Comments below.

Comments

Survey Monkey was reported as the tool used for eliciting student feedback. Even assuming the survey was set to "Anonymous Responses" by its creator, was a Web Link collector used instead of an Email Invitation collector?

Email invites track who has opened or completed the survey, deanonymizing participants. Were any identifying questions asked inside the survey (like age, house name, roles, sports teams, or club memberships)? These are the kinds of details about methodology that a report should include.

The report is similarly vague about how face-to-face encounters between members of the inspection team and pupils took place. Was it in the presence of the headmaster, housemasters, other staff, or prefects? This context matters.

"Generally the feedback we received was very positive with pupils telling us they felt safe, happy and comfortable within the boarding houses and across the school campus."

Vague claims like "Generally the feedback we received was very positive" aren't particularly revealing. The word "generally" alone is not a percentage or fraction. What about negative feedback?

The document comes off as incredible when the sole negative comment on the survey was "We should have a bit more time on your phone." Assuming the survey was indeed anonymous it—unlike any face-to-face inspection interactions with inspectors—an anonymous survey would be the one place where you'd realistically expect more expressions of criticism that a single complaint about phone time.

"There was a range of available resources and facilities across the campus which meant that pupils could choose how to spend their time outwith organised academic and curricular routines and events. A pupil forum met to discuss issues and we heard of positive outcomes from these meetings which contributed to the wellbeing of pupils."

This is classic Merchiston speak, it sounds perfectly reasonable while giving you no quantifiable meaning.

When stating, "their time outwith organised academic and curricular routines and events", It does not quantify the most obvious fact—how much actual free time is available to each student and when?

This is a vague sentence with multiple ambiguous terms used and ambiguous claims made.

And what is considered "curricular"? Sports are compulsory at Merchiston. There are extra elective sports that you can pursue at Merchiston but some sport time is compulsory. Are both manifestations considered part of the curriculum or extra-curricular?

The phrase "curricular" could also reasonably include compulsory midweek and weekend church services?

What "events"? Why not list them?

Clarification of personal time for different forms/differently-aged pupils, detailed throughout a typical week would also be helpful.

This material should not be hard to present. The problem here is that there is no actual data, just vague claims. At one point, the report says "Pupils were able to opt in or out of planned activities, depending on their personal preferences." What "planned activities" exactly? All of them? Of course not. So which ones are optional?

Sure, the language sounds reassuring—but what is actually written above is the bare minimum, namely that an undefined amount of personal time does exist. The report opts out of any useful specificity, hiding behind ambiguously-grouped, ambiguous words.

This is not an "inspection" report. It's nonspecific brochure speak. All of the detail that is not present here is readily accessible to staff. Why not just have it ready to go in copy and paste format for official reports like this? The reports ask the same questions each time? The school calendar exists already and doesn't change too much. This report does not put on the record how life at the school is organized, either hour by hour or day by day.

I'd have got a C for writing something this weak as an A-Level essay at Merchiston. The comment next to my C-grade would be something along the lines of, "It sounds reassuring but offers no detail and therefore says nothing."

"Some pupils said they would like more access to 'seconds' at mealtimes. Senior staff were aware of this and the development of dining facilities was underway at the time of the inspection visit."

Fast forward over two years to another report, Care Inspectorate – Merchiston Inspection Report (1 December 2021), and we read:

"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."

Where the report gets serious, and tackles subjects like bullying, it is in relation to how the staff are handling record-keeping of bullying, not the experience of pupils being bullied:

"The system in place to record outcomes of child protection incidents was not effectively used by all staff. Some records of bullying were not clear and did not express clear outcomes for the pupils concerned or describe the actions taken by staff. We comment further on this issue in key question 5.1...

Here is the entirety of the promised further comment in "key question 5.1":

5.1 Assessment and care planning reflects children and young people's needs and wishes. 4/5 - Good"

Nigel Parry, Research Hub Editor