Ofsted, inspectors and fences

The main argument that Cotham School has repeatedly rolled out to oppose our applications for Town or Village Green status is about safeguarding. In its bid to defeat our applications, it has claimed that there is some ‘statutory incompatibility’ – that is, some regulatory reason why they simply can’t provide PE lessons at Stoke Lodge if there is no perimeter fence.

You can hear Jo Butler, Headteacher of Cotham School, explaining her argument to the Public Rights of Way and Greens Committee on this link at 23:40 onwards. She says:

“The school is under a statutory duty to provide sufficient outdoor space for its students. It has no other land available for this purpose except this land. The school is also under very strict safeguarding duties which make it impossible to allow the general public to use the land whilst its students are present. The applicants have mentioned other state schools in the city. I think I’m on very good terms with those state heads and they too are concerned about the amount of access the public have to their playing fields because of safeguarding concerns. Granting these applications would have very serious consequences for the operation of our school within the current regulatory framework.”

Jo Butler, speaking to the PROWG Committee on 28 June 2023

Let’s look at that in more detail. First, it’s true that the school is under a statutory duty to provide suitable outdoor space ‘in order to enable (a) physical education to be provided to pupils in accordance with the school curriculum; and (b) pupils to play outside’. For those who like sources, that’s paragraph 29 of schedule 1 of the Education (Independent School Standards) Regulations 2014.

Being 3 miles away from Cotham’s actual school site, we’re clearly not looking at pupils ‘playing outside’ at break times here – it’s about having outdoor space to enable PE to be provided to pupils in accordance with the school curriculum. Cotham does that in a number of ways in addition to using its indoor sports hall – by using the multi-use games area and all-weather pitch it has on site; by hiring facilities from other providers; and by travelling to Stoke Lodge for some of its outdoor PE provision.

Registration of Stoke Lodge as a TVG makes no difference to the lease – the school will still have Stoke Lodge available to use for PE (subject, as now, to use by the community). So Ms Butler’s argument is apparently that, once registered, the land is no longer ‘suitable’, with the result that they would not have sufficient ‘suitable outdoor space’.

Why would the land no longer be suitable? Because, she says, “The school is also under very strict safeguarding duties which make it impossible to allow the general public to use the land whilst its students are present.” But is that true? She immediately contradicts herself by acknowledging that we are entirely correct when we point to other schools in Bristol and elsewhere that use detached playing fields and other outdoor spaces to which the public (and dogs) have access. Those schools are under precisely the same safeguarding duties as Cotham School – so clearly it’s not ‘impossible to allow the general public to use the land whilst its students are present’. Nor did Cotham think that was ‘impossible’ when it used to do exactly this at Stoke Lodge, nor when it agreed a lease with Bristol City Council that expressly provided for ongoing shared use with the community – and the regulations have not changed. Is Jo Butler suggesting that the school previously breached the regulations or that it knowingly signed a lease that it considered would put it in breach of the regulations? Of course not! The statement that they cannot provide PE on land to which the public has access is simply not true.

Ms Butler then appears to throw the heads of those other schools under the bus by suggesting that they are ‘concerned’ about public access – but clearly, those headteachers have found appropriate ways to mitigate their concerns, in order to meet their safeguarding duties. We assume she isn’t suggesting they are in breach of the regulations. And in fact, both of the schools we referred to have been inspected in the past 18 months and rated ‘good’, with Ofsted commenting in both cases that ‘The arrangements for safeguarding are effective.’

Ms Butler finished by saying that “Granting these applications would have very serious consequences for the operation of our school within the current regulatory framework.” But let’s assume that Ofsted, the body charged with inspecting schools, is familiar with the current regulatory framework. Ofsted publishes an inspection handbook to keep schools, inspectors and the public informed of its expectations. It has updated that handbook with a new version that will go live in September 2023. Here’s what the handbook says about safeguarding:

This isn’t the first time that Ofsted has made clear that there is no requirement under the current regulatory framework for perimeter fencing, in relation to either safeguarding or site security. Other methods of ensuring safeguarding – like the fact that staff are present at Stoke Lodge with the pupils during lessons – were completely omitted from Cotham’s risk assessment.

But it’s particularly good to know that Ofsted inspectors do not have a view about the need for perimeter fences because, as Ms Butler informed her school’s Governing Body in March, she herself has now trained to become an Ofsted inspector:

As we’ve repeatedly said, it’s time for a fresh start. Claims may have been made by the school during the TVG application process that could not be repeated under oath in court, and no one wants to see more education funds thrown away on pointless legal challenges. It’s time to draw a line under the past and move forward in a new cooperative spirit.

Building bridges with the community, rather than fences to exclude them, is a much more intelligent way of ensuring the best outcomes for all concerned.