Ofsted and "Satisfactory"

It's crazy isn't it? Why not just get rid of the word if they don't actually mean it!

You'd think that you'd be able to be happy with satisfactory if you got that as a judgement, not the best but still not bad! If they mean not good then they should say so!

Hmmmm it's tricky. Yes it should mean 'good enough' but it also means that there's lots of room for improvement.

If you got a grade D/E/F/G in a GCSE it's a pass, but it's not a good pass and lots of people would consider it not good enough and would want to retake it and get a higher grade!

Both of the secondary schools we are considering for Kieran have been graded 'satisfactory' and I have to admit to feeling a bit unsure about them, but as we don't have a lot of choice and they are 2 of the better schools in the area I guess 'satisfactory' will have to be good enough!

Frustrating as it is, I think the problem with the word 'satisfactory' is that it implies there is no need for improvement. Certainly, some of the poorer teachers I have met have aimed for a satisfactory (rather than a good or outstanding) and had no interest in achieving higher because they couldn't see the need to - their performance was adequate.

My gut instinct is that if teachers / schools aren't ambitious then how can we expect children to strive for excellence? They need to see excellence modelled.

Essentially, though, it's a question of semantics and maybe OFSTED should rephrase.

Yes, it means there's room for improvement. However it is another depressing example of the way that the system works, and which ultimately leads to the perception that all you've got to do to get an A* at GCSE is keep breathing until the end of the exam.

Lots of children will get grades D/E/F at GCSE, having worked really hard. There's no point retaking because that's their level. In the same way, lots of children will "fail" their SATS because the system seems to want everyone to be at least average (anyone see a problem with that?)

? the SATs thing is madness, isn't it PL?

But the point is that children shouldn't have to go to a school that is barely 'satisfactory' when others get an education that is 'good' or 'outstanding'. Yes there will be variations within schools between teachers of different abilities, and yes OFSTED inspection is only a snapshot and not always fully representative, but at the end of the day every teacher and school should be working towards improvement and giving children the best education.

It's not all about exam grades. In some areas, with the intake that schools have, for children to achieve 5 A-C grades at GCSE is simply not realistic for many, BUT the standards should still be good. If the school is doing it's best to add value for those pupils and to bring them on from where they start from and teach them social skills, responsibility etc etc then they should still be able to achieve a good/outstanding report even if their actual exam results are well below average.

Teachers who sit back and think that can coast along as long as they get a 'satisfactory' grade are really not giving their pupils the best. I know it's hard - my Mum has come off badly in a few OFSTED inspections and been quite disillusioned by it, and I don't always think the inspection process is entirely fair or presents a representative picture, but at the end of the day there has to be some way of ensuring standards are being met I suppose.

If a school is graded satisfactory then it should be looking at what can be improved upon - not because it's failing, but just because there is room to improve. A school is rather different to an indivisual pupil whose own abilities may be limited in certain areas - perhaps that was a poor analogy. Schools can start new initiatives, bring in new staff or resources, give their existing staff extra training etc etc to engourage improvement.

Clairebecky - they do.

We were always told a satisfactory was ok, but I'd have been mad as hell if I'd ever got one.

TBH a school can change so much a new head, 3 or 4 new staff or a new management team, and sometimes even new staff at the borough it can change the expectations of a school every september (although I've worked in some interesting schools, some I couldn't get out of fast enough!)

Did I ever say they didn't? I would certainly hope they do. Even a school which achieves 'good' or 'outstanding' shouldn't get complacent or standards might slip. There are always new ways of doing things to make things more efficient/more interesting/cost-effective/meaningful - whatever!

Maybe I misread your paragraph above. However, all schools are required to plan ahead, reflect on performance, set targets and meet them - this process is governed by OFTSED and inspected and all Senior Teams are accountable. Eventually, if a school shows insufficient improvement, they will be shut down / reopened as an Academy or possibly run by another successful local school. Most of the SLT will lose their jobs.

The issues are more complex than school planning, although planning is an important part. However, there is a national teacher shortage and, all too often, the worst teachers end up at the worst schools. Senior Teams are often faced with the prospect of children not having a teacher at all for several months, or a poor one, or a string of supply teachers. These teachers, by their very nature, do little to reinforce standards, which further leads the school into underperformance. Short of making teaching a much more attractive career for high flyers, and getting rid of underperforming staff, I am not sure what the answer to this is.

Also take, for example, a failing school in a deprived inner city area. It gets closed down, new staff, repainted and reopened with a new name. The same kids are going there, with the same social issues. Some may never remember a member of their family actually having a job, so getting an education seems pretty pointless. Others may be caring for a sick parent and sibilings, or may not have slept at all the night before because their mum and dad were raving drunk. None are in the right frame of mind to work. Just a few children in a class like this can disrupt learning for everyone.

Schools must be ambitious, and must do everything they can to deliver an excellent, high quality education that delivers opportunities to students of all backgrounds. However, short of having a magic wand, they can't fix all the social problems they face. So, I guess, there is always going to be a compromise. I just think it's more complex than the ambition - or maybe even the performance - of the teaching staff alone.

True, but as I was trying to say in my previous post, in cases like these schools it's not all about exam results. If children come with lots of social issues then the school needs to be finding new and innovative ways to tackle these. It could be by developing classes within school for parents to come and learn basic skills or learn to help their children with their homework. It could be by provising better home/school liaison services, or by involving the Youth Servise within school to work with disruptive pupild who are at risk of exclusion. It could be by providing more advice within school on sexual heal or other health issues and better pastoral care. There are lots of things that couls make the school a 'good' school that is doing the best for its pupils - it's not purely about making sure they all come out with straight 'A's! Improving attendance levels and behaviour within school, improving relationships with parents etc can be just as important.