A recipe for complacency?

The report of the February 2009 ISI inspection of Orwell Park is now published on-line (it can be found here). By any standards it can only be described as exceptional, the key summary coming in paragraph 5.4: 'The school has no significant weaknesses'. A recipe for complacency if ever there was one. If only the same could be said of the inspection itself. It runs to a mere 20 pages, compared to the 44 of its 2003 predecessor.  One department received not a single lesson observation from the inspection team; the same department, as it happens, which was totally ignored in the previous inspection report, much to the chagrin of the then Head of Department. The inspectors themselves are not to blame; they are only, to quote the dictum used in a different context, carrying out the orders of others. As far as the academic side of things is concerned, the nature of the current phase of inspections represents a retrograde step, and is far less helpful from the school's perspective. The comments are thematic rather than departmental: general comments about excellence do not refer to specific subjects, denying those responsible the public recognition they deserve, and if there were to be any adverse comments (let's say, for example, about poor marking), these would not identify specific departments; thus rendering impossible the targeting by senior management of such departments for improvement. The inspectors worked incredibly hard before, during, and immediately after the inspection. One has the impression that it's something of a treadmill for them, however much they may enjoy witnessing the workings of another school. If only the Independent Schools Inspectorate would reconsider the nature of the remit they impose on their inspection teams: the teaching in schools would improve and standards would be driven up as a result. As for Orwell Park, its staff are far too professional to be lulled into complacency by such fulsome compliments, however flattering.