Shame, blame, acclaim

In deepest Norfolk, a tiny primary school was suddenly castigated as a failure. Only six terms later, government inspectors are holding it up as proof that their medicine works wonders. By Lucy Ward

Two years ago, all was not well under the gabled roof of tiny Erpingham primary school. An inspection by the schools watchdog Ofsted found the picture-pretty school, set down a quiet lane in north Norfolk farmland, was not providing its 24 pupils with an acceptable standard of education. In the pull-no-punches parlance now favoured in inspection matters, it was a failing school.

Six terms later, a record time in terms of school improvement, Erpingham has clambered from the mire. Its "failing" label was removed by inspectors in only a year and most of its lessons are not just satisfactory, but good or better. And, having been held up publicly as a failure, it is included - anonymously - as an example of good practice in a report on how struggling schools can reverse their fortunes.

From Failure to Success, published by Ofsted today, is the inspectorate's attempt to show that there is life after the dreaded "special measures" imposed on failing schools. Like a stern but benevolent nanny, Ofsted is anxious to show that, though its medicines may taste nasty, they work.

From September 1993, when inspectors were first required to state if a school needed special measures, to July 1996 - the period covered by the report - 200 schools were found to be failing. Of those, 10, including Erpingham, have improved enough to shake off their special status, while 12 have closed. The rest, the study says, are showing "differing levels of improvement", with most of them progressing reasonably well.

An observer seeking a common thread to explain failure would find no clue among the types of school with the label. The special measures list, which represents about 2 per cent of institutions inspected, ranges from inner-city secondaries and primaries to special schools and rural village schools, though many do serve pupils from areas with high levels of deprivation.

Ofsted, however, is convinced that failing schools in town or country generally fail in the same way. Their key characteristics, according to the report, are under-achievement and low attainment by pupils, a high proportion of unsatisfactory teaching, and ineffective leadership.

Erpingham, with its two classrooms and two full-time teachers, including the head, demonstrated all three weaknesses two years ago. A significant minority of pupils were under-achieving, and standards in writing and numeracy were unsatisfactory. Teaching in half the lessons was of low quality, and leadership of the curriculum was poor.

The head, Wyatt Earp, a rare exception to the rule that a change of head is the first step to recovery in a failing school, admits to "losing my way a little". After five years at the school, he had ironed out behaviour problems but, he says, was too busy as a full-time teacher in charge of the older pupils to function fully as a head as well. A policy of "benign neglect" of rural primaries by Norfolk education authority, compounded by budget cuts hitting local support services, had left the smallest schools isolated and unaware of their problems.

The special measures designation came as a bombshell in Erpingham's idyll. Ofsted provided a list of key issues to be tackled, and staff and governors were left to come up with an action plan. "We were determined that, being so small, we could turn things round quickly," Mr Earp says. "We went down to London and told the inspectors that, though they thought we needed three years, we would do it in two."

The school was better than its word. At Easter 1995 - "My lowest point - I had my resignation letter written," Mr Earp recalls. The other teacher decided to take early retirement in August and a replacement was taken on. The appointment of a third, part-time staff member gave Mr Earp a day and a half free each week to improve target-setting and lesson planning. Responsibilities were shuffled so that staff were each responsible for individual curriculum areas throughout the school rather than only for the age group they taught, allowing for improved monitoring of progress.

While some schools criticised by Ofsted report a feeling of being left in the lurch after inspection, Erpingham found that the inspector charged with nursing it to recovery was highly sympathetic and helpful. "She was very positive, listening and making suggestions," the head says. "It's ironic in a way that, had we been like the school down the road which had serious weaknesses but was not classed as failing, we would not have received that level of support."

Enthusiastic support from parents and the surrounding community, including the local paper, also helped Erpingham, particularly when Norfolk County Council threatened the school with closure. "We felt like David against Goliath, but without the stones," Mr Earp remembers. A strong campaign fended off the threat, and parents' faith was vindicated in January last year when the inspectors gave the school a clean bill of health. Only one family had moved their child to another school.

For the head, the experience was bruising, but he and the school have emerged stronger and wiser. "We all have some difficulties in our careers, and if I had just backed away from this I would have felt such a failure, I think I would have had to give up teaching.

"I think the experience has helped me focus much more clearly on what I had to do. It was nothing magical - just hard work and the realisation that if I didn't I would be letting the children down, and letting them down publicly."

The school, he says, is now a livelier, more stimulating place. The two classrooms, home to 90 children at the turn of the century before the decline of agricultural labour, are vibrant with artwork and displays, while a loom borrowed for a textile project dominates the library.

The local authority, which helped monitor the school with Ofsted, has also learnt from its experiences and provides strong support.

Despite the gains, Mr Earp has some reservations. Ofsted might usefully have started by inspecting local education authorities rather than schools, to isolate any fundamental problems early on, he suggests. Instead, authority inspections are starting now, with a report on the first, Calderdale, due to be published tomorrow. The failure label may bring extra resources and support, but it undeniably stigmatises a school and, some would say, the children in it.

Nevertheless, Erpingham's textbook recovery matches the formula for improvement set out in today's Ofsted study. The strict, back-to-health regime includes strong leadership, clear action planning and curriculum organisation, moves to tackle poor behaviour and effective financial management.

For other schools, recovery will be longer and considerably more painful. Few will be small enough to put in place fundamental change almost instantly, problems may be more deeply ingrained and parental support may not be forthcoming. Ofsted's recipe for recovery appears to be straightforward, but most will not find it so