The education watchdog Ofsted has apologised after publishing an unapproved inspection report into Durand Academy that placed the beleagured south London school into special measures.
Ofsted criticised the school’s leadership and management, teaching quality and pupil welfare and outcomes in the report published late last night. But it has since been removed and is not longer available to view online.
The watchdog confirmed this morning that the report had been removed deliberately.
An Ofsted spokesperson said: “A version of the report that had not been approved for final publication on the Ofsted website was published in error for a short period of time. We have now taken it down from the website.
“We have contacted the school’s representatives this morning to apologise for this error.”
A final version will be published in the coming days, the spokesperson added.
In the unapproved report, Ofsted said the school’s senior leaders have “inflated view of the school’s strengths” and underestimated “the seriousness of its weaknesses”.
Inspectors also criticised variations in the quality of teaching and problems with pupil behaviour.
A statement for parents published by Durand Academy’s governing body read: “We have no doubt this draft report was deliberately published as part of yet further attacks on the school by the educational establishment.
“In doing so they have no regard for your children’s hopes and aspirations.
“Our lawyers are currently dealing with this matter and we will update parents as soon as we are in a position to do so.”
The grade four rating is the latest blow for the school, which has been under investigation by the Education Funding Agency over its governance and use of public money.
Last July, the trust was told to address concerns over finances and potential conflicts of interest and sever ties with its chair of governors and former executive head, Sir Greg Martin.
It was subsequently issued with a notice of intention to terminate its funding agreement in the autumn after the trust refused to meet the conditions set out earlier in the year.
In response, the trust claimed the government had waged a campaign against the school that had been “characterised by misrepresentation, half truths and inaccuracies”.