Morning Look, of course I get this. Maybe the weaknesses as I see them are not what are considered 'major' weaknesses at all. Is the school offering good education? Sure. Is it a proper institution seeking to deliver on its primary focus? Sure. Bang, the accreditation did its job. But to be honest, parents already at the school would see that without needing an audit. Standout issues were in the the planning and teaching of the core subjects and the fundamental inconsistency in how different parts of the school was managed, with individuals acting independently of each other. I can accept that maybe these are seen as key issues only to those within the organisation but surely, if the process is about improvement, why not address them. No one from the accrediting group asked the key questions that would have opened the door to these issues. Now why was that? Isn't it meant to be a thorough assessment? Were they suckered by management who wined and dined them over a couple of weeks? Or were they simply happy to go through the process since of course it's more money and another name on their roster? My impression was the team who visited decided almost immediately that we were a school who fitted the general criteria and then went through the motions. Of course, as has been said, the process isn't about finding a perfect school but identifying and addressing areas that can be improved in the future so those goals are reached. Accepted. So what has happened since? Minor interaction with leadership and a bit of paper proof that the cogs are turning at leadership level, but on the ground, no attempt by the leadership to address the identified weaknesses throughout the reporting document. We got away with it.