Becky Francis 2011_(Un)Satisfactory, Enhancing Life Chances by Improving Satisfactory Schools

7/31/2019 Becky Francis 2011_(Un)Satisfactory, Enhancing Life Chances by Improving Satisfactory Schools

1/42

(UN)SATISFACTORY?ENHANCING LIFE CHANCES BY

IMPROVING SATISFACTORY SCHOOLS

Becky Francis, RSA Director of Education

December 2011


2/422 (UN)SATISFACTORY? ENHANCI NG LIFE CHANCES BY IM PROVING SATISFACTORY SCHOOLS

FOREWORD: MATTHEW TAYLOR

This timely and important report on satisactory schools has direct relevanceor the RSAs concern with The social aspiration gap - the growing gap betweensocietys expectations or lie in the 21st century and the trajectory upon whichit is now set. On the one hand, in providing todays young people with aneducation which combines academic rigour, the development o wider skills and

competencies, and nding and developing each individuals enthusiasms, schoolsare vital to developing the citizens modern Britain needs. On the other hand,one o the most proound examples o the social aspiration gap lies between ouryearning or a airer society and the apparent inability o policymakers to developpopular, credible ways o achieving greater social justice. Given the importanceo schooling or the lie chances o disadvantaged pupils and the concentration osuch pupils in (un) satisactory schools, a step change in the perormance o theseschools could make an important contribution to closing this aspect o the gap.

This report contains many striking ndings and important recommendations. Onethat stands out as emblematic o our approach is that the Satisactory category berenamed as Perorming Inconsistently. This is not merely a matter o presentationor semantics. It highlights the key challenge in these schools o spreading the goodpractice which they contain across the whole school. Lying behind the call both orgreater support and guidance or these schools, and a more granular approach toperormance and accountability is the view that the current status o satisactoryis only acceptable i it is explicitly seen as a oundation or improvement.

This report reects the hard work not just o RSA sta, but o Osted colleagues,who have supplied and modelled the data, and have maintained enthusiasticengagement as the project has developed. Working with Osted has made us awareo the rich public resource o robust data and wealth o committed expertiseunderpinning the organisations work. Our collaboration with Osted supports the

current Governments contention that making inormation about public servicestandards available in an accessible orm can itsel be an important driver o policydevelopment, public engagement and service improvement.

Matthew Taylor

Chie Executive RSA



ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

Becky Francis would like to thank Sally Morgan and Richard Brooks or theircommitment to the project. She is especially grateul to Adrian Gray HMI or hiswisdom and induction into the world o Osted inspection criteria, and to HelenBarugh and Weichao Wang or their modelling and provision o data. She wouldalso like to thank Ruth Lupton (LSE) and Bob Burgess (Kings College London)or their eedback.

CONTENTS:

Foreword 2

Executive Summary 4

Section 1. Introduction 9

Section 2. Mapping Satisactory Schools 12

Section 3. Why Are They Satisactory?The Practices O Satisactory Schools 18

Section 4. Discussion 34

Section 5. Recommendations 37

References 40

Appendices 41



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PRCIS

This report maps the location, improvement trends, and demographics oSatisactory schools. It shows that disadvantaged pupils are over-representedin these schools, and that inconsistent quality o teaching practice is the strongest

characteristic o Satisactory schools. Especially key are the ndings that: 1) manySatisactory schools do not improve; 2) children who are already disadvantagedare disproportionately being let down; and 3) that the problem, while inevitablycontextual, can be addressed by concerted eorts to improve teaching. David Cameronrecently reerred to a hidden crisis o coasting schools which are content to muddlethrough, and promises that such schools will be pressed to do better i. This reportspeaks directly to his agenda. However, while the government has concentrated policyon school structures (Free Schools and Academies), a signicant proportion oschools including some o the new models continue to provide lower qualityeducational provision, and there is little in the way o a ramework or supportingthem to improve.

Our analysis amounts to a call or action. A bold new approach to support andchallenge Satisactory schools is urgently needed. We present a set o recommendationsthat incentivise and support improvement in Satisactory schools, through a dualapproach o support and accountability. We would start by changing the Osted termSatisactory. The ascription Satisactory suits no one: it is pejorative enough todeter (some) amilies rom choosing a school and to dampen sta morale, but atpresent there is little to help schools and their stakeholder constituents to identiywhat specically needs to improve, and little support to achieve improvement.The term Perorming Inconsistently is a more accurate reection o the schoolssituation, and clearly ags that while some aspects o the schools provision maybe good or better, improvement is needed in others.

This new title is emblematic o the thinking driving all our recommendations:Satisactory schools are not doing well enough, and our recommendationsor policy reect the need to provide better inormation, support, resource andadvice to schools in addressing these areas or improvement, and to hold schoolsto account or doing so. Our recommendations, including the changed titlePerorming Inconsistently, oer a more granular approach to improvement andaccountability that allows identication and targeting o areas that need improving.But also, rather than simply ocusing on isolated areas, our recommendations emphasisewhole-school responsibility or improvement, and the simultaneous highlightingo strengths that can be drawn upon to support weaker areas in a school. Clearly,

our recommendations have resource implications at a time when these are severelystretched. However, the government maintains that school improvement and socialmobility are policy priorities. We need action to ensure that all our young people,whatever their background, attend a school that is Good or better.

INTRODUCTION

There is much in the school improvement literature on strategies and techniques bywhich to develop outstanding schools. At the other end o the spectrum, ailingschools those in Special Measures or with a Notice to Improve have also beengiven signicant attention by policymakers. However, Satisactory schools arerarely given signicant attention, despite providing or a large proportion o pupils

across the country. Some research has indicated that poorer quality schools containa disproportionate amount o young people rom disadvantaged backgrounds,generating the RSAs interest in Satisactory schools rom a social justice perspective.

i Cameron, D. (2011) We shallshame schools that muddlethrough, The Telegraph, 13/11/11.



Our study sought to achieve three things:

To provide a map o these schools in terms o their location, pupil demographicand the reasons they are categorised as Satisactory by Osted.

To analyse any relationship between socio-economic background andattendance o a Satisactory school.

To identiy key issues arising and make recommendations or policy regardingSatisactory schools.

The study was undertaken in collaboration with Osted, who have supplied thedata underpinning this study. The study is based on Osteds data or state maintainedsecondary schools in Englandii, and analysis o the inspection reports or a sample othose schools stuck at satisactory schools which have been graded Satisactoryat least twice in their last ull inspections, and as having only Satisactory Capacityto Improve.

FINDINGS

The proportion o secondary schools inspected in 2010/11 that were graded Satisactorystood at 40%. Overall, 32% o secondary schools in England (not including SpecialSchools and Pupil Reerral Units (PRUs)) are graded Satisactory at their latest inspection.

The data shows that:

The likelihood o attending a Satisactory school is aected by where you live.

More auent pupils tend to attend better schools. For disadvantaged pupils, thereverse is true.

Young people rom disadvantaged backgrounds are over-represented inSatisactory (and Inadequate) schools.

The stronger likelihood o attending a poorer quality school applies to working

class pupils (disadvantaged) as much as highly disadvantaged pupils.Given the larger proportion o satisactory schools compared to ailing schools,they are having a more widespread impact on outcomes or disadvantaged childrenthan are ailing schools. Research shows that youth rom poorer backgroundsconsistently make the least progress in school: the ndings rom this reportdemonstrate that the quality o disadvantaged pupils schooling contributes to thepoor educational outcomes o these (particularly vulnerable) young people.

In terms o school improvement, the ndings show that:

Schools are more likely to be graded Satisactory or Inadequate i they havepreviously been judged Satisactory hence suggesting a lower capacity to

improve among these longer term satisactory schools.

Schools with high proportions o disadvantaged pupils are more likely to decline romOutstanding and Good grades, than are schools with advantaged pupil populations.

Satisactory schools with disadvantaged pupil populations are signicantly lesslikely to improve at the next inspection than are those with advantaged populations.

The over-all picture emerging rom the data is that a) students rom disadvantagedbackgrounds are over-represented at satisactory (or worse) schools; and b) thatschools with disadvantaged demographics are less likely to improve.

WHY ARE THEY SATISFACTORY? THE PRACTICES

OF SATISFACTORY SCHOOLS

The strongest nding is the importance o teaching and learning. What came acrossoverwhelmingly is the inconsistent quality o teaching and assessment practice

ii That have been subject toan inspection. State maintainedsecondary schools excludingSpecial Schools and PRUs(see main report or elaboration).



within satisactory schools. However, there are specic trends in relation tothis wide area that oer useul insight or schools wishing to improve, and orpolicymakers. Other key ndings relate to systems and monitoring, leadership andgovernance, and (lack o) engagement with parents. There are also a number oemerging issues concerning school context and related capacity. These ndings areelucidated in the ull report, with illustrations rom the data.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The analysis in our report demonstrates:

1. The need to promote teacher and teaching quality in Satisactory schools(and the urgency o this necessity in terms o equality o opportunity oryoung people).

2. The need to acknowledge the impact o context on schools.

3. The need to support struggling schools.

4. The need or urther research.

Given the scale o the issue and the implications or a) school improvement andb) social (in)equality, a new set o policy initiatives geared to improving satisactoryschools are urgently required. But these must reect a new approach o bothchallenging and supporting these schools. Satisactory schools must be accountableor improvement, and supported in doing so. It is also vital that any new policieswork together, and build on past works and the evidence base.

Hence our recommendations relate to better support, and better accountability orSatisactory schools. We address support rst. We recommend the ollowing:

Mechanisms for support of struggling schools

It seems preposterous that we have such good inspectors, but no equivalentorganised supply o expert advisors to support improvement. This absence is

especially stark given the dismantling o prior initiatives intended to provideaspects o such supportiii. Hence we recommend:

Drawing on the evaluations o the National Challenge to design a newnationwide support system to acilitate advice, support and collegiateschool-to-school learning. This could be run out o an organisation suchas Osted or NCSL. The role o such a provider would include gatheringand sharing best practice in addressing contextual challenges. Supportneeds to be provided to satisactory schools, as well as those with Notice toImprove (NtI).

Longer, more granular reports rom Osted or schools stuck at Satisactory(i.e those that have been graded as such at their last inspection, and are beingcategorised Satisactory a second time). These reports should elaborate notjust what broad-sweep changes need to be eected, but also suggest how thesemight be accomplished, and provide milestones or doing so. The latter betterallows progress to be checked by governors and other stakeholders. Suchreports might be based on longer, more in-depth inspections where more timeis spent on the school site.

Government support or ederations o schools, acilitating shared systems andcollegiate, enquiring proessionalism among practitioners.

More effective ways to hold schools to account for improvement

Systems o accountability can also be improved. Schools need to be better directedas to how to improve, and assessed accordingly. Hence we recommend:

The Osted category Satisactory be replaced by Perorming Inconsistently.This new title reects: a) better accuracy o meaning illustrating how

iii E.g. the National Strategies,SIP advice through localauthorities, and so on.



the main problem is that while good or better practices are present theyare not consistent across the school; and b) that particular issues need tobe addressed (via both challenge and support). As such it gives parents andgovernors more indication that aspects need to improve.

Heads at schools currently rated as Satisactory be required to deliver a planto Osted (or the new improvement support body) explaining how the areaso weakness in their school are being addressed. Plans which appear weak orundeveloped will need to be revised and resubmitted. Heads will also need to

submit regular updates on progress.

Stronger accountability driven through the incentives schemes below. Thegovernment might be more directive as to how resources are spent. Indeedthere might be top up unding to boost satisactory schools in areas osocial disadvantage that commit to improvement, but with a higher degree oaccountability tied to such incentives.

Any school which is rated satisactory (or perorming inconsistently) morethan twice in a row will be given a notice to improve and treated as i it wasan inadequate school. This actually aects ew schools, but would unctionas a strong incentive or satisactory schools to improve.

Promoting teacher and teaching quality in satisfactory schools

We need to incentivise excellent teachers (including inspirational middle leaders)to work at satisactory schools. There have been past initiatives which have comeand gone, but discussions on golden handcus to tempt good teachers intoweaker schools need to be urgently revitalised. We recommend:

Bursaries or First Class graduates to undertake Initial Teacher Education(ITE), or supply to struggling schools. ITE is crucial in supplying high qualityteachers. In a climate o austerity it may be especially productive to incentivisethe best graduates to undertake ITE by subsidizing student ees iv. Althoughpossession o a rst class honours degree does not necessarily guaranteea talented teacher, it indicates a range o skills (e.g. commitment, organisationalskills, strong subject competence). The ees subsidy would need to be tied toNQT employment at a school graded lower than Good, in order to directthem to schools most in need.

Satisactory schools need a prestigious allocated places scheme similar toFuture Leaders or Teach First to direct the most talented and inspiringteachers into these schools. Such a scheme would simultaneously helpsatisactory schools, while advancing the careers o individual teachers.

Golden achievers. A more expensive, but more controlled measure is to createa scheme wherein high quality teacher recruits to schools judged satisactory orbelow are paid more in exchange or greater accountability or pupil progress aspart o their contract. Such a scheme could be unded by schools themselves viause o the pupil premium. (In which case it will urther be important that staconcerned are set to teach young people whose need is greatestv.)

Coordinated CPD ofer. The ndings rom this (and other) studies might beused to inorm design and provision o relevant, targeted, accredited CPDdesigned or use by struggling schools, addressing issues such as teachingtechniques, assessment practices and so on, to complement those on leadershipoered by the NCSL. Courses might be oered by an HEI, Teaching School,the NCSL, or a combination; quality being key.

Cultures o collaborative proessional enquiry encouraged within schools.

This recognises that it is not enough to parachute in excellent new sta, but the

need to also support condence, shared good practice, innovation and a cultureo learning and research within existing teams.

Pupil Premium or teaching and learning. Clearly the ndings in this studysupport the Pupil Premium, and reiterate the need or substantial allocation.

iv As indeed the Governmentalready intends to do or particularsubject areas (see DE, 2011).



In satisactory schools, the pupil premium ought to be spent on bolsteringteacher quality. To date, the pupil premium has generally been seen as to betargeted on individual pupils. But we must ensure schools are working properlyas institutions as well as supporting individual children and/or groups who arealling behind. The government may need to be more directive concerning schoolsuse o Pupil Premium resources, and to hold schools to account in ensuring theresources are a) spent eectively, and b) used to support the learning and progresso disadvantaged pupils (see note v).

Acknowledge the impact of context on schools

We recommend the maintenance o a measure o pupil demographics(Contextual Value Added or a dierent measure) in judging progress.

Further research

Further research is needed to explore the individual contexts o Satisactoryschools (including the characteristics o the local school market), and theperceptions and insights o key stakeholders, in order to shed urther light on thecontextual actors impacting potential school improvement. Additionally, researchocusing on schools in socially-disadvantaged areas that have progressed romSatisactory to Good (or better) is needed, to explore the various ways in whichthese schools managed to raise their game whether this involves eradicating thepoor and inconsistent practices identied in this report, and/or additional eatures.

This concerted eort is needed to establish a secondary school system that providesequality o opportunity to all young people, whatever their background, viaprovision o a high quality education that ensures their learning progression andeducational enrichment.

v As there is evidence thatworking class young peopleand those rom certain minorityethnic groups tend to be

concentrated in lower streams,and that the most able teachersare oten set to teach the topstreams (Cassen & Kingdon,2007; Dunne et al, 2007).



SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION

There has been much written in the school improvement literature on strategiesand techniques by which to develop outstanding schools. Advice on how to takeyour school rom Good to Great1, and the strategies required to securea judgement o Outstanding rom Osted, circulate in the literature and amongeducation consultants. Headteachers o schools rated Outstanding are in high

demand, oten accredited as National Leaders in Education, and consulted by localauthorities, educational organisations, and other schools. At the other end o thespectrum, ailing schools those in Special Measures or with Notice to Improve

have also been given signicant attention. This may take the orm o punitivemeasures (takeover, closure etc); but requently such schools have been providedwith signicant practical, human and nancial support2. So schools at the top andbottom o the success spectrum continue to receive attention rom policymakers.However, middling schools and especially those which might be consideredmediocre are rarely given signicant attention, despite the act that they provideor a large proportion o pupils across the country.

Further, some research has indicated that poorer quality schools containa disproportionate amount o young people rom disadvantaged backgrounds3,generating the RSAs interest rom a social justice perspective.

Hence this report ocuses on the location, demographic, and practices oSatisactory schools. It seeks to achieve three things:

To provide a map o these schools in terms o their location, pupildemographic and the reasons they are categorised as Satisactory by Osted.

To analyse any relationship between socio-economic background andattendance o a Satisactory school.

To identiy key issues arising and make recommendations or policy regarding

Satisactory schools.

(UN)SATISFACTORY?

Educationalists requently observe that the Osted category Satisactory is notreally conceived as satisactory at all4. This is oten perceived as unair eithera school is Satisactory, or it isnt. Osteds denition o Satisactory (Grade3 out o 4, where 4 is Inadequate) is: These eatures are o reasonablequality. A satisactory school is providing adequately or its pupils. Perhapsadequate would be a more accurate label. However, as we shall see, such terms

do not capture the characteristics o satisactory schools in relation to schoolimprovement agendas, and we make recommendations accordingly in the nal sectiono this report.

It is also air to acknowledge that all schools would like to provide the best ortheir pupils as Ken Robinson (2010) observes, no one ever argued that standardsshould go down! Osted judgements and grade descriptors are based upon ananalysis o the standards o the time, and thereore are periodically reviewed andamended, rather than remaining xed. Proportionality o dierent judgementsawarded at least to some extent reects political demands urther reected in theramework applied (which has been subject to change, and is about to changeagain). This begs questions as to what we want all schools to look like, and

whether this is possible? Can all schools be good, or do we need to keep raisingthe bar to ensure an improving system? Does this latter view implicitly recognisethe relative nature o Osted categories?

1 E.g. Gray & Streshley (2008).

2 National Challenge providesan example here, as do theSuper Heads o the previousNew Labour administration.Although there may be aquestion as to how such supportwill now be provided, giventhe diminished inuence andcapacity o Local Authorities.

3 See Lupton, R. (2010).

4 See e.g. then ChieInspector o Osted ChristineGilbert quoted in The Guardian

(2007) as saying it was nolonger enough or schools tobe satisactory, they should allaspire to be better; and see alsoLaws (2011).



Nonetheless, the act remains that some schools are better than others not justat enabling their pupils to achieve highly in exams, but also at providing engagingpedagogy and curricula that instil a love o learning in their pupils and bring outthe best in every child. And rom the qualitative data reported below there is nodoubt that satisactory schools ace particular weaknesses (and oten, particularchallenges). What continues to conound claims to a socially just educationsystem is the apparent concentration o children rom lower socio-economicgroups (broadly working class pupils, as well as those in poverty as indicated by

Free School Meals), in satisactory (and inadequate) schools, while their moreauent middle class counterparts are disproportionally represented in goodschools (Lupton, 2010). I this is the case, those already socially advantagedin society are being urther advantaged by their state schooling, where or thedisadvantaged the opposite is true.

Hence our study comprised two elements. Firstly, a mapping o schoolscurrently graded Satisactory, drawing on Osted data to analyse their number,location, pupil demographics, and their progress at inspection. Secondly aqualitative analysis o inspection reports or a sample o schools that are rmlysatisactory. We wanted to see what has held these schools back, what theircharacteristics are, and to use this analysis to make recommendations or policyand practice.

METHODS AND SAMPLE FOR THE STUDY OF SATISFACTORY SCHOOLS

The study ocused on state maintained secondary schools in England, includingAcademies but excluding Special Schools and PRUs5.

As noted in the acknowledgements, the work has been conducted with supportrom Osted. Osted have supplied data and inormation as requested, and takenup the ocus on satisactory schools in their own work, running their own analysisocusing on what satisactory schools need to do to improve in tandem with the

RSA study. Their methodology and ocus has been slightly dierent (as explainedurther below), and hence on occasion the two reports make reerence to eachothers ndings.

The quantitative data inorming the study are supplied and modelled by Osted, inresponse to requests or data on specic issues. Data addresses all schools judgedSatisactory at the time o writing, unless otherwise stated. With respect toanalysis concerning Index o Deprivation Aecting Children (IDACI) proles, theIDACI values or the school is based on the mean IDACI o pupils attending the school.

In the qualitative element o the study, we sought to include schools that are

rmly Satisactory apparently stuck at satisactory. It is important to notea nding on seeking to identiy this sample, o the tendency or uctuation inand out o the Satisactory category: there are many schools in this middle orlower-middle tranche which uctuate regularly between Satisactory to Noticeto Improve or to Good. For example, only 139 secondary schools in Englandhave been graded Satisactory three inspections in a row (across the period 2000-8 April 2011). However, the much larger number o schools regularly uctuatingin and out o this category provide greater cause or concern, and also perhapsindicates the changing conditions (sta retention issues etc) to which many suchschools may be especially subject (Lupton, 2010; Ainscow et al, 2010). Since1 September 2005, 2996 open secondary schools (excluding PRUs and SpecialSchools) in England have received at least one Osted inspection. O these, just

under a third (967) were graded Satisactory at their last inspection; and 473secondary schools have been judged satisactory at the last two inspections whichwere carried out under the section 5 school inspection ramework that operatedrom 2005 to 2009.

5 The ocus on secondaryschools provides a manageablesample or this frst study oSatisactory schools, althoughbroadening and contrasting withan analysis o the primary sectorcomprises important urtherresearch. Special Schools andPRUs are excluded due to theirdistinct sizes and circumstances.Academies are included in thequantitative analysis, but mosthave not yet been through two

inspections as Academies (asdistinct rom the predecessorschool), and consequently onlyone met our criteria or inclusionin the qualitative sample.



Yet given the strong extent o uctuation, we did not wish to include uctuatingschools which had only allen to Satisactory momentarily. Our interest is inschools which have been rmly satisactory. Thereore, the RSA worked withOsted to identiy those schools which have been graded Satisactory at leasttwice in their last ull inspections (hence spanning at least a three year period), andwere also graded as having satisactory Capacity to Improve (CTI). Given ourinterest in rmly satisactory schools, we were interested in this CTI grade due tothe indication that the school is likely to continue to remain at this level. A number

o these schools had also received monitoring visits between their two inspections.

These criteria generated a sample o 66 secondary schools. A sub-sample othese was drawn which represented a range o area demographics, with a broadgeographical spread across England, generating a sub-sample o 36 schools.Osted inspection reports or the 36 schools were then subjected to contentanalysis6. These reports were all produced within the 2010-2011 timescale, andrelated inspection ramework (at the time o writing, the ramework is due tochange, in January 2012).

There is o course academic and policy debate concerning the inspection criteriaand quality and value o judgements. Such debates and any conclusions are beyondthe scope o this research, although it is important to say that the evidence reectedin reports, and quality o reporting, was generally very impressive7. What isimportant to acknowledge is the valid potential criticism that themes identied inthe ndings here simply reect Osted concerns and criteria, given that inspectorsgather data and write to a tight pre-ordained rame, with detailed advice onpriorities in judgement in order to achieve consistency between inspections. Thiscertainly does constrain the data and subsequent analysis: urther research isneeded to build on this study by interviewing stakeholders at satisactory schools(headteachers, teachers, students, parents and others) to access their perspectivesand priorities. Nevertheless, the themes identied in this report do not simply mapstraightorwardly on to Osted inspection rameworks clear trends and priorities

emerge beyond the ramework. It has also been productive to map the emergingsub-themes and trends within dierent topics o concern.

6 Osted inspection reportswere analysed by two seniorresearch sta, one at the RSAand one at Osted, and resultscompared, afrming the keytrends identifed. However, theocus and methodologies or thetwo studies are slightly dierent:

the Osted analysis ocuses oninspector recommendations toSatisactory schools, and drewon urther data including theprior, and any interim, inspection(in addition to the most recent).

7 Judgements as to whatconstitutes quality pedagogy, andbest practice, evidently shit overtime. Some examples emergingor this analysis include: theassumption that pupils havedierent abilities which require

a personalised approach; thata balanced curriculum oerthat oers both academic andvocational qualifcations isbenefcial, and so on.



SECTION 2. MAPPING SATISFACTORYSCHOOLS

The proportion o secondary schools inspected in 2010/11 that were gradedSatisactory stood at 40%. Overall, 32% o secondary schools in England (notincluding Special Schools and PRUs) are graded Satisactory at their latest inspection.

Figure 1: School eectiveness judgements, by academic year

10 39 38 13

13 38 40 9

17 40 34 9

22 41 31 6

13 36 41

9

11

14 36 40

2005/06 (1023)

2006/07 (1293)

2007/08 (1165)

2008/09 (1072)

2009/10 (888)

2010/11 (650)

Source: Osted

Section 5 inspection outcome

A

cademicyear

Outstanding Good Satisactory Inadequate

8 Schools judged satisactoryat their last inspection.

9 This o course reectsthe point that many o theseschools have not yet been re-

inspected since the changedinspection ramework, the lattero which has designated ahigher proportion o satisactoryschools.

Total % Satisactory in each GOR37% 40%

34% 37%

31% 34%

28% 31%

25% 28%

Source: Osted, ONS

Figure 2: Map o all Government OfceRegions in England and the percentage osecondary schools judged to be satisactoryat latest inspection

THE LOCATION OF SATISFACTORY SCHOOLS

The likelihood o attending a satisactory school is aected by where you live.

Certain parts o England have greater proportions o satisactory schools Yorkshire and Humber, East Midlands and the East o England regions have thehighest proportion8. However, the gures also illustrate a relatively narrow bando dierence between 25-40%9 (see Appendix 1 or gures).

New section 5 inspection ramework



Figure 3 illustrates concentrations o satisactory schools according to local authority.

Figure 3: Map o all LAs in England and the percentage o secondary schools judged to besatisactory at latest inspection

LEA by Satisactory

66% 84%

49% 66%33% 49%

16% 33%

0% 33%

No secondary schools

Welsh LA

Source: Osted, ONS

Certain Local Authorities have signicantly higher proportions o satisactoryschools than others (North East Lincolnshire standing out, with Blackpool,Merton, Peterborough, Kingston upon Hull and Bradord all standing at 60% andabove). And here the range o dierence is ar broader than in the case o region(see Appendix 2).

Distributions o satisactory schools do not dier according to concentration opopulation there is an even distribution across sparsely to heavily populated areas(rural urban) (Osted data, 2011). Satisactory schools are, however, signicantly

smaller on average than are other schools. This may possibly reect capacityconcerning budget and limitations in terms o economies o scale (Braun et al,2011). But the number on the school roll does not appear to have a strong bearingon progress or decline ollowing a designation o satisactory (Osted data, 2011).



It would be pertinent to know whether there is any tendency or school rolls to allollowing a designation o satisactory, and indeed whether a alling roll impactsthe likelihood o a urther judgement o satisactory; however it was not possibleto obtain and ully analyse this data within the timescale this might comprise animportant point or urther research.

So who attends these schools? Does the latest data support previous ndingsthat young people rom disadvantaged backgrounds are over-represented in these

schools (Lupton, 2010)?

In their data analysis Osted divides the schools into quintiles (5ths) based on theirIDACI scores. IDACI represents a combined score or every local area, based on theproportion o children rom low income amilies. Each child in a school is allocatedthe IDACI score or the area in which s/he lives. The average o the pupils scoresis then calculated to provide a school-level score. Table 1 shows the percentage opupils in dierent IDACI quintiles at dierent categories o secondary school.

Table 1: Distribution o pupil level IDACI or schools inspected and yet to be inspected byOsted as at 8 April 2011

Percentage o pupils

(Highly advantaged)

Low

(Advantaged)

Below average

Average

(Disadvantaged)

Above average

(Highly disadvantaged)

Above average

Outstanding (670,896) 25 22 19 16 17

Good (1,273,423) 22 21 21 19 17

Satisfactory (903,104) 15 18 20 23 23

Inadequate (101,200) 14 16 22 25 23

Not inspected(85,319) 8 10 16 26 40

Source: Osted

Figures may not match publications due to dierences in the range o schools used (inspections use Edubase asat 31 March 2011 while RAISEOnline data is correct as at January 2011).

This table illustrates the trend or more auent pupils to attend better schools.Those in the lower IDACI quintiles (more auent) are signicantly more likely toattend an Outstanding school than those in the two highest quintiles. Likewise,those in the lowest quintile (most auent) are most likely o all pupils to attend anoutstanding school, and least likely to attend a satisactory and/or inadequateschool. Those in the higher quintiles (more disadvantaged pupils) are consistentlyless likely to attend a good or outstanding school, and more likely to attenda satisactory or inadequate school. Whereas or their more auent counterparts

(low IDACI) the reverse is true. Table 1 shows that or the more auent groupsthere is a consistent pattern wherein the greater their auence, the more likely arepupils to attend the best quality schools (and the less likely to attend poor ones).In contrast, however, Table 1 also demonstrates that over-representation in poorerquality schools is not just an issue or the most disadvantaged children (those romthe highest IDACI quintile), but also or less advantaged (working class) pupilsmore broadly. Indeed, pupils rom the above average disadvantage (as opposed tohigh) IDACI quintile were marginally more likely than their highly disadvantagedcounterparts to attend an inadequate school, and marginally less likely to attendan outstanding one10.

The very high concentration o highly disadvantaged pupils in the schools not yet

inspected group is explained by the act these schools largely comprise academies(many o which are too new to have been inspected): 86 o 90 schools that all intothis category are sponsor-led academies. Clearly, their inspection outcomes will beascinating, and likely have an impact on the overall identied trends.

More disadvantagedpupils are consistentlyless likely to attend agood or outstandingschool, and more likelyto attend a satisactoryor inadequate school.

Whereas or their moreauent counterparts(low IDACI) the reverseis true.

10 This may reect successuloutcomes rom the previousgovernments strategy oocusing on school improvementin the most deprived areas.



Figure 4 shows the demographic o Satisactory schools since 2005. In all yearsthose schools representing higher IDACI quintiles (i.e. more disadvantaged)comprise signicantly larger proportions than those schools representing moreauent counterparts (low IDACI). Across the period 2005/06-2010/11 around50% o secondary schools ound satisactory were in the top two quintiles orrepresentation o disadvantaged pupils/area, meaning they are over-represented inthe group o schools catering or pupils rom disadvantaged backgrounds.(It is also worth noting that the most auent pupils low IDACI quintile are

especially under-represented in satisactory schools).

Figure 4: All satisfactory secondary schools by their IDACI quintile and by academic year

IDACI Quintile

New section 5 inspection framework

2005/06 (389)

2006/07 (515)

2007/08 (400)

2008/09 (331)

2009/10 (359)

2010/11 (263)

Source: Ofsted

Acad

emicyear

Low BelowAverage

Average AboveAverage

High

13 20 24 2024

11 16 27 2720

12 18 25 2124

12 16 26 2224

9 13 30 2821

9 20 21 2129

Outstanding (124)

Good (910)

Satisfactory (937

Inadequate (182)

All secondary schoolsinspected twice (2153)

Latest section 5 inspection

Prev

ioussection5

inspection

Improve Same Decline

73 27

24 2453

42 50 8

96 4

36 49 15

So the data presented here demonstrates that young people rom disadvantagedbackgrounds are over-represented in satisactory (and inadequate) schools.Research shows that youth rom disadvantaged backgrounds consistently make the

least progress in school (Cassen & Kingdon, 2007; Ainscow et al, 2010). Ainscow etal (2010) also report that the impact o schools on attainment can be as signicantas social background, and the impact o schools is up to three times greater ordisadvantaged pupils hence school quality has especial impact on disadvantagedpupils. The ndings presented in this report demonstrate the quality o theirschooling contributes to the poor educational outcomes o these (particularlyvulnerable) young people.

Having mapped the location and demographics o satisactory schools, we turnnow to ocus on the level o fux or otherwise in these schools perormance in Ostedinspections. We begin by looking at satisactory schools in relation to schools overall.

Figure 5: Did the school improve, remain or decline in inspection outcomes betweenprevious and latest inspections?



Figure 5 shows the trends or schools at all Osted categories. O course, Outstandingschools cannot do better in terms o their category, and or Inadequate schools orthe vast majority the only way is up. It is Satisactory schools that concern us, and itis interesting to see that o these, hal remain at satisactory at their next inspection.8% decline to inadequate; and encouragingly, 42% are rated as Good or above.This shows the capacity or many Satisactory schools to improve, conoundingany hypotheses that such schools are destined to stagnate.

Table 2 specically draws out the latest inspection outcomes or those schoolspreviously judged Satisactory:

Table 2: Latest inspection outcomes o schools that were previously satisactory or betterunder section 5 schools inspection ramework

Latest inspection outcome (percentage o schools)


Outstanding or Good at previous (1,034) 29 49 19 2

Satisfactory at previous (937) 4 38 50 8

Source: Osted

As Table 2 reiterates, o those schools judged Satisactory at their previous inspection,just under hal (42%) are judged to improve at their latest inspection. However, 58%did not improve (remained satisactory or ell to inadequate). This is 37 percentagepoints higher than those secondary schools ound to be satisactory/ inadequate attheir latest inspection having previously been ound good or better. It also illustratesthat (given the 3 year inspection cycles or satisactory schools), i you send your childto a satisactory secondary school, they have a 58% chance o the school remainingsatisactory (or worse) by the time they reach Year 11.

From the social justice perspective inorming this study, it is important to ask whicho these schools are improving, and which are not, and whether pupil intake hasa bearing on this.

Figure 6a: Comparison o the previous and latest inspection o secondary schools thatbelonged IDACI Quintiles 4 & 5

I you send your childto a satisactorysecondary school, theyhave a 58% chance othe school remainingsatisactory (orworse) by the time

they reach Year 11.



Outstanding (33)

Good (270)

Satisfactory (404)

Inadequate (94)

Secondary (IDACI

Quintile 4 & 5) (801)Previoussection5

inspection

18 32751

4 32 54 9

11 36 47 6

58 1527

1 13 82 4



Comparing the data rom gures 6a and 6b, we can see that schools with IDACIbelonging to the ourth and th quintiles (above average and highly deprived) aremore likely than are those schools with IDACI in the rst and second (auent)quintiles to all rom Outstanding to Good and Satisactory; From Good toSatisactory (and less likely to improve to Outstanding); and more likely to stickat Satisactory (and indeed to all to Inadequate). Where 52% o satisactoryschools belonging to IDACI quintiles 1&2 (auent) improved, this was true oronly 36% o their disadvantaged counterparts. In the specic case o those schoolssticking at satisactory, schools with IDACI belonging to the ourth and thquintiles (above average and highly deprived) are signicantly more likely to bejudged Satisactory again (54%) than are those schools with IDACI in the rst andsecond (auent) quintiles (44%).

Hence gures 6a and 6b compound the over-all picture emerging rom the datapresented here, which comprises strong evidence that a) students rom disadvantagedbackgrounds are over-represented at satisactory (or worse) schools, and b) thatschool context/pupil demographic impacts school improvement outcomes.

Outstanding (68)

Good (454)

Satisfactory (302)

Inadequate (42)

Secondary (IDACI

Quintile 1 & 2) (866)Previoussection5

inspection


78 22

28 21655

6 46 44 4

23 47 27 3

12 781


Figure 6b: Comparison o the previous and latest inspection o secondary schools thatbelonged IDACI Quintiles 1 & 2



SECTION 3. WHY ARE THEY SATISFACTORY?THE PRACTICES OF SATISFACTORY SCHOOLS

Several key ndings emerged rom the analysis o the inspection reports or the36 schools. The strongest is the importance o teaching and learning. What cameacross overwhelmingly is the inconsistent quality o teaching and assessmentpractice within satisactory schools. However, there are specic trends in relation

to this wide area that oer useul insight or schools wishing to improve, and orpolicymakers. Other key ndings relate to systems and monitoring, leadership andgovernance, and (lack o) engagement with parents. There are also a number oemerging issues concerning school context and related capacity.

SCHOOL CONTEXT AND CAPACITY

Building on the quantitative analysis o satisactory school demographics andlocations, it seems pertinent to draw out the issue o context rst. We had deliberatelysampled or diversity in our sub-sample o schools, ensuring representation acrossdierent areas o England, and schools with auent pupil populations as well as thosewith disadvantaged populations. However, in many cases the inspection report indicatesthat contextual issues were negatively aecting the schools capacity to improve.

While this was ar rom being representative o the majority o the schools, somewere acing very sad circumstances. There were many acting headteachers, manyreports o alling rolls, and some uncertain (or certain!) utures. The ollowing isindicative o such reports:

The number o students on roll has allen since the last inspection. At least30% o students locally are selected to attend local grammar schools. ...The proportion o students identied by the school with special educationalneeds and/or disabilities and those with a statement o special educational

needs are both well above average. Most o the students identied havemoderate learning diculties and/or behavioural, emotional or social diculties....The school has experienced disruption to stang at senior and middleleadership levels in recent years...Falling rolls and uncertainty about the schoolslong-term uture have contributed to a period o instability or students, staand parents. (School 23, Lincolnshire)

And there were numerous more oblique reerences to challenging circumstances:

The school is subject to reorganisation proposals and an acting headteacherand deputy headteacher were appointed in January 2010. (School 25,

Northumberland)

Leadership change, and challenges in recruiting and retaining sta are noted inmany reports, and the Osted analysis o consecutive inspection reports highlightsthese tendencies (especially by the time o the second inspection) (Osted, 2011b).

Indeed, a ew o the sub-sample schools were noted either as due to close and/ordue to convert to academy status. It is important to recognise the impact o suchcontextual actors on schools quality o oer and capacity to improve. While theinormation in Table 2 above illustrates the extent o potential or Satisactoryschools to improve to Good and beyond, it is also evident that a cycle ochallenging circumstances such as retention and recruitment problems, absence

o leadership, and alling rolls (with budgetary implications) makes it morechallenging or those schools concerned to improve (Ainscow et al, 2010; Braunet al, 2011). Implications o such circumstances are developed in the Discussionsection below.

Some [schools] wereacing very sadcircumstances. Therewere many actingheadteachers, manyreports o alling rolls,and some uncertain

(or certain!) utures.



CARING SCHOOLS?

Related to the issue o context are the various challenges that many schools ace dueto their specic student demographic. Pupil cohorts reecting high levels o povertybring a range o additional challenges and required services, let alone a lesser supplyo PTA unds. Diverse cohorts and those with needs such as English as an AdditionalLanguage (EAL) generate particular challenges, as do mono-cultural populations. Itwas noticeable that many o the schools in our sample were rising to such complex

challenges to provide good care and inclusivity or their student populations11

.

Students spiritual, moral, social and cultural development is good. Theyrespond well to opportunities to refect on achievements, natural wonders andpredicaments aecting human society in dierent situations in other parts othe world and in this country. The great majority recognise the need to takeresponsibility or ones own actions. Multicultural awareness is developed well.Students visit Leicester to experience the broad ethnic mix o that communityand the RE curriculum includes comparisons with other prominent religions.(School 32, Staordshire)

Care, guidance and support are good. Potentially vulnerable students,including those in the Specialist Resource Provision or students withphysical diiculties and disabilities, are well supported and integrated intothe lie o the school. The increasing numbers o students learning Englishor the irst time receive good specialist support to help improve their skills.(School 3, Greater London)

However, it is noticeably the case that this admirable level o care is insufcient onits own to gain high grade at inspection. While the eectiveness o pastoral care,guidance and support provided to students was graded good and even outstanding/with outstanding aspects at such schools, the overall grade in the relevant sectionwas always 3, due to lack o pupil progression (and indeed a requent lack o

the assessment and eedback provision deemed integral to Care, Guidance andSupport by Osted). Hence Osteds view is clear that it is not enough to providea sae, inclusive and pleasant environment or young people (which is a minimumexpectation); but that their progress must also be shown to be sufcient toconstitute a good or outstanding education. This point is urther developed in theDiscussion section.

THE CURRICULUM

This point concerning the over-all grade or dierent inspection sections extendedacross other categories within the Pupils achievement and the extent to which

they enjoy learning section. Sub-categories may even be graded outstanding, buti good or outstanding progress is not present it is very rare or the overall gradenot to remain a 3. This notably included the curriculum sub-category. Schoolcurricula were oten noted strong, and sometimes graded 2 (good):

The curriculum is a strength o the school, particularly or those students whochoose to take more vocational pathways in partnership with local trainingproviders and colleges. The overwhelming majority o these students continue ineducation, employment or training when they leave school. (School 26, Lancashire)

However, in many o the schools it was noted that there were challenges inparticular subject areas. A variety o subjects were mentioned, but most

requently English and maths. Indeed, inadequately embedded literacy andnumeracy was a common theme. However, it was noticeable that maths teachingand attainment was the most requently mentioned subject, providing somejustication or current concerns about maths teacher supply, as well as maths

11 O course, this is also trueo schools in other categories,especially those in similarlocations.



education and qualications (Vorderman, 2011; Norris, 2011). The ollowingextract is typical:

... elements o provision and outcomes have improved, but there has beenlittle sign o improvement in the quality o teaching and in achievement inmathematics. These are key aspects o the schools core purpose and, despitethe good improvements elsewhere, the schools overall eectiveness remainssatisactory. (School 27, Nottinghamshire)

It may be air to observe that comments reected little theory o curriculumreected in these judgements, possibly reecting again the constraints o the Ostedevaluation schedule. A successul curriculum sometimes appeared to be simplyconsidered one that provides a range o options. For example:

The curriculum is good because it provides a broad range o academic andvocational courses to meet students needs. (School 15, Cornwall)

This was particularly noticeable in relation to requent advocacy or a spread oacademic and vocational qualications:

Nevertheless, the range o vocational pathways into training and employmentis too narrow to meet the increasingly sophisticated aspirations o students.(School 16, Essex)

Until recently the school oered only a limited range o non-GCSE options inKey Stage 4, but steps have been taken to widen these, or example by suitablyextending the vocational options. (School 35, Warwickshire)

It may be that such advice will now change, given the Governmentsprioritisation o a smaller range o academic subjects. However, withsuch agendas in mind it may also be important to attend the insightul

comment o one inspector that, The progress is undoubtedlybetter when activities are relevant to students interests and aptitudes.(School 20, Derbyshire)

In spite o the limited conceptual engagement with the aims and potential o thecurriculum, a number o inspectors do draw attention to a lack o embeddingo particular eatures within the curriculum (e.g. ICT). An absence noted withrelative requency was some schools lack o promotion o awareness o socialand cultural diversity:

The promotion o equality and diversity is satisactory. The school has

appropriate policies in place and monitors the perormance o dierent groupso students, but inspectors saw ew examples o diversity being activelypromoted through the curriculum. (School 28, Oxordshire)

Students demonstrate good spiritual, moral and social skills. Culturaldevelopment is evident in opportunities within the curriculum but engagementwith dierent cultural groups is only available to a small proportion o thestudents. (School 31, Staordshire)

Indeed, it is encouraging to see Osted sending a clear message that diversity andinclusion is not just an issue or schools with diverse catchments (Gain, 1995).

TEACHING QUALITY

Quality o teaching was directly mentioned as a limitation in at least some regardin almost all (all bar one) o the 36 schools. This overwhelming nding supports



the rat o evidence showing teacher and pedagogic quality to be the key actor ineducational outcomes12, as recognised in the recent White Paper (2011).

What may reassure practitioners is that such judgements were applied consistently,and were directly related to students progress, rather than to attainment (seethe section on attainment, below). Noticeably, strong subject knowledge is notsufcient in its own right without attention to other aspects o pedagogic practice.For example, School 12 (Bedordshire) has relatively high attainment:

Based on their previous Key Stage 1 assessments, pupils start with levels oattainment in the core subjects that are above the national average or theirage and continue to work at a level higher than that expected nationally. Thisrepresents satisactory progress.....Progress is no better than satisactory becauseo limitations in the quality o teaching, the majority o which is satisactoryand only occasionally is good or outstanding. (School 12, Bedordshire)

Some key concerns over teaching practice were recurrent through the data.These were:

Inconsistent quality

Lack o sta collaboration

Inadequate assessment practice and use o assessment inormation

Teacher-dominated pedagogy

Low expectations

Lack o extension

Each one will be dealt with in turn.

Inconsistent quality

Inconsistency o good practice was an extremely common eature. Inspectors requently

mention instances o good and sometimes even outstanding teaching and assessment,but observe that this is inconsistently practiced across the school, and/or thatmixed (including inadequate) practice results in inconsistent progress or pupils.

However, teaching remains inconsistent across and, to a lesser extent, withinsubjects, with weak and occasionally inadequate teaching in a small proportiono lessons. (School 3, Greater London)

an insucient proportion o good teaching to ensure all students learn welland make at least the progress expected o them relative to their starting pointsand capabilities. (School 8, Yorkshire)

Clearly a challenge remains or these schools to ensure best teaching andassessment practice across the board, whether due to a lack o sufcient modellingand peer-review, or due to sta recruitment and retention issues. Certainly, the lacko a systematised approach to identiying, sharing, and rolling out best practicewas observed in some cases:

There are missed opportunities or teachers to share good practice more widelyacross departments and subjects. (School 1, London)

Lack of staff collaboration

This inconsistency sometimes appeared related to lack o collaboration. It

was oten observed that where there might be examples o good practice inteaching and learning, these were not integrated across the school due to a lacko communication and collaboration. A lack o whole-school approaches andapplication o good practice in monitoring and assessing achievement were

12 For evidence on theimportance o teacher quality asthe lead actor in acilitating pupil

progress and attainment, seee.g. Thrupp, 1995; Leithwood etal, 2006; McKinsey & Company,2011; Ainscow et al, 2010;Sutton Trust, 2011.



requent eatures o the satisactory schools, as is elaborated in more detail below.However, it was also specically noted on some occasions that lack o collaborationbetween sta even within single classrooms was impeding good practice:

On other occasion[s], teachers and teaching assistants do not work closelyenough to ensure that students develop the skills necessary to workindependently. (School 23, Lincolnshire)

The school does not, as yet, provide sucient opportunities to share existinggood practice in order to improve the overall quality o provision. (School 21,Lancashire)

This lack o collaborative sharing and development may be seento be an issueor management and leadership o teaching and learning, but also responsibilityextends beyond this to all sta regarding proessionalism, continued learning, andgood practice. It may be a particular issue or middle-leaders, given the point thator many secondary teachers their department is their cultural reerence point(Braun et al, 2011).

Inadequate assessment practice and use of assessment information

The charge o inconsistency was also levelled at assessment as a acet o pedagogy.In act, assessment practice was reerred to so requently in the reports, both asa acet o teaching practice and in its own right, that a separate section is devotedto assessment later in this report. However, it is important to ag it up here, asa requently-reerred-to inadequacy in relation to pedagogy. The ollowing remarksare indicative:

Teachers are not identiying precisely enough what students know and can doand where there are gaps in their learning. (School 19, Hull)

Teachers planning lacks sucient detail and ocuses more on what the teacher

will do, rather than what the students will learn. In these lessons, teachersdo not use the assessment data available eectively to plan or the needs odierent groups, resulting in lessons that lack sucient challenge or pace.As a consequence, students are less motivated to learn. (School 1, London)

These extracts reect a range o concerns, including a lack o use o assessmentto plan lessons and activities that meet the needs o particular pupils and groups;and a lack o use o assessment to identiy where any remedial work is required.Other comments more specically ocused on assessment practice related toinadequate eedback, and the mechanisms or assessment and eedback, and theseare elaborated in the separate section below.

In addition to inconsistency in application o high quality pedagogy, the specicshape o this teaching practice also came in or requent criticism. Within this, themost commonly mentioned limitation indicative o lessons satisactory or belowwas the preponderance o teacher dominated/didactic approaches.

Teacher dominated pedagogy

This tendency or teachers to lecture pupils and dominate inputs in top-downapproaches was identied time and again:

Sometimes, however, lessons are repetitive and mundane. Teachers sometimesgive overly long explanations and work harder than the students. (School 7, Yorkshire)

Teachers oten dominate the lessons; they talk knowledgeably and kindly butwithout expecting the students to contribute or think suciently or themselves.(School 4, London)

The charge oinconsistency was alsolevelled at assessmentas a acet o pedagogy.



Indeed, there were so many criticisms o this tendency in teaching practice acrossthe satisactory schools, that sub-themes concerning the negative outcomes osuch practice could be discerned, as ollows:

Constraints on pupils independent learning

Some satisactory lessons lack challenge and there is too much teacher talk anddirection, restricting students opportunities to share ideas, challenge their ownthinking or develop independent learning skills. (School 9, Tyne-and-Wear)

Lack o extension/reinorcement o learning

At times, teachers spend too long on one task and the lesson is dominated bythe teacher talking, so that students lack opportunities to articulate what theyhave learnt. (School 36, West Sussex)

Negative impact on classroom behaviour

There was overt recognition that such teacher-led approaches led to boring,monotonous lessons, and a resulting disengagement by pupils:

In weaker lessons, teachers tend to lecture the class and pupils become lessengaged. (School 4, London)

Further, that such disengagement requently led to disruption in class whichimpeded the learning o the majority:

Less successul lessons tend to be teacher directed, with ew opportunitiesto apply independent skills, and this slows the pace o learning. In a ewlessons that do not engage them, some students become involved in low-leveldisruption. (School 15, Cornwall)

Some lessons are dull and low-level disruption on the part o some studentsimpairs their learning and that o others. (School 21, Lancashire)

This tendency could be addressed by school leaders via CPD and via themodelling o best practice in the use o a variety o teaching and ormativeassessment methods. However, it may be that such top down pedagogicapproaches also relect teacher anxiety about the need to ensure and drillcontent coverage, and/or a distrust o the ability o their students to workadequately independently or in groups. There may also be a dual relationshipwith practice around behaviour: because the teachers are not conidentabout student behaviour, they revert to traditional approaches to control(including teacher-led pedagogies), which o course entrenches problems (seee.g. Lupton & Hempel-Jorgensen, orthcoming; Bloom, 2011). Indeed, these

latter possibilities appeared to be indicated in a ew inspector observationsconcerning the low expectations some teachers held o their pupils.

Low expectations

Very occasionally, lessons are inadequate because they are pitched at the wronglevel. For example, a ew teachers expectations o what students can achieveare too low. Lessons that are no better than satisactory suer rom being tooteacher led with tasks not adapted or the range o abilities in the classroom.(School 3, Greater London)

...the expectations or the lowest-attaining students have been too low.(School 5, Merseyside)

Clearly, there is a difcult balance, especially in schools where pupils are romdisadvantaged social backgrounds and achievement has been low, betweenensuring that pupils have a secure oundation o knowledge and skills to



enable exam success, and in supporting them to become independent, creativelearners. Again, it would be wrong to suggest that context has no bearing onthe possibilities o pedagogy and curriculum. However, it remains vital that apractitioner culture o low-expectations does not develop in schools as appliedto our pupils and/or specic groups o pupils (Gillborn & Youdell, 2000; Braunet al, 2011). Such attitudes can lead to an excuses culture that is deed by thesuccess o other schools in even the most disadvantaged areas. Specically, itcan reect negative stereotyping (e.g o White working class and/or Arican

Caribbean heritage pupils) that maniests in a lack o equal opportunities orsuch groups.

Lack of extension

A consequence o both teacher-led approaches and low expectations was a lacko extension or students learning, in terms o being able to explore and build ontheir learning, or extend their skills.

... teaching is not always suciently challenging, there is too much teacher talkand this limits students opportunities to take responsibility or their learning ordevelop collaborative or independence skills. (School 14, Middlesbrough)

Lesson plans are oten no more than a list o activities, and do not identiy well-structured opportunities to develop students knowledge, understanding andskills. (School 28, Oxordshire)

Such limitations have implications or student engagement and independent learning.

ASSESSMENT

Although an integral aspect o teaching and learning, limitations in assessmentpractice were noted so extensively that they are thereore attended in an individualsection here. Concerns over various aspects o assessment practice were specically

articulated by inspectors in nearly all the schools (see also Osted, 2010). Theseconcerns related both to practice in assessment o learning (i.e. in the classroomwith direct eedback to teaching), and to target setting, tracking, and intervention.A lack o consistency was, again, a repetitive theme. In many schools it wasobserved that pockets o good practice exist, but that this is not consistent acrossthe school concerned. Inspectors requently reerred to several dierent limitationswithin single schools. The ollowing example is indicative:

In some lessons, however, teachers learning objectives did not suciently assessand take into account the ull range o students prior attainment, and teachers didnot check the knowledge and skills students were acquiring beore moving on to

the next activity. There are a ew good examples o assessment and marking but,across the curriculum, the quality o oral and written eedback on students work,including marking, is inadequate. (School 34, Surrey)

These criticisms ell into several dierent discernable categories, as ollows:

Inconsistency in application o assessment data in planning

Inconsistency in eedback

Inconsistency in checking progress/ollowing up

Quality o eedback

Imprecise targets

Limited methods

However, it remainsvital that a practitionerculture o low-expectations does notdevelop in schools asapplied to our pupilsand/or specic groups

o pupils.



Inconsistency in use of assessment data in lesson planning

It was requently noted that in some schools, the assessment data available was notused (or used consistently) by teachers to inorm the design o lesson plans and/orwork with individual students.

There is too much inconsistency in the way that teachers use assessment andschool-held data to inorm lesson planning. (School 19, Yorkshire)

This also related to a specic concern at imprecision in target-setting:

Imprecise targets

There are pockets o good practice in assessment but teachers do not always... provide specic targets to help students, particularly the more able, to makeconsistently good progress and raise attainment. (School 16, Essex)

Inconsistency in feedback

A urther recurrent concern was about inconsistent eedback to students (both interms o written and oral eedback):

There is some inconsistency in the extent to which sta apply agreed protocolsor marking and eedback. These inconsistencies are reinorcing some studentsslow progress. (School 8, Yorkshire)

This o course also relates to quality o eedback.

Quality of feedback

The ollowing extracts rather speak or themselves:

Some marking is sharp, giving students precise inormation on how to improve,but sometimes marking lacks detail and guidance on how students shouldimprove or there is no marking at all. (School 7, Yorkshire)

Students usually know their targets but not necessarily how to reach them.Inspectors saw ew examples o marking which provided helpul and explicitguidance on how to improve. (School 28, Oxordshire)

Also variable is the quality o marking...Some sta make comments which are notollowed up. In a ew cases very little marking was evident. (School 6, Merseyside)

What is noticeable here is not just the striking inadequacy in some cases, but alsothe relative ease by which the situation might be remedied.

Inconsistency in checking progress/following up

A urther point noted in just a ew instances related to a lack o ollow-throughon assessment.

Likewise, while there is exemplary practice in marking, too oten students donot respond to guidance given, either because it is unspecic or because it is notollowed up. (School 35, Warwickshire)

Limited methods

The nal aspect was a lack o variety o methods in assessment practice.

There are a ew examples o pupils assessing their own and others learning

but this is limited. Marking in books is too inconsistent and does notsuciently inorm pupils how well they are doing and how they can improve.(School 12, Bedordshire)



However, this lack o variety and inclusion o peer/sel assessment methods wasnoted perhaps surprisingly inrequently. Indeed, given the common reerencesto inadequacies in other aspects o assessment (such as application in lessonplanning, and eedback), and the recognised importance o assessment or learning(Black and Wiliam, 1998; Black et al 2003), it would be interesting to know whetherthis lack o comment reected (adequate) practice in the schools or a lack o ocuson this aspect in Osted criteria/guidance.

BEHAVIOUR MANAGEMENT

There were negative allusions to pupils behaviour rom inspectors in aroundhal the sub-sample o satisactory schools (I am dierentiating here inspectorobservations rom the reported concerns o parents sometimes mentioned,which were not always substantiated by observations). We have already seenthe relatively-common reerences to poor classroom behaviour linked to poorquality teaching. However, there were urther observations relating to generaltrends, or particular issues such as behaviour in school corridors. Indicativeexamples include:

There is a lack o sel-discipline and independence demonstrated by somestudents both in and out o lessons. A minority o students also commentednegatively on the behaviour o others... [in some lessons] students becomedistracted resulting in behaviour which disrupts both their own and otherslearning. (School 18, Hull)

In some lessons, however, their behaviour was not good and disrupted learningor others. (School 6, Merseyside)

It was notable that in some schools discipline in classroom transer and punctualitywas inadequate.

[Behaviour] can be variable. Some students are slow in settling down, areinattentive and prone to chatter. (School 2, London)

Congestion in the corridors at lesson changeover leads to occasional incidentso over-boisterous behaviour. Punctuality o a minority is poor both at lessonchangeover and at the start o the school day. (School 3, Greater London)

This is an important aspect o whole-school systems and management, as it hasa detrimental impact on the amount o lesson time devoted to teaching and learning,which i added up over a school year can amount to a signicant proportion olearning lost or students (Francis et al, 2011)13.

Within class, there were concerns about inadequate behaviour management on thepart o some teachers:

In addition, a very small number o sta do not always tackle unacceptablebehaviour eectively. (School 11, Bristol)

But students express clear dissatisaction about the disruption caused by thepoor behaviour in lessons o a small minority. Many eel that behaviour isnot managed consistently well by all teachers and that the quality o teachingvaries between and within subjects. Most students say they eel sae in schooland know to whom to go i they have any concerns about saety or bullying.

However, students who spoke to inspectors said they were aware o incidentso bullying taking place. (School 28, Oxordshire)

13 Besides enculturing badpractice concerning punctualityand preparedness that mayimpact on young people beyondschooling.


27/42



However, progress in securing all the improvements needed in English andmathematics has been slow and the changes to the middle-managementstructure, having been delayed by a now resolved senior managers absence, arenot yet embedded. (School 29, Shropshire)

Attainment in English and mathematics has been poor, largely owing to stangdiculties. (School 21, Lancashire)

QUALITY OF MANAGEMENT/GOVERNANCE

Just over two-thirds o the reports included reerence to weaknesses in an aspect (oraspects) o leadership or governance. Just occasionally such criticism extended toall aspects o leadership:

...there are still some inconsistencies in the quality o leadership andmanagement, at all levels, resulting in variation in the monitoring andevaluation o teaching and learning, and in the implementation and monitoringo planned improvements. (School 31, Staordshire)

But ar more oten concern was directed at particular sta groups, as ollows:

Headteachers (or their absence)

The Senior Leadership Team

Governors

Middle management/subject leaders

Headteacher and Senior Leadership Team

Headteachers were almost never singled out directly (again reecting Osted policy,as direct criticism o leadership as a whole could trigger Notice to Improve [i theeducation being provided was at least satisactory] or Special Measures [i it were

not]). The only instance o the headteachers role being directly mentioned was inreerence to the lack o a head:

...the pace o improvement is constrained because there is no substantiveheadteacher and this contributes to capacity to improve being only satisactory.(School 25, Northumberland)

This example yet again highlights the impact o capacity and stafng issues onsatisactory outcomes. Indeed, Osteds longitudinal analysis sheds urther light,showing that a characteristic o satisactory schools with weaker leadership isthat they do not seem able to sustain progress across the board: while certain areas

previously identied as weak may have been addressed by the ollowing inspection,they have oten then allen back in other areas (Osted, 2011b).

More usually, leaders are reerred to in the plural, suggesting reerence to theheadteacher and Senior Leadership Team (SLT) (and potentially beyond). Thesereerences requently reerred to whole-school approaches (or the lack o them) or example, lack o whole school monitoring and analysis or lack o whole schoolsystems to model best practice:

...a lack o a whole-school improvement strategy and rigour in leaders actionplanning. Whole-school development plans are not sharp enough and do nothave measurable success criteria which can be used at regular intervals to check

on how well improvements are progressing. (School 5, Merseyside)

This example yetagain highlights theimpact o capacityand stang issues onsatisactory outcomes.



...there is still some variation in the quality o leadership and management atall levels, resulting in a lack o consistency in the monitoring and evaluation oteaching and learning, and in the implementation and monitoring o plannedprocedures and policies. (School 13, Bedordshire)

Such limitations were noted to impede accurate inormation and assessment,and hence to impede the ability o leaders to identiy and remedy practice whichrequires improvement. These criticisms concerning systems implementation and

resulting evaluation were occasionally specically levelled at the SLT, especiallywith regard to their management o sta:

The senior leadership team holds a broadly accurate view o the strengths andweaknesses within the school. However, sel-evaluation is not consistentlyrigorous enough, nor are sta held suciently to account to secure rapidimprovement in outcomes or all students. (School 26, Lancashire)

This reects a urther nding o the Osted analysis, that leadership o teachingappeared a consistent weakness in non-improving schools (Osted, 2011b), withevidence that some SLTs were not contributing to modelling and leading bestpractice. Certainly, given the ndings concerning inconsistent quality in teachingand learning, it appears vital that senior leaders are leading teaching, and nurturingproessionalism in terms o sharing good practice and reective development,throughout the team.

Governors

The governing body came in or relatively requent criticism within the sub-sampleschools. The dierent concerns are listed here, with an example rom the data toillustrate each.

Lack o strategic direction:

The eectiveness o the governing body is satisactorythe strategic directionthey give is too weak in some aspects o the schools perormance, includingtheir monitoring o action plans. (School 2, London)

Lack o challenge:

The governing body ... are not ully aware o the areas or improvement neededby the school and do not take a lead role in holding the school to account or itsactions and outcomes. (School 13, Bedordshire)

Insucient rigour/lack o awareness:

Governance is satisactory. The governing body is supportive but is not ullyinvolved in school improvement planning and school sel-evaluation. Thereore,whilst there are many examples o it challenging the school and holding it toaccount, the monitoring by the governing body o the schools progress lacksrigour. (School 26, Lancashire)

Inward acing:

The governing body meets its statutory responsibilities and is supportive but hasnot systematically sought the views o stakeholders. (School 16, Essex)

Lack o capacity:

Governors bring many strengths to the school but their workload has increasedbecause there are currently too many vacancies on the governing body.



Governors regularly receive detailed and accurate reports and updates romthe Headteacher and other sta. However, they are too dependent on themwhich means that they are rarely able to challenge or make comparisonswith local or national statistics. Whilst suitable targets and action plans areagreed, the systematic monitoring o progress towards them by governors isunderdeveloped. (School 33, Suolk)

Additional, specic issues (nb/ saeguarding arose especially requently):

Support provided by the governors is satisactory, but the governing bodyhas not challenged the school suciently about its policies and monitoringprocedures regarding saeguarding and behaviour issues. Saeguardingprocedures are sucient to ensure students saety; there are minoradministrative lapses in risk assessments, detailed recording and ollow-througho procedures. (School 34, Surrey)

This does suggest that governance remains an issue or many Satisactory schools.Clearly, such ndings suggest that schools and their governing bodies need to investenergy in securing committed and appropriately expert governors, and encouragingCPD or governing bodies and individual members. However, again, the capacityissues alluded to in the inspection commentaries suggest that some schools willnd such remedy easier than others.

Middle management/subject leaders

Criticism o middle management was relatively requent, and tended toreect inconsistent management, as well as explanations or the above notedinconsistencies in teaching and learning. Lack o systematisation and modellingagain arose requently, e.g.

As yet, the heads o department do not ensure that all sta are using assessmentinormation about students progress to inorm their individual learning needs

in lessons. (School 14, Middlesbrough)

Such limitations sometimes resulted in over-optimistic conclusions in sel-evaluation and/or concerning pupil progress.

The quality o middle management is variable and this can be seen in thecontribution made by middle managers to the schools sel-evaluation.(School 2, London)

Again, inconsistent quality was requently noted:

However the quality o subject leadership is variable and some subject leaders arenot yet contributing ully to the schools drive or improvement. (School 10, Bristol)

And weak management was also identied:

As yet heads o departments do not hold their teams ully to account or the useo assessment inormation to inorm learning. (School 9, Tyne-and-Wear)

Indeed, some would see such weakness reected in lack o consistent good qualityin teaching and learning. A urther interesting nding concerned capacity orchange. It appeared that in some cases root and branch changes while necessary

were being implemented at a rate that was unsustainable and lowering sta

morale and capacity as a result:

Some sta have not had sucient time and training to help them adapt to,and eel condent in, their new roles and responsibilities, and in implementing

Schools and theirgoverning bodies needto invest energy insecuring committedand appropriatelyexpert governors, andencouraging CPD or

governing bodies andindividual members.



revised working practices. Recent changes in the school represent a signicantand rapid change o culture or many sta, students and parents and carers,which has led to a sense o uncertainty and anxiety or many, refected in theirresponses to the inspection questionnaires. (School 28, Oxordshire)

Relatedly, in some cases it seemed that there was insufcient existing capacity tosuccessully enable the necessary changes:

A range o strategies, guidance and training to help teachers improve havebeen deployed, but this has been overwhelming or some teachers and thereis a lack o clarity about exactly what is expected. Although subject leadersare involved in new initiatives and various working groups, they do nothave a lead role in quality assuring the work o their own teams and are notsuciently able to model good practice and to tackle any underperormance.(School 27, Loug

Documents

Becky Francis 2011_(Un)Satisfactory, Enhancing Life Chances by Improving Satisfactory Schools