Did she or didn’t she?

One of the more dramatic moments of the High Court trial earlier this year was the declaration by Cotham School’s Headteacher, Jo Butler, that she had never said that Ofsted required schools to fence their playing fields. It caused quite a ripple in the courtroom. She confirmed multiple times that she had never said that either Ofsted or the Department for Education required perimeter fencing, whether for schools generally or for Cotham in particular.

It’s surprising, then, that so many people have thought over the years that this is exactly what she, and others at the school, were saying. A local resident wrote to Ofsted in 2018 to check directly with them; Darren Jones MP contacted both Ofsted and the DfE; the local press reported the school’s statement that a fence was ‘the “only reasonable solution” and an Ofsted requirement’.

So did everyone completely misunderstand what the school was saying? Or did everyone think exactly what the school intended them to think? Let’s see what Jo Butler has said over the years, starting with her evidence to the 2016 TVG1 public inquiry.

First, she cited an example of a primary school which she says was judged ‘inadequate’ in 2014 due to the site not being secure – but note that this is about the actual school site and access to the school building, not about playing fields 3 miles away. And shall we look at what that Ofsted report actually said?

That… isn’t about perimeter fencing around playing fields. Nor was it the only reason for the school being judged inadequate – you can look the report up for yourself and see that the school was judged inadequate at the time on every measure (no shade to Bisham School, which is now rated ‘Good’).

Next she referenced Crowstone School at which, again, the security of the school buildings had apparently been found to be unsatisfactory. This was a private prep school with 36 pupils, so possibly not a great comparator (do we hear the sound of a barrel being scraped?). Then she referred to Newmarket Academy, which she said had been placed into special measures in October 2013. We’ve talked more about this school elsewhere, and how the headteacher there worked very collaboratively with the local community. However, what Ms Butler takes from the Newmarket example is this:

The local Newmarket press at the time reported that Ofsted had rated ‘the quality of teaching, behaviour and leadership and management as inadequate’. So putting up a perimeter fence around the main school site (and on-site playing field) was clearly not the action that brought the school out of special measures. But the core message here seems to be: ‘Cotham could be severely downgraded by Ofsted if we don’ t have a fence at Stoke Lodge’. If so, it’s not surprising that people (including, apparently, the Inspector at the time) understood it, in short, as ‘Ofsted requires a fence for safeguarding’.

It wasn’t just at the public inquiry, either – here are minutes from a meeting of Cotham’s Full Governing Body on 5 April 2017:

Now, if you look up either of the relevant Ofsted reports, you can easily see that the problems for each school were not the lack of a perimeter fence around their playing fields. Nor was a ‘requirement’ to ‘more effectively fence their playing fields’ mentioned anywhere in either report. And if you look up the press report mentioned, Ofsted provides a quote:

[Ofsted] said: “Inspectors look at a wide range of evidence when evaluating the effectiveness of safeguarding in schools, and they will not normally find safeguarding to be ineffective because of a single shortcoming, such as site security. We do not have particular expectations about how a school manages issues around site security, although we would expect such risks to be properly considered and managed. “

So the comments noted in governors’ minutes also seem rather misleading, don’t they?

What about communications to parents? In late 2016 the school campaigned for school parents to write letters opposing village green status at Stoke Lodge. Here’s the start of a template letter that was provided (we assume on the Head’s say-so):

And here’s the critical paragraph:

What do we think Cotham School parents were meant to understand and repeat? That Stoke Lodge ‘must’ be fenced off, because ‘this is an Ofsted requirement’? Clearly many did understand it exactly that way, and were probably surprised in 2018 when evidence started coming back from Ofsted that it wasn’t a requirement at all (read more about this here).

But there’s more: here’s an extract from the school’s own notes of a meeting on 21 May 2018 (which were intended to remain confidential):

At this meeting, Jo Butler informed the community members present that:

We don’t know what school she was referring to, but it’s more than clear from Ofsted’s handbook for Inspectors and multiple other Ofsted and DfE guidance that a school would not have been put into special measures because of a lack of fencing around their playing fields, particularly if those playing fields were 3 miles away from the main school site.

As we said two years ago (with remarkable foresight, as it turns out): ‘Claims may have been made by the school during the TVG application process that could not be repeated under oath in court’. And they weren’t repeated. Ms Butler very properly admitted that there is no requirement – from either Ofsted or the Department for Education – for perimeter fencing. But even while she was saying that in court, the school’s website was still designed to give a different impression. The following was published in May 2023 (and remains there at the time of writing):

You can read why this ‘Frequently Asked Question’ is more like a ‘Misleadingly Answered Question’ here – and note that when we asked the DfE about the document referred to by the school, it said:

Cotham School has never corrected the impression, built up over years of careful and not-so-careful wording, that Ofsted requires a fence. Ms Butler may never have said those precise words in that order – but we’ll leave it to everyone to make their own minds up about what the school intended everyone (public, press, parents, pupils) to think.

If perimeter fencing is not a ‘requirement’ (it isn’t), and Ofsted simply requires ‘reasonable and proportionate’ approaches to safeguarding (it does) then there is no ‘need’ or ‘necessity’ for a perimeter fence. Every parent teaches their children the difference between ‘needing’ and ‘wanting’. Cotham School wants a perimeter fence, that’s very clear. But it may not be able to have one at Stoke Lodge because of restrictions in the lease and the law (public rights of way) and other matters. And that’s ok, because as Ms Butler also admitted in court, other schools manage to safeguard pupils effectively on open access playing fields, and there’s no reason why her staff can’t do the same. Or Cotham could fence an area for its own use, within a larger open field in which pitch layouts aren’t impeded by fencing – that’s what they currently hire at Golden Hill, after all. Perhaps despite all the legal turmoil, a compromise is staring everyone in the face!