R. Thornton
|
HMI visitDepressingly the HMI letter published last week merely confirmed my fears that Mr Byrne carried out a superficial look at the school without really considering many of the concerns presented to him. Despairingly it mirrored the report of the summer term which made statements based on supposition, subjective statements and at best statistically flawed evidence.
I apologise to everyone for the size of this posting - the content of which most of you will already be familiar with - but is a copy of my letter to the head of Nord Anglia, who are responsible for this last piece of farce.
R. Thornton - in despair.
Dear Mrs Hollingworth,
Further to my email to Mr Byrne on January 14th I have now received a full copy of the Inspector’s letter and hope that you might be able to clarify some points for me.
Although it was with hope that we met with Mr Byrne in December it is now with great despair I find that what I had hoped would be an independent authority simply dismissing the parents’ concerns so abruptly. It saddens me more that a letter should be sent to Ofsted and the Secretary of State which at worst seems based on statements which have no bearing in fact, and at best, on statistically weak analysis.
“a small but vociferous minority of parents feel that their views are not listened to sufficiently and this issue has yet to be resolved” As the parents’ group now has over 50 members, and we know for certain that over 60 parents removed their children from school over recent months I would be pleased if you would explain Mr Byrne’s definition of ‘small’. This does not take into account the number of parents who do not have access to the Internet and so will know nothing of events since last summer. If the school size is approximately 500 children, the number of families will be in the region of 350 – 400. Which means that at least 25% of parents have been dissatisfied with their child’s education over recent months. Unlike Mr Byrne I am not able to gain access to exact figures but this does not seem a ‘small’ number.
Next Mr Byrne explains, “In discussions with representatives of the parents, it is clear that the majority are very supportive of the school and its efforts to Implement necessary changes. They state that the school is welcoming and that the head teacher and staff are friendly and willing to discuss issues. It is felt that there has been a significant improvement in the quality of communication in the last few months” I admit that it is some time ago but the study of statistics was a compulsory part of my Mathematics Degree. I would be pleased if you would let me know the size of the sample questioned by Mr Byrne – and whether this is statistically sound to make the statement ‘the majority’. Again he has quoted no figures. I would like to know how that sample was selected – he understandably did not wish to meet with a large group when we contacted him and met with only two. He has drawn no conclusions in his report from that meeting. How was the sample constructed? How many parents were taken from children in each year group? There have been different issues in different year groups since last summer and surely a thorough study would have discovered this? Did Mr Byrne ask the important questions of information which had been withheld from parents – the downloading of pornographic material by a supply teacher, the website of a member of staff featuring photographs of school and a pupil?
It is felt that there has been a significant improvement in the quality of communication in the last few months” There has never been any communication at all by the school to explain why no investigation took place into Mr Hill’s website following its discovery in October. The school has never explained why the site was left ‘live’ for weeks after being reported and why it needed the parent to take legal advice before it was removed. How do parents know that no other sites exist? Was Mr Byrne satisfied that it was acceptable for Mrs Coupe to allow her husband to take notes at the last Ofsted meeting – is this a regular occurrence for inspections? i was then twice refused access to the notes taken and now has been reported to the Commissioner for the FIA. Is this something which is an everyday occurrence for Mr Byrne in his duties as an Inspector? I am not in education so would not know but it just doesn’t ‘seem right’ and no-one has explained to me yet why it should be. It would clearly not have been in Mrs Coupe’s interest to broadcast these but can Mr Byrne honestly say that if ALL parents knew of these issues that he would have received the same response? Please can you provide the evidence behind the comment ‘the quality of communication has been improved’. I would also be grateful if you would look into the data analysis to make sure that conclusions drawn by Mr Byrne regarding the parents are valid, before the letter is submitted to any other authorities.
One of our greatest issues, which we explained in detail to Mr Byrne, was with the original Ofsted report. Immediately it was published alarm bells rang about some of the statements in the report. This was largely based on experience of parents who have wide experience as managers in industry. A letter was sent quickly to Peak Haus who carried out the inspection, who took until September to reply that they stood by their original conclusions. As parents, and not education professionals we then sought advice on whether our fears were unfounded. We contacted independent Ofsted inspection bodies in different parts of the country. A registered inspector, and a member of another team kindly offered to take a look and offer us some advice. They found more than we had originally questioned – being especially surprised by the number of inconsistencies they found, and the number of statements – similar to those in Mr Byrne’s letter - which were not supported by factual evidence. Their personal comments were that, in many authorities with which they have had dealings, the school’s governors and/or the local authority would have questioned such statements. Their advice was to request the base assessment forms from Ofsted, under the Freedom of Information Act. This we duly did in October but, not surprisingly by now, were refused. We then wrote again explaining the reasons why these were needed, using the issues put forward in the advice given to us. Two months later we await a reply.
Please can you confirm that Mr Byrne examined the original Ofsted report, and looked into our issues about it. Why has he not replied to it – even if to say the arguments are flawed and why? The issues we raised have serious implications for any follow up inspection and it seems to me that they have simply been ignored – and as caring parents we are all wondering why.
The letter states that The Inspectors met with the head teacher, a representative group of governors, two representatives of the Children's Services Authority {CSA), key members of staff, groups of pupils and representatives of parents.
Yet Mr Burne again makes statements such as
There is a shared recognition by the majority that in the past there has been some underachievement
The large majority of staff welcome the raise in expectations for them to be involved in school development planning and to participate in devising and leading strategies to improve the school.
Whilst we hope that this will be the case for staff, if Mr Byrne met only with a ‘key number’ how has he drawn these conclusions about the majority? Was there a survey conducted by the key members of staff? Or were statements based purely on verbal statements. The comment ‘The school has the capacity to continue to improve. Its ability to sustain the improvement is fragile due the resistance to change that still exists in some areas.’
Was this based on discussion with those members of staff who are supposedly ‘reluctant to change’ or on statements by the head and ‘key members of staff’? For example Mr Byrne highlights some of those changes. “Subject leaders are now benefiting from being given time to evaluate and monitor what goes on in their subjects’ and ’Providing good access to training and effective performance management.’
These have been two key issues since Mrs Coupe arrived at the school. Two of her first moves were to abandon these – moves which were questioned by governors. Her ‘clear vision’ of the school at the time required Mrs Coupe herself to be responsible for monitoring and developing performance management. It seems very strange now that Mr Byrne is highlighting something which Mrs Coupe is re-instating, something which was strong before her arrival – and the removal of which may well have led to the slump in school performance. Did Mr Byrne ask Mrs Coupe for what reasons these had originally been removed?
Finally, I am of course aware that Mr Byrne would not be allowed to discuss reasons for teachers’ suspensions but I would have thought he would wonder why a member of staff has been suspended for 6 months with no charges brought against her. Of all our issues I thought that he as an independent person might have explained to the parents group how that can happen. He knew that the head and governors have never explained the delay in the matter being dealt with. He knew that the head teacher had not even originally told the parents that she was suspended. The Director of Education in Blackpool stated publicly that it was ‘a difference of professional opinion.’ It seems strange to me that such as this can give cause for a teacher to have their career severely disrupted in this way – never mind the cost to the school in paying two salaries for one teacher – this following the last Ofsted report stating that the school was not providing value for money. Did Mr Byrne see no problem with this?
I do apologise for the length of this letter, and the number of questions posed, but the above issues form only part of my overall concern. I do hope that you will find time to answer at least some of them. Following the national news over recent days, and following the events of recent months at Marton I have come to realise how little part parents now have to play in the education of their children in school. If someone in as high an office as Mr Byrne can simply ignore parents, ignore analysis from other Ofsted teams, draw conclusions from apparently unsound evidence, what hope do we have of ever solving the problems besetting our current education system.
Thank you for assistance in this matter,
Yours sincerely,
R. Thornton
|
WAYNE HEYS
|
Yet another excellent post,in all walks of life there are managers who simply will not rock the boat or futher more really want to get to the bottom of an issue,your frustration is felt by many,and the Action Group simply will not be fobbed off by authorities or any individual where it is felt that they are simply going through the motion's off carrying out their duty,let's be honest if Mr Burne was very critical of the school, would he himself feel any reprocussion's as a result of his action's,would people in authority take him to task for pointing fingers at so many different bodies of people, I do not know the answer but I know which way I see this situation, yes he listened but only adressed points that would have little or no inpact towards the running of the school, he has not commented on many of the issues which concern the action group .Why is this ? You can draw your own conclusion,
|
|
|
|