Memorandum submitted by Summerhill School
The following is Summerhill School's response
to "7. Memorandum submitted by Ofsted" as published
on pages Ev 34 and Ev 35 of "The Work of Ofsted, Sixth Report
of Session 2002-03, House of Commons Education and Skills Committee".
INTRODUCTION
We feel the contents of the written evidence
from David Bell, HMCI, unfairly represents the events and issues
of the dispute between Ofsted, DfES and Summerhill School. The
statements in appearing to respond to our submission are highly
misleading, giving the impression that the school is no longer
defined as "failing" due to changes it has made. This
serves only to continue the injustices that occurred during Summerhill's
1999 inspection and its subsequent report and Notice of Complaint.
Summerhill is still faced with the effects of
its 1999 report being referenced (eg Kent LEA referencing it as
its primary evidence against Summerhill during a Special Education
Needs Appeal). Summerhill wants to move on, and hopes that what
has been learnt has contributed to a system that will not allow
other schools to suffer in the same way. We feel David Bell's
response sadly does not reflect this.
SUMMARY
1. Misleading through omission.
2. Ofsted apology ignored.
3. Adjudicator's criticisms left out.
4. Senior Ofsted staff criticised.
5. Values of accountability, fairness and
respect.
6. Changes at Summerhill.
7. Economical with the truth.
8. Summerhill refused to change.
9. Summerhill wins in the Royal Courts of
Justice.
10. Summerhill still judged by 1999 Report.
11. Will the school be allowed to move on?
12. School working positively with Inspectors.
13. Recommendations to the Committee.
14. Report comments on David Bell and Ofsted.
1. David Bell's response to the Summerhill
submission, and Paul Holmes' question to him at the Education
and Skills Committee, is rather like Ofsted's response to the
Adjudicator, misleading through omission at the very least.
2. For three days eight inspectors managed
to observe and fill-in observation forms on two out of classroom
activities at Summerhill in 1999. When confronted with this appalling
lack of inspection of out of class activities the team leader,
Neville Grenyer, officially apologised. This apology was ignored
by the adjudicator in her final report, and in their evidence
to her Ofsted falsely claimed they went out of their way to inspect
non-lesson activities! Over the years the school has continuously
informed inspectors that activities inside and outside of the
classrooms were of equal importance to its provision for its students.
The Ofsted inspectors knew that you could not fairly inspect the
school, according to its philosophy, if this was not taken into
account.
3. David Bell quotes the non-committal conclusion
of the adjudicator, ignoring her criticisms of the team that they
made conclusions without apparent evidence, especially in relation
to the claims of the drift in school culture, of children confusing
freedom with the pursuit of idleness, and of failing to explain
the conflict between Ofsted's inspection framework and Summerhill.
Infact the team leader, Neville Grenyer, as did the Ofsted inspector
in our most recent registration inspection, referenced the "National
Curriculum" as the definition of a broad and balanced curriculum,
one point the judges at our Royal Courts of Justice appeal did
their utmost to criticise.
4. David Bell quotes the Adjudicator, "At
the same time, it is clear that Ofsted has taken the matter seriously
and devoted a significant amount of time of senior staff to considering
and responding to the complaint". This is hardly surprising
when you consider the Ofsted team being criticised. The team of
eight included Cliff Gould HMI responsible for inspections of
secondary schools in England (now responsible for teacher training
inspection) who arrived one day late and spent much of his time
on his mobile phone dealing with enquiries about the 1999 Ofsted
report on racism, and Neville Grenyer HMI responsible for inspections
of private secondary schools.
5. Summerhill, throughout its numerous inspections
has been open and helpful to inspectors, who have been grateful
for our hospitality, though admittedly we have confronted them
when we felt unfairly treated. It is a shame that the values of
the school, accountability, fairness and respect were not and
have not been displayed by Ofsted.
6. When David Bell references the three
points of the school's Notice of Complaint, that we agreed to
comply with from the beginning, he omits the three that we went
to court over because we refused to implement them. In remedying
the health and safety we simply continued with our ongoing plan
of school building improvement and elected a health and safety
committee to regularly inspect the school. With weaknesses in
teaching and the curriculum in Key Stage 2 we simply replaced
a teacher. The reference to development in management practices,
policies and peer review, were changes implemented before the
1999 inspection, and were part of our action plan at the time.
7. These issues have never been in dispute,
and they were not a part of our dispute with Oftsed and the DfES.
For David Bell to reference them as if these changes resulted
in Summerhill no longer being threatened with closure, and indeed
being praised in its latest inspection, is an incredible slight
of hand with the truth. Much like that of the DfES's claims after
the Appeal Court Case outcome, which was covered by the Observer
and Radio 4's "The Message" programme as "spinning"
going too far.
8. Summerhill refused to comply with three
parts of the Notice of Complaint; 1. The segregation of toilets
for male, female and students and staff; 2. To ensure children
are either in classrooms learning or engaged in independent study;
3. To assess the children throughout their lives at the school.
9. These three were withdrawn by a Court
Appeal as a result of an agreement with the DfES, in which Summerhill
stated it would not change but simply continue to share the teaching
staff's good practice!
10. David Bell states, "it is clear
that Summerhill remains unhappy with the 1999 inspection report
and our response to their complaint about the inspection".
Yes, we are still being judged by a report that fails the school,
despite a successful court battle, an adjudication that states
at least two of the main conclusions of the report had no evidence,
and a successful registration inspection.
11. We wholeheartedly agree with the adjudicator
when she concluded with the hope that her report would ".
. . enable Summerhill to move on from the experience of the 1999
inspection and to help both Ofsted and Summerhill to develop a
constructive and productive working relationship." When history
is rewritten or misrepresented in defence of that inspection and
its report, and that report is the only contemporary published
Ofsted document on the school, when will David Bell and Ofsted
allow us to move on?
12. We continue, as always, to work positively,
on the ground, with Ofsted inspectors, as independently observed
by the DfES adviser Professor Paul Hirst, and are happy with our
present inspection process. It is simply a great shame that the
school's reputation will only be finally vindicated on the publication
of its next full inspection report in several years time.
13. We make the following recommendations
to the Education and Skills Committee:
(a)
ensure that all court cases involving Ofsted are
referenced in the HMCI's annual report to the committee so that
they can be held accountable and lessons learnt;
(b)
ensure that there is an ethos in Ofsted that allows
for learning from mistakes instead of defending its reputation;
(c)
in the interests of justice ensure that adjudications
are fully published and accompany all copies, electronic or physical,
of the original report;
(d)
review the status of Ofsted statements about schools,
especially when they redefine a school as successful instead of
failing. Are the statements public, private or published? What
effects does this have on the perception of a school in terms
of the public, press, Local Education Authorities etc;
(e)
examine the definition of a broad and balanced curriculum,
in relation to Summerhill's experiences, the present emphasis
on diversity in education, the practice and inspection of home
education;
(f)
allow every school to have their own `adviser' involved
in the inspection process who can feed back during the inspection
and the verbal review, and input an assessment of the inspection
for inclusion, or at least reference, in the Ofsted published
report; and
(g)
that every inspection should not only have a section
that reviews the opinions of students and their school council
but that it should evaluate the school's implementation of the
Convention of the Rights of the Child.
14. My inspection report for David Bell
and Ofsted would be summarised as "excellent communication
skills, especially in editing, but needs to review its understanding
of citizenship and responsible participation. It confuses open
accountability with the pursuit of defending their reputation."
August 2003
| 
