22nd June 2007 at 01:00
Q. We recently had an inspection and the outcome was that our school has been given a notice to improve. This was based solely on our contextual value added (CVA) scores, even though the inspectors agreed the school has many good features.

They told us that if our CVA score had been better, we would have been graded as good. The thing I find so unfair about this is that we are a middle school, so our CVA scores are basically constructed by looking at another local schools' results.

Can CVA scores really dictate the whole outcome of an inspection, and how is this fair when so many good things are happening in the school?.

A. Where a school's overall grade is pulled down by just one aspect, in your case achievement, staff quite often feel hard done by. However, saying if it weren't for the achievement we'd be a good school, is rather reminiscent of music hall comedian Gus Elan's refrain: "Wiv a ladder and some glasses, you could see to 'Ackney marshes, if it wasn't for the 'ouses in between."

Although some features might be good, I find it hard to envisage a scenario where a school's overall effectiveness "would have been graded as good" but for the achievement. After all, for a school to be issued a notice to improve for achievement, inspectors will have determined that it is not providing an acceptable standard of education. The concern you raise about CVA in middle schools is one I have come across many times. The suggestion is that either the assessments from the first schools are exaggerated, or that pupils are allowed to coast in the key stage 2 years before they come to you. If you have other evidence of progress and achievement, then inspectors will certainly look at it if you draw it to their attention.

What they cannot do is pass judgments or comments about schools that they are not actually inspecting. Nor can they wholly disregard the pupils'

published assessment scores. If the school believes that key stage 1 data is "inflated", or that pupils aren't making sufficient progress in key stage 2 in their first schools, then why is the school not raising this concern and doing something about it with the first schools, or through the local authority? Simply rebasing your starting point for measuring adding value is masking, rather than tackling, the underachievement

Selwyn Ward draws on years of inspection experience. The views expressed here are his own. To ask him a question, contact him at regularly answers your Ofsted questions on our forums at

Log-in as an existing print or digital subscriber

Forgotten your subscriber ID?


To access this content and the full TES archive, subscribe now.

View subscriber offers


Get TES online and delivered to your door – for less than the price of a coffee

Save 33% off the cover price with this great subscription offer. Every copy delivered to your door by first-class post, plus full access to TES online and the TES app for just £1.90 per week.
Subscribers also enjoy a range of fantastic offers and benefits worth over £270:

  • Discounts off TES Institute courses
  • Access over 200,000 articles in the TES online archive
  • Free Tastecard membership worth £79.99
  • Discounts with Zipcar,, Virgin Wines and other partners
Order your low-cost subscription today