Is satisfactory ever good enough?

Suppose, as a trainer, you were rated 'satisfactory' by your trainees, would you think this was good enough?   My dictionary says that satisfactory means 'adequate or acceptable'.  Is it OK to be an adequate trainer or does it suggest room for improvement?  Is satisfactory a euphemism for mediocre?

I pondered these questions while listening to the new Ofsted chief inspector, Sir Michael Wilshaw, and Professor Becky Francis at a recent RSA event.  The occasion was inspired by the publication of an RSA report about how to improve schools categorised as 'satisfactory' by Ofsted inspectors.  This is an important issue since 40 per cent of secondary schools inspected in 2010/11 were graded as 'satisfactory' and pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds are over-represented in these schools.  Furthermore, a combination of being a 'satisfactory' school and having lots of disadvantaged pupils make improvement less likely. Nearly 50 per cent of 'satisfactory' schools fail to improve and stay 'satisfactory' at their next inspection.

The RSA report recommends that 'satisfactory' be scrapped and replaced with 'performs inconsistently'.  This is because their study has found that even satisfactory schools tend to have pockets of good practice.  An overall rating of satisfactory tended, therefore, to be an average, with some things much better and some things worse.  Sir Michael agrees that satisfactory is not satisfactory and has changed the category to 'requires improvement'.  So, in future Ofsted will use four categories; outstanding, good, requires improvement and inadequate.  Furthermore, the frequency of inspections is to be stepped up for schools that require improvement - no longer than 18 months - and, if a school hasn't improved it will go into special measures.   And, all inspections are to be unannounced to avoid things being rigged.

Of course, abolishing 'satisfactory' and replacing it with 'requires improvement' is the easy bit.  Precisely how a school, perhaps in a challenging socio-economic area, with high unemployment etc, sets about improving its performance is the intriguing bit.  As you might expect, the RSA make a number of recommendations from having incentive schemes to attract good teachers to getting school governors to monitor progress more closely.  It also wants Ofsted reports to be more specific in recommending how a given school should improve.  'Reports should elaborate not just what broad-sweep changes need to be effected, but also suggest how these might be accomplished, and provide milestones for doing so' .  Furthermore, the RSA are recommending the establishment of a nation-wide support system to offer advice and foster school-to-school learning. 

Sir Michael takes more of a tough love approach.  He is adamant that standards have improved in schools since testing and league tables were introduced.  He wants to create a 'no excuses' culture and sees the role of head teachers as pivotal in bringing about improvements.  He wants heads to have high expectations, to challenge the status quo and to performance manage robustly. 

So, fascinatingly, you have two rather contrasting approaches to bringing about improvements; one tending to be relatively soft and supportive and the other tough and challenging.  It reminds me of McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y.  Sir Michael didn't actually say so, but it sounded as if he is a Theory X man, assuming that underperforming heads want an easy life and are resistant to change.  He therefore sees closer monitoring and tightening up as the best way forward. 

Professor Francis, by contrast, worries that this will alienate rather than improve underperforming heads.  The category she proposes, 'performs inconsistently', assumes that schools will always have some strengths, albeit in pockets, that need to be identified and promulgated.  This is classic Theory Y - providing schools with the support they need to build on their strengths. 

Of course, McGregor maintained that Theory Y approaches generally got better results.  It remains to be seen what works with schools that are not doing well enough.  One thing is for sure; changing 'satisfactory' to 'requires improvement' sends a clear, unambiguous signal. 'Satisfactory' schools will no longer find it so easy to be complacent about reducing the life chances of their pupils.       

Peter Honey FRSA, FCIPD, FIMC is a chartered psychologist and founder of Peter Honey Publications. He can be contacted at peterhoney1@btinternet.com or via www.peterhoney.org