Well that was a strangely incongruent report! The result is that the school is DOWNGRADED - the inspector said so. (Why was he not an H.M.I.?)

According to Chris Woodhead there is no direct equivalence between the previous 7 grades and the new 4 grades . "The precise meaning of satisfactory is confused. Common usage suggests that things are all right but not particularly good. David Bell the current Chief Inspector says "SATISFACTORY IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH" ..........Mediocre springs to mind.

Of the 26 numerical grades there were 11 Goods 14 Satisfactories and 1 inadequate.

Personal Dev and Well-Being are generally good;Overall effectiveness -Satisfactory ;Quality of provision -mostly Good; Leadership and Management - Satisfactory; and Achievement and standards -mostly Satisfactory with one 'Exceptionally low'

But what does "THE STANDARDS REACHED BY LEARNERS ARE EXCEPTIONALLY LOW" mean Isn't this the main objective of the school.. Is it anything to do with P scales being manipulated unbelievably high previously?

So why was the inspector there? Allegations of lack of care from several sources, and more specific complaints. This is where things don't match up. The inspector says " A small group of parents..." This is not the Web asters experience - it is a SIGNIFICANT MINORITY who are being ignored and /or badly treated. It seems the inspection procedure is to dismiss any minority which is plainly not right..Contrary to popular opinion we are not complaining about the whole school, or about most of the staff, but maybe it is not the time or place during a snapshot inspection to get evidence to support the criticisms . A mature Head and Governors would take criticism and complaints seriously and try to address them and discuss them instead of playing silly games trying to demonise anyone who raises a complaint

Remember, Parents an inspection is not a panacea for all ills. However he will have to stand-by his decisions if these things are subsequently proved.Thinspector did not address - for example the amalgamation of Learning and Social Services which leaves a dangerous vacuum when there is a questionmark about care in school as there is from time to time (in any school) particularly with vulnerable children

Somewhat disturbing is that the Inspector (non HMI) came from Cambridge Education previously Cambridge Ed .Associaties, probably consisting of several previous LEA employees , and Camb Ed Ass were within a whisker of winning the privatisation bid 2 years ago. Permission was given to privatise individual sections . Is Camb Ed anything to do with the NMSS plans ? If so that would make it very unethical for them to supply an Inspector?

So no more parental info from school, no get togethers at school, many unresolved issues, no help from social sevices, NMSS without anyone being told the plans, no action plans, short or long term in the Govs reports etc. and a 'not good enough school' Grim isn't it

Keep talking on the INTERACTIVE MESSAGE BOARD and we'll arrange another meeting