Ofsted ruled that a school with “exceptional levels of pupil movement” should remain “outstanding”, accepting the headteacher’s claim that youngsters left because they couldn’t hack the high standards.
Inspection notes from the watchdog’s December visit to Magna Academy in Poole, seen by Schools Week, reveal dozens of pupils leave each year.
No school should be able to be graded as ‘outstanding’ unless it can also demonstrate it is inclusive
The Aspirations Academies Trust, which runs the school, told inspectors that such movement was “exactly what is expected during the first seven years of turning a school around from special measures”.
Richard Tutt, the school’s headteacher, also told inspectors the movement was down to pupils not being able to hack its “high-expectations approach to learning”. Pupils instead shifted to schools with “more comfortable standards”.
The short inspection late last year was triggered by concerns over the high pupil turnover and converted to a full inspection.
Inspection notes, obtained after a freedom of information request, show Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (BCP) council told Ofsted that local heads reported their concerns over pupil movement to the regional schools commissioner.
Inspectors expressed a need to “triangulate” the reasons for pupils leaving, but the notes only show a list of where the pupils ended up.
They concluded there was “no hidden agenda” and “no sense of any inappropriate movement”.
Ofsted has vowed to crackdown on off-rolling. But the findings have furthered concerns the watchdog can’t adequately root out off-rolling without more investigation, such as speaking to the parents of pupils who have moved.
Adam Boddison, the chief executive of the National Association for Special Educational Needs (Nasen), wants an “independent review”.
“No school should be able to be graded as ‘outstanding’ unless it can also demonstrate it is inclusive,” he said.
The high rating was “promoting a way of thinking in schools that is counter to the philosophy of education itself”.
The inspection notes also show the school’s special educational needs co-ordinator was not qualified, leaders could not describe their SEND provision and there was no analysis of the impact of repeated sanctions for poor behaviour.
Magna’s predecessor, Ashdown Technology College, was put in special measures in February 2012.
However, it was reinspected and found to be “good” in July 2013 before joining Aspirations that September. It was first rated “outstanding” in June 2015.
Dave Whitaker, executive principal at Springwell Learning Community, which provides AP education in Barnsley, said: “How can it be that you have potential off-rolling and high exclusions, yet it’s been ‘outstanding’ for years and is still ‘outstanding’?”
“It’s a scandal. Schools have to be held to account for inclusion.”
Ofsted insisted it received a “satisfactory explanation” on pupil movement, but did not provide further details.
Inspectors recorded that permanent exclusions, fixed-term exclusions and repeat fixed-term exclusions had all been higher than the national average.
In 2017-18, 66 pupils left – 18 of whom had special needs – while 30 joined. A further 24 had left by the time of the inspection in mid-December, with 25 joining.
Magna is known for its strict approach for discipline, and enforces a “silent transition” between lessons.
Although inspectors noted there was no low-level disruption, they highlighted the lack of strategic information on pupils who were often taken out of class and put into the behaviour unit, and on how the school was “supporting” the pupils.
BCP council said the local perception of the school was “children’s needs not being met [sic]”, and concerns had been raised by the local child mental health service about “inflexibility”.
One inspector said leaders “were not able to tell me the number of SEND pupils across the school or their needs” and were “not able to describe the profile of SEND access across the school as they currently don’t have that strategic viewpoint”.
The final Ofsted report, published in January, said the standard of discipline was “very high”, but added that “some parents feel the approach is inflexible and some have removed their children. This has resulted in higher-than-average pupil movement.”
Pupils with SEND made “rapid academic progress”, but inspectors warned that a small number did not get the support they needed.
An Aspirations spokesperson said Magna’s SENCO would be qualified within the next year. The school had been supported by two SENCOs from another school this year.
The trust said the report “reflects the work and commitment from all the staff . . . We will continue to focus our efforts to ensure that this level of provision is maintained and improved wherever possible.”
A spokesperson for Ofsted said: “This is an outstanding school with outstanding leadership and management.”
Another example of academies a) not improving education and b) failing children
1. This school had already improved before being forced to become an academy.
2. The academy trust falsely claimed to have improved standards
3. The academy trust got rid of pupils it couldn’t cope with
4. The previous school had coped with those children well.
I appreciate that you have an agenda and therefore would like things to fit your anti-academies mindset, but actually it seems clear from the above that the school went from Good to Outstanding when it was an academy. Not the be all and end all, but a signifier of improvement.
Presumably you also have access to other information, because I can see absolutely nothing in the article above which remotely supports your assertions that:
A. The academy trust falsely claimed to have improved standards; and
B. The academy trust got rid of pupils it couldn’t cope with.
Can you provide anything to back those statements up other than conjecture and supposition?
I visited Ashdown before it became an Academy and it was so good I (as a teacher myself) was so impressed I wrote a letter to the headteacher saying so. I visited with my daughter to see whether the school was appropriate for my grandon who was just making the transition from Middle School in Poole, Dorset.
We were both of the opinion that the school was excellent. Everything we saw impressed us greatly. In the end my grandson went to a different school to which his friends were going and he did well. We recommended the school without hesitation.
We were both surprised when the school was converted to an academy. Magna has a reputation locally for coercive and oppressive methds. It has a reputation in the community for easing pupils out who it finds difficult to manage. The latest information available seems to bear this out.
Nothing to do with anti-academy. Ashdown was doing really well. My view is that the evidence seems to support the argument that Magna has used coercive methods and taken the credit for the improvements achieved by Ashdown.
It is as if the ‘missing kids’ issue, along with the growing use of abusive discipline in Academies is seen by the government as regrettable, but unavoidable collateral damage in its policy of educational regime change in which knowledge-based school curriculum is intended to replace the dangerously lefty formerly mainstream developmental models of Piaget, Vygotsky (and Bruner in the US), by the long academically discredited behaviourism of B F Skinner.
Read more here
https://rogertitcombelearningmatters.wordpress.com/2019/02/09/englands-invisible-kids-government-condoned-negligence/
Spot on Roger. This appears to be the case. The ends justify the means.
It’s telling that the concerns were expressed by other local heads. Had the concerns come from parents then it would be a whole different ball game. The comments about SEND provision and the lack of engagement by SLT, however, would cause me real concern and would question how leadership got an outstanding rating.
Concerns have been raised regularly by parents locally. I agree that the views of local Headteachers are telling also.
It’s hard not to reach the conclusion that the inspectors simply didn’t think it mattered in the greater scheme of things. And I’m still bemused by the fact that OFSTED don’t speak to parents whose children have left the school before deciding that there’s nothing sinister about pupil movements. It looks as if the investigation went ‘did you offoll?’ “No.” “Okay then, that’s all right.” Interestingly, the head teacher is now leaving the MAT group altogether so I wonder how much has been quietly swept under the carpet.