The Children's Results At The End Of Fs Are Good- Therefore That&#

[Guest kelh81]

The children make good progress in Nursery and results at the end of FS are good- therefore that's satisfactory...

 

Got 'done' this week, the inspector used those exact words to explain why we were awarded satisfactory instead of good- does this make sense to anyone?! They said teaching was good, provision was good, activities were suitable, good balance between AI/ CI activities.... but despite everything being described as good we are satisfactory because we operate as a separate Nursery & Reception class rather than a unit and therefore lack the cohesion necessary to support the most able and least able. I know that this is they was FS is going and that's the ideal set up but I find it hard to believe that my children have not made good progress because of this. Grrrrr!

 

Just needed to let off steam!

[Guest]

That really is crazy - if your children make good progress, are happy and secure what more can they want! If everything is good then you should not be marked down just for not running as an FS unit. Stupid Ofsted!!!

[Guest]

I would argue that it could be possible (not saying it is probable) that running as a 'unit' would require extended communication, if this isn't good it could effectively reduce cohesion too.

 

Hope the 'letting off steam' has helped, but I 'feel' your frustration.

 

Peggy

[Guest]

Just goes to show what a complete farce the Ofsted system is.

 

glad you could let off steam try to get rid of it now and carry on with your good work!

[Guest]

I am sorry that the "O" people have upset someone else............ AGAIN!!!!!!!

 

I did just want to say though, that we were "done" in February, and we do not work as a foundation stage unit, but we work very closely with reception, in planning, doing things together "mix up days" etc and this was something that the O team wanted to see. They also looked closely at how we managed transition and one of the key statements in the report said we worked very well together as a team.

If you are in a school setting now with seperate LA nursery and reception class they do want to see this "team work" and the report gets written to reflect both halves of the foundation stage as a whole.

 

So again sorry you didn't feel the report reflected the comments.................. and yet again Ofsted bash someones confidence and spirit!!

[AnonyMouse_3307]

It's always hard but this is the logic as I understand it behind that comment from an Ofsted perspective which may help see it less guttingly (if that word exists!!)

 

They don't see it as just about the final level of attainment, it's about the rate of progress from their on entry starting point.

 

So: we have national expectations re where children generally are against ages/stages of development that Ofsted define in their inspection guidance.

 

Broadly:

If your children generally come in at national expectations on entry and carry on progressing at that rate- always hitting the expectations that would be seen as satisfactory progress.

If children came in below national but progress was accelerated to be at national at the end that would be good progress because you have increased their outcomes from a lower starting point.

If children came in at national expectations but were below national expectations at the end that would be unsatisfactory progress

 

It also relates to the % of children getting a "good overall level of attainment" defined by OFSTED as not just getting 78 points+ but within those points 6+ in all 7 PSED/CLLD scales. This marker is overlooked by schools I work with, they focus on the children getting 78+ but don't see that within that the % of good overalls is much much lower.

 

So it would seem to me that the Inspector is saying with that comment she considers children make good progress in nursery (from a lower starting point than national???I don't know) but then this is only kept at that same rate of progress in reception as outcomes are still matched at good so children don't make better than satisfactory progress overall. She may also have been looking at progress of vulnerable groups and the gap between their outcomes and the rest, indicated by her commentary re the more able and less able and their rates of progress vs attainment.

 

Her commentary about not being a unit is slightly misleading I feel as many schools operate separated classes due to buildings etc and this has no bearing on the matter of good or better outcomes I feel.

 

Hope that puts some perspective on it so you can move forward

Cx

[AnonyMouse_13453]

That was really interesting Catma, thankyou. Made perfect sense to me and I can now appreciate where their wording on the grading has come from, and my post isn't going to be the outraged pouring of vitriol it was going to be!

 

However, I do feel that the inspector should have qualified the judgement better at the time - if it had been explained like this there would have been no need for kelh81 to get upset in the first place.

[Guest kelh81]

That makes a lot more sense than just 'not being a unit'.as a reason why. I agree completely that we don't work together as a team, for various reasons that I won't go into. However I understand more now why we were awarded satisfactory and not good and it makes sense! It would have been nicer if he could have explained more fully his reasons to us! We commented as a staff that he had zero peronal skills but I suppose, being only part human, he couldn't really help this....

Edited May 2, 2009 by kelh81

[AnonyMouse_3307]

I think you could probably say to yourselves that there are elements of good as he has indicated that in some of the other things they said. You just have to wait for the draft really as often they say far more in the feedback than they can write and it's what's written that counts!!

 

But I'm glad it helped to calm you down!!!!!!

CX

Edited May 2, 2009 by catma