite simply, I believe she was not equipped (mentally) for the demands of a school so much bigger than her previous posts. She was probably out of her depth, and resorted to the lame excuse of “leave it with me” for almost every issue demanding her attention. The letter from “Investors In People” was probably forgotten about, and almost certainly was never mentioned during the numerous visits she made to Progress House seeking guidance.

And what of David Lund? The Director of Children’s Services should certainly not be blamed for the school governors’ poor choice of head teacher, but now he was faced with having to instruct Ruth Coupe on how she should run the school! Don’t forget that this is a man who never rose above the rank of “Deputy Head” himself, so he was never really qualified to give the necessary advice himself. Perhaps he should have taken a different choice of action at that stage, but I believe he felt this would be an opportunity to take direct control himself – effectively running the school by proxy. That view is certainly borne out by his appearance at the school on the day of the OfSTED inspectors’ arrival. There would normally be no need for the Director of Children’s Services to make such an appearance, and it must certainly be seen as significant. It is my view that the events over the months leading up to the inspection made Mr Lund realise that the school was in serious trouble, and he was very concerned that the inspectors might point the blame in the right direction…

But lets go back a little to look at some of the reasons I draw those conclusions:

Prior to a full OfSTED Inspection, the head teacher must ensure that a “Form S4” is completed, and made available to the inspection team. This is a fairly lengthy and involved questionnaire from OfSTED that is intended to provide the school’s own evaluation of its performance in specific areas that are of interest to the inspectors. The idea is that it will provide a baseline of information to which the inspectors may refer when making their own observations. The responsibility for its completion lies with the head teacher – who is expected to “involve other key staff and governors” for the necessary information. In this particular case, Mrs Coupe is believed to have completed the form entirely by herself, and it took several requests from colleagues in “The Action Group” before we were able to obtain a copy of this form under the Freedom of Information Act, and to have it examined by members of Mrs Coupe’s staff.

I reproduce below some extracts from the S4 Self-Evaluation form for 2004-2005. This comes in three parts – first the question posed on the form (in bold type), then Mrs Coupe’s response (in red), and finally the Comment on that response by members of staff:

1c How would you rate the school’s improvement since its last inspection?
(4 – average)

What has improved most? – ICT provision.
Comment: This came out very badly in the OfSTED report and there have been continuing problems ever since, including concerns about security and child safety in terms of internet access.

What still needs improvement, and what action is being taken? – Performance Management to be linked to whole school targets – a new system is currently being established and assessors trained.
Comment:2004 – 2005: Performance Management was never carried out, despite it being a legal requirement, and the benchmark for teachers’ progression. This could have serious repercussions on teachers’ progression, the governors and HT. No assessors have been trained. Two members of staff were asked to do Performance Management without training. There has been no mention of Performance Management so far this academic year.

5a How well does the curriculum meet pupils’ needs? (3 – above average)

How do you know? – provision for learning outside the school day with Homework club, Booster sessions and extra-curricular clubs.
Comment: No clubs Autumn term 2005. Only four booster sessions in 2004-2005.

What are the best and most innovative aspects of the curriculum, and why? - ….Health Week.
Comment: No Health Week 2004-2005.

8b. How effective is the management of the school? (3 – above average)

How do you know? – governors fulfil their statutory responsibilities for Performance Management.
Comment: No Performance Management took place 2004-2005. Governors were unaware that PM had not been performed. OfSTED found the governors did not fulfil their statutory duties, although this was disputed by governors.

In what ways does the management of performance need improvement, and what action is being taken? – Performance Management to be strengthened – with training for assessors.
Comment: No PM has been performed 2004-2005 (see above). No training undertaken.

In what ways does the management of performance need improvement, and what action is being taken? - induction procedures for new staff.
Comment: There were no induction procedures for new staff in place, and none have been implemented since. DHT criticised by LEA for not monitoring NQTs.

8c What are the most significant aids or barriers to raising achievement?

What are the most significant aids? – HT and DHT with a shared philosophy.
Comment: This is not true. The DHT has not always agreed with the HT, and has criticised her in private to other staff, parents and OfSTED inspector. The DHT has not been consistent in her views, altering them according to her audience.

What are the most significant aids? – Effective support from the LEA.
Comment: There had been no significant support from the LEA pre-September 2004, when the school was supposedly under-achieving. After the LEA Audit, there was a feedback meeting, at which it was suggested good practice be shared. As no staff were told who was exhibiting good practice, this could not be done.

What are the most significant barriers and what is their effect? – high staff turnover in recent years……Many experienced staff have moved on.

Comment: This is not true. Turnover of teaching staff, in particular had been average to low. Only the HT and DHT had moved on, along with four other experienced members of staff, since the previous inspection, six years previously.


Clearly, Mrs Coupe’s views of her school were not always consistent with her own staff – who were not given the same opportunities to express their views to the inspectors. Some of the answers given by Mrs Coupe could be put down to ignorance or incompetence, but several seem to me to be deliberate lies. Mr Lund would have been aware of the content of the form, and MAY have contributed towards its completion, but one does have to ask what their intentions were in providing the OfSTED team with such inaccurate information?

We all know the result: The school was found to be under-achieving, but with OfSTED recommending that the management team pull together behind the vision of the head teacher! So – no blame was cast in the direction where it SHOULD have lain, and the overall impression was given that Mrs Coupe was going to be the school’s saviour…


Departures

By the time that the OfSTED team visited Marton Primary School, it was becoming clear to staff members (if not the parents) that the proverbial rot had set in. Already, one senior teacher (Mrs Reidy) had been signed off with stress, and at least one other staff member was to follow for the same reason. In Mrs Reidy’s case, she had been directly involved in confrontations with Mrs Coupe, acting on behalf of other members in her capacity as a union representative. She was also a very conscientious teacher (she taught my own daughter), and highly respected by her colleagues.

Work-related stress and depression are extremely difficult diseases for anyone to understand if you have not experienced them yourself. Your every waking moment is subject to an irrational sense of despair, often bringing you to lengthy periods of feeling a need to shut yourself off from the outside world. You are aware of the irrationality of it all, but you have no control over it. I have been down that route myself, and I never want to go there again. In my case, it was not work-related – indeed, my return to work was almost a kind of therapy. However, imagine then how much more awful it must be, that the very thing you have built your career on, that you came to love, and that pays your mortgage, just cannot be tolerated any more.

Mrs Reidy is no longer a teacher. She had to sacrifice her life’s work because of the chaos brought about by the appointment of Ruth Coupe. It has to be a pretty serious problem for people’s whole lives to be turned upside down in such a way. And yet David Lund has belittled the efforts of others to draw attention to the impact of the change of management at Marton School. Indeed, he has directly contributed to it, personally intervening to remove support assistant Janet Connor from the school, following her own complaints to him, and her decision to move her own children to different schools. Tit-for-tat. “Make a complaint, and you’re out.” That was becoming the philosophy at the school. No wonder teachers were becoming terrified of the consequences of speaking up against their head teacher – they had seen what had happened to others.

And worse was to come, with the sudden disappearance of an Assistant Head Teacher…

TO BE CONTINUED