I had a great post the other day about the old Summerhill website that I helped manage during the court case! It has been archived. You can find a small blog with items from the students and myself at:
http://web.archive.org/web/20000928225326/www.s-hill.demon.co.uk/tribindex.htm

As a curriculum adviser at Summerhill I had been with Zoe, the Principal, along with Ian, the maths teacher, during the final summing-up of the 1999 Ofsted inspection. The two HMI, senior colleagues of Chris Woodhead, sat with us in the room next to the school's office, surrounded by T-shirts and mugs for sale. Cliff Gould spoke the most despite the fact that he was not the team leader, it confirmed our research that Cliff was more senior than the leader, Neville Grenyer. This was the A-team of inspectors. The irony was that we had asked for Grenyer to inspect us, as he had been the main inspector of the school the year before. Summerhill had been inspected every year for some nine years! Something that totally shocked the judges at the Royal Court of Justice tribunal.

On being told that Summerhill would have to ensure its children attended lessons Zoe with tearful constrained anger confronted Cliff. What did he think about closing down A.S. Neill's Summerhill School. How did it feel? Cliff did not respond. I commented, pointing at the bronze head of Neill on the shelf next to me, that he was watching. Grenyer smiled. I asked how could their inspection results be so different from the 1949 inspection when the report recommended all educationalists should visit the school to see what was happening there. Grenyer responded, the national curriculum. Throughout the court case the judges kept reminding the witness for the Department for Education Phipps that a broad and balanced curriculum was not defined solely as the national curriculum, especially with regards to private schools.

I asked then why they had not inspected the school's out of lesson activities. They had during their lunchtime walked around the school with clipboards in hand watching a game being played. They had also seen a meeting. Before which they checked with me that the school and children were not going to question them. They had been invited to meet with the children, they had refused. They had been given, before they came, a timetable of out of lesson activities including committee meetings of children, word games, cultural events... a meeting of foreign students to discuss their view of the school meeting - they failed to see any of them. Even so Cliff referenced the meeting of foreign students as if he had attended, and made conclusions that the school had problems with foreign students understanding the community's meetings. This was the exact opposite of the children's meeting, but Cliff's professional values allowed him to make conclusions for the 1999 Summerhill Report without eyewitness or written evidence. The arrogant assumptions in the report reflect the arrogance of these men and women, who had reached the high echelons of HMI management.

Ironically, in response to my question about the lack of observations of out of lesson activities Grenyer apologised, saying they did not have enough time. During our complaint and independent adjudication Ofsted denied the reality of the apology, saying they had done their utmost to inspect different aspects of the school. It would have been spine tingling to watch Grenyer as a witness in the tribunal either lie and keep to the party line or admit the apology, and with it the acceptance that they had failed to inspect Summerhill according to its values. Before and throughout the inspection they were told that what happens outside of lessons is of equal importance as what happens inside them. Grenyer knew this from the previous year's inspection and had appeared to start discussing ways of inspecting Summerhill to reflect those values. Everything he ignored during the 1999 inspection.

To be aware of the ineptitude of the inspection. To be aware of the authority of this inspection team. Was to be aware that this was the end. They did not respect the school. They had come to close us down.

After the meeting I got to the dining hall late, but managed to get a plate of food. The dining room was empty, I ate in a silent depression of shock, that all the values of teaching and learning could be so contradicted by the people in charge of inspecting schools throughout the country. A young girl looked through the door, watched me and came and sat next to me. She sat there to support me, asking me how I was. This was a young Japanese student, who had major problems learning. I taught her science. I wanted to tell her to go away. I needed to be alone. I had organised her secret, after lights out birthday party. I had watched her laugh and play, and run committees and develop into a wonderful, confident student. One of the most important statements in the 1999 report states that the special needs students were confident equals and took part fully in the community... what more could you say about a successful school?