Comments follow.

Comments

Pupil comment: "We are forced to go to chapel. The teachers say it is not solely for Christianity and any religion is welcome, but they sing Christian hymns and pray to the Christian god. I'd rather not go to chapel."

Religious service attendance was always mandatory at Merchiston.

Pupil comment: "Heating has been an issue."

Heating was also an issue in the early 1980s, when I was at Merchiston, forty years before this report was written.

"COVID procedures good, and safe, bubble system."

Merchiston would literally be the best place to ride out a pandemic as contact with the outside world is limited by default. The institution itself is a literal bubble.

"Overall, we found this to be positive and there was a very clear commitment and emphasis to ensure young people were at the centre in the provision of their support and wellbeing. We graded this aspect of the care service as very good. During the inspection visit which was carried out over a three-day period and involved four inspectors we saw many examples of the kind, friendly and respectful way young people were treated by all of those involved within the school."

I remember our pre-announced school inspections—by external inspectors—in the early 1980s. The day before one inspection, we were threatened by the headmaster at a school assembly to be on our best behavior. This is an inspection carried out by members of Merchiston Castle School's own Board of Governors. This fact would be known to the pupils.

"Along with changing the lunch times to avoid young people having to rush off to activities there was a recognition that the right quantity of food was made available to ensure seconds for all year groups could be facilitated."

It is amazing to consider that the school—with its exorbitant fees—is still struggling with feeding pupils, exactly the same problem that existed in the 1980s.

This is forty years later. As with all inspection reports, you are forced to guess what written between the lines here. Specifying a need to "ensure seconds for all year groups" suggests that some year groups were receiving 'seconds' while other year groups were not. Just spell it out. This is a self-inspection. You know the answers.

Also food related: "We acknowledged they were still a relatively new team after a staffing restructure and they had to ensure future plans and objectives were being shared and understood by everyone within the school environment. We graded this aspect of the care service as very good."

The school has been boarding pupils since the early 1800s. Feeding children is not a new concept or experience for the institution. Why is "a relatively new team" an acceptable excuse? Was everyone who used to work there suddenly fired and the whole catering department began anew? Of course not.

So much of these inspection reports miss the obvious and side with the institution as a default. Why—whatever era the report you are reading comes from—is the school always "working on it"?

Some things you figure out how to get right and then subsequently just keep getting it right. Life is not a permanent state of reset. The reports read together as a whole testify to a school that itself cannot seem to learn.

"We observed a genuine kindness of approach being undertaken by the care staff who had a commitment to treating the young people with compassion and respect. Examples of this were observed in how young people were addressed by the care staff using their first names and the knowledge members of staff had about everyone's needs and welfare."

In my entire time at Merchiston (1982-1986), the only two days the headmaster addressed me by my first name was when he was marketing the school to my parents in his office and on the day of an external inspection, while we encountered him ushering government school inspectors around the grounds.

This may have changed since I left in 1986 but if calling people by their first name is considered part of "a commitment to treating the young people with compassion and respect", why was the default staff addressing pupils by their family name the norm for the first 158 years of the institution's existence (that I personally can testify to)? Is this really how it works today?

"We found care staff knew the young people in their care well and they gave many examples when being interviewed as to how they were responding appropriately to their individual needs."

The statement relies on staff’s own accounts of their treatment of pupils, rather than providing any independent evidence. There are many similar statements in the school's inspection reports.

"We were made aware the care service were currently reviewing the role and tasks of housemaster/mistress particularly in consideration of applicants having a pastoral past experience rather than specifically teaching. We recognised that one of the key outcomes in the improvement plan related to mental health and wellbeing of pupils and staff particularly, following COVID-19. Whilst acknowledging only limited progress had been made we agreed this was a vital aspect for the care service to take forward in the coming months."

This paragraph is particularly vague about what the exact problem is. If "only limited progress had been made" why did this section of the report, "How good is our staff team?" receive the rating of "5 - Very Good"?

"Other plans in relation to behavioural or mental health needs of the pupils could have been more specific, as it was difficult in some cases to determine what the plan was in response to. We considered goals identified in the plans needed to be more SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Timebound). Often the goals identified had little context stating for example the young person should "have more fun in school" which was a broad statement, with little clarification of what was trying to be achieved."

Pot meet kettle. This a school inspection report but it is almost devoid of specifics and leaves more questions than actionable insights. This is true of almost all of the inspection reports you will read on this site, certainly these self-reports.

Bullying: "3. To ensure that all documents relevant to any bullying incident are stored within the system and are visible to staff. 4. To put in a place a protocol that requires a Bullying Support Plan in response to any incident - this will include review dates, outcome and action points for staff, agreed with the pupil."

"This area for improvement was made on 19 September 2019. Action plan submitted. with a completion date of February 2020."

This is from a report written on 1 December 2021. Over two years have passed. What is the delay here? But more importantly, how is bullying—which was rampant in the 1980s when I was at Merchiston—still a thing 40 years later? The Board of Governors are simply satisfied that bullying is being recorded.

How it is possible this can still be an issue that requires addressing? Put yourself in the school's timeline. This is a decades-old recurring problem—as repeatedly evidenced in SCAI testimonies—contained within a tiny community of children, in which staff members hold all of the power over every aspect of pupils' lives.

Bullied pupils have no power. Where else is help going to come from if not the staff and if this issue keeps coming up over decades, who is ultimately held responsible?

How does this end? Is it perhaps possible that these glorified children's homes populated by children abandoned by their parents are just helplessly structurally and psychological unsound?

"How well do we support children and young people's wellbeing? 5 - Very Good"

Nigel Parry, Research Hub Editor