It's really telling that, having inspected around 250 secondary schools, that @Ofstednews have yet to identify a single school with low or very low levels of prior attainment that have achievement that is worthy of others coming to see how they manage it.
Many situations in life are similar to going on a hike: the view changes once you start walking.
You don't need all the answers right now. New paths will reveal themselves if you have the courage to get started.
@adamboxer1 It highlights the huge inconsistency between inspection teams. Some flexibly apply the ‘typically’ exemption when it comes to national averages on achievement. Some also consider sixth form outcomes when looking at KS4 achievement - and consider things in the round. Others don’t.
Data like this risk telling a worryingly simple story.
Schools serving the highest proportions of disadvantaged pupils face deeper structural challenges every day.
Reducing the work of school leaders to comparative Ofsted outcomes ignores the extraordinary effort, leadership and resilience required to support the communities.
Accountability must recognise context, not erase it.
The central challenge is that these approaches can sometimes clash with local expectations. Yet, at its core, improving coastal schools ultimately means holding the line on standards while rebuilding belief that education is worth the effort.
🧵 A hard truth about coastal education: the strategies that transformed London schools relied on a widespread belief that education leads to opportunity. In parts of coastal England that belief has eroded because local economies haven’t delivered mobility.
Inner-city approaches to improve student outcomes cannot simply be lifted and shifted to the coast – but it’s just as important we get it right for generations to come, says trust CEO Seamus Murphy
https://t.co/GhSKg0zvD6
This doesn’t mean we dismiss the additional complexity of the challenge nor does it mean that there are some aspects of the work that are different to the transformation work in other parts of England. Evidence based approaches shouldn’t be secondary to engagement.
So yes, reject the soft bigotry of low expectations.
But we should also reject something else:
the idea that complex schools serving disadvantaged communities can be understood through simple narratives.
They deserve better analysis than that.
“The quiet curse of low expectations.”
True.
But reducing complex schools serving disadvantaged communities to a cursory glance at headline data and a two-day visit isn’t high expectations.
It’s shallow analysis dressed up as rigour.
Last week our Chief Inspector, @martyneoliver, spoke at ASCL's Annual Conference about:
• the 'quiet curse of low expectations' for disadvantaged children
• how Ofsted uses insight
• piloting a new way of bringing in inspectors
Read now ⬇️
https://t.co/45KdcCB8kP
If expectations are going to be high for schools, they should also be high for the analysis used to judge them.
Understanding a school properly requires depth:
- curriculum
- attendance
- staff stability
- inclusion
- community context
Another interesting (to me, at least) question about the achievement grade ..... how much do ks5 outcomes play a part given that there is a discrete ks5 judgement area?