Redby Primary Academy - Latest Ofsted Report

If I were the Deputy Headteacher at this school I would be properly shitting myself now - after reading Ofsted's latest report published in July 2015.  Ofsted praises the committed headteacher but slates the leadership of the school.  The school leadership comprises:

• the Governors
• Executive Headteacher
• Head of School
• Deputy headteacher
• Middle leaders

So who is Ofsted talking about when it criticises the school's leaders?

Each of the above is specifically mentioned with the exception of Deputy headteacher.  The governors are slated, the middle leaders are slated, the Head of School is singled out for praise YET the "leaders" are still not up to scratch.  That only leaves the Deputy Headteacher (the Executive headteacher is not mentioned, but he falls under the governors category).

What do Ofsted say about the leaders in its last report?

• Leaders do not monitor the quality of teaching with sufficient rigour.
• As a result, staff are unclear about what they need to do to improve.
• Leaders’ monitoring of teaching and its impact is not focused enough.
• Leaders identify areas of concern in teachers’ work but follow-up actions are not prompt.
• Leaders’ records of discussions about improving teaching are not always rounded off with agreed next steps. As a result, vital action can be too slow.

Who is responsible for this – the visionary head of school or the deputy headteacher?  I would say both, but reading between the lines of the Ofsted report, it seems that the head of school, like a cornered rat, has come out fighting by pinning the blame on to everyone else – including her deputy.

The Governors, however, are quite rightly criticised by Ofsted:

• Governors do not have a strategic vision for the academy.
• Governors do not focus relentlessly enough on improvement.
• Governors do not have clear enough insights into its work and are not holding leaders to account with sufficient rigour.
• They are not provided with sufficient detail about the progress of the academy in a timely enough fashion.
• they are not able to monitor the impact of actions.
• Governors have focused on the more immediate issues of the academy at the expense of the broader,strategic priorities which will ensure the academy’s improvement is sustained.
• Governors visit the academy regularly. However, this vital aspect of their monitoring role lacks rigour.
• Governors are not clear about what they are looking for.
• The records of governors’ actions, including the minutes of meetings, lack detail and are insufficiently focused on what governors have done to hold leaders to account for the inconsistencies at the academy.

This has allowed the mediocrity, downright incompetence, bullying, falling standards, high staff turnover to persist, which is why the school remained in special measures for so long!

The school has improved to the extent that it is now rated as "requires improvement" rather than "inadequate" - BUT it has taken them 20 months to get there.  Its hardly "on the road to outstanding" as their job adverts claim.

But don’t take my word for it.  Read the report yourself. Compare it with the other reports, in particular, the original Ofsted report from the November 2013 inspection, and ask yourself “what has changed materially from then until now?”  

http://reports.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/find-inspection-report/provider/ELS/137463

Leadership and Governance is poor therefore the standard of teaching has fallen and remains inconsistent. “…staff are unclear as to how to improve”. 

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

If the governors spent more time actually addressing the deficiencies rather than trying to stifle honest debate in the Sunderland Echo (or stalking bloggers for that matter) perhaps the school wouldn't still be in this mess.