The school's Ofsted Inspection Report has been published recently, and what a terrific read it is too. Full of generalisations and nonsensical statements.
The school was essentially judged as being "Good with bits of Outstanding" a few years ago. The report tells us that the school has addressed all the points made in the last inspection effectively and has therefore gained a grade of "Satisfactory". So what they are essentially saying is that although the school has progressed since the last inspection, the grade has gone down - significantly. Does this not suggest that either the goalposts have been relocated or that the inspection team are clueless? I'll leave that up to you to decide.
The inspection also names some major departments in which an inconsistency of teaching was observed, hence teaching and learning can only be judged as "satisfactory". I would like to say at this point that less than half of the teachers in those departments were observed, and the majority of lessons, sorry, parts of lessons (they can't be bothered to watch a whole one), were "good" or better. How can they make such statements? Actually, silly question, they can say what they like without fear of reproach.
The whole thing only supports my view that these people are clueless, the entity that employs them is out of touch and they write reports based upon their mood at the time, with little regard for what actually goes on in a school. Their teaching experience (if they've actually got any) dates back to the days before ICT was a proper subject and the cane was freshly oiled before a breakfast of gruel and unpasteurised milk.
The whole thing's a £200 million per year joke - quickly knock up a bonfire in the town square and pass me my lighter. I reckon their suits will go up within seconds.
No comments:
Post a Comment