Noel-Baker Academy Ofsted Report

elsewhere in the school. weaknesses in their areas of responsibility.

Full report

In accordance with section 44(1) of the Education Act 2005, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector is of the opinion that this school requires special measures because it is failing to give its pupils an acceptable standard of education and the persons responsible for leading, managing or governing the school are not demonstrating the capacity to secure the necessary improvement in the school.

What does the school need to do to improve further?

• Urgently address the significant failings in the school’s safeguarding arrangements by ensuring that school leaders:
  • carry out their duties in line with trust policies and statutory guidance
  • implement and monitor a robust and rigorous protocol for tracking and reducing internal truancy so that leaders know where pupils are throughout the school day
  • establish systems and lines of responsibility for pupils attending alternative provision or on part-time timetables, which are effective in ensuring that these pupils are safe and well, and their needs are being met.
• Improve the quality of leadership and management by:
  • ensuring that the trust is more rigorous in its monitoring of the actions and the impact of school leaders on improving the school
  • building the capacity of senior leaders, including in the sixth form, so that they can lead their areas of responsibility effectively
  • ensuring that senior and middle leaders implement an effective action plan to bring about timely and sustainable improvements
  • ensuring that senior leaders support subject leaders in gaining the skills to monitor and improve the quality of teaching and learning in their subject areas
  • ensuring that those responsible for governance check that leaders use the additional funding for disadvantaged pupils and pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities and the Year 7 catch-up funding effectively in order to raise the achievement, attendance and behaviour of eligible pupils
  • making sure that the school’s strategies for the assessment and monitoring of pupils’ progress, and the systems to monitor their attendance and behaviour, are fit for purpose.
• Improve the quality of teaching, learning and assessment and their impact on pupils’ progress by:
  • putting in place a rigorous and coherent approach to improving the quality of teaching
  • raising teachers’ expectations of what all pupils can achieve, including the presentation and quality of pupils’ work
  • improving pupils’ attitudes to learning
  • ensuring that teachers use information about pupils’ abilities and needs to plan learning that sufficiently challenges the most able pupils and provides focused support for the least able so that they all make good progress
  • making sure that teachers ensure that boys, disadvantaged pupils and pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities receive better support so that they can catch up with other pupils
  • sharing the pockets of stronger teaching practice that exist within school.
• Improve pupils’ personal development, behaviour and welfare by:
  • ensuring that the curriculum provides equality of opportunity for all, promotes pupils’ and students’ personal, social, health and economic (PSHE) education and provides them with an appropriate range of extra-curricular activities
  • making sure that pupils’ and students’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural needs are met, and pupils are prepared for life in modern Britain
  • supporting all pupils to become more self-confident learners and to show respect for each other and the adults in school
  • ensuring that leaders and staff deal promptly and effectively with all incidents of poor behaviour and bullying so that their occurrence is minimised and pupils feel safe
  • eradicating low-level disruption in class so that all pupils can make at least good progress
  • putting effective strategies in place to improve punctuality and reduce absence and persistent absence, particularly for disadvantaged pupils and pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities.
• Improve provision in the sixth form by ensuring that:
  • leaders have a closer oversight of the sixth-form provision, including of the curriculum, the quality of teaching and the impact of support to address underachievement of students in their studies
  • all teachers plan learning activities that challenge students and enable them to make at least good progress from their starting points
  • sixth-form students attend well. An external review of governance should be undertaken in order to assess how this aspect of leadership and management may be improved. An external review of the school’s use of the pupil premium funding should be undertaken in order to assess how this aspect of leadership and management may be improved.

Inspection judgements

Effectiveness of leadership and management Inadequate

• Over the past three terms, leaders and those responsible for governance have not brought about the improvements necessary to reverse the legacy of underperformance at the school. Pupils’ achievements, attendance and standards of behaviour are unacceptably low. Pupils and staff do not feel safe in school. Leaders have been too slow to resolve any of these fundamental concerns, all of which require urgent action. The trust and senior school leaders have not shown that they have the necessary capacity to bring about improvements.
• School leaders’ evaluation of the quality of the education they are providing is inaccurate, simplistic and not based on robust evidence. It does not tell the whole story of the ongoing, inherent weaknesses in provision, which have existed for too long and have had a negative impact on outcomes for too many pupils.
• School leaders have not implemented plans for rapid improvements successfully. In too many cases, the strategies and targets are not realistic. Leaders have not reviewed sharply, or modified appropriately, any of these plans. Leaders’ actions have not brought about any tangible benefits across any aspect of the school’s provision, including pupils’ outcomes and well-being.
• Ongoing changes within the senior leadership team have led to leaders assuming different responsibilities with little training or support. Current senior leaders have not had sufficient time to demonstrate the impact of their work.
• Leaders and those responsible for governance have not ensured that they use additional government funding for disadvantaged pupils appropriately. They have not evaluated the limited range of strategies in place to support these pupils. As a result, disadvantaged pupils continue to achieve less well, attend less well and behave less well than other pupils.
• Leaders and those responsible for governance do not ensure that the Year 7 literacy and numeracy catch-up funding is used to help those pupils who need additional support. Leaders could not provide inspectors with any evidence of the impact of this funding.
• Leaders have failed to put effective systems in place to monitor the behaviour and attendance of pupils, or plan for their improvement. This lack of coherence and rigour means that pupils’ poor behaviour and inadequate attendance present significant barriers to improving pupils’ outcomes and put vulnerable pupils at risk.
• Leaders’ systems to monitor the progress and achievement of pupils are not fit for purpose. These systems do not track pupils’ progress meticulously. Leaders do not have an accurate and precise overview of how well pupils are achieving in any year group. Using unrealistic targets introduced by trust leaders, a majority of pupils are underachieving, and teachers are failing to meet their own performance targets. This has had a demoralising impact on pupils and staff.
• Leaders’ actions to monitor the quality of teaching and learning are not coherent or evaluated to inform future plans or training.
• Too often, senior leaders have introduced new systems and strategies without sufficient explanation or time to allow teachers to implement them effectively. As a result, teachers’ time is wasted, new strategies do not have the intended impact and staff are demoralised.
• Many subject leaders are relatively new to their roles. Leaders have not provided them with the necessary training or support to allow them to carry out their responsibilities effectively or hold their teams to account closely. Inspectors could find no evidence of leaders holding subject leaders to account for pupils’ outcomes in their areas of responsibility.
• Historically, the key stage 4 curriculum was not fit for purpose. Recent changes have taken place but these have not yet had an impact on pupils’ published outcomes. Leaders do not ensure that all pupils have equality of opportunity through the curriculum. Opportunities for pupils to engage in extra-curricular activities are limited.
• Leaders have not provided sufficiently for pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural needs. Currently, there is no coherent programme to ensure that pupils receive appropriate PSHE education. Leaders have not ensured that the school’s curriculum focuses on British values sufficiently or prepares pupils for life in modern Britain.
• The vast majority of parents and carers who responded to Parent View do not think that the school is well led or managed and very few would recommend the school to other parents.
• Leaders do not support newly qualified teachers well. Frequent changes to their timetables and a lack of help in managing pupils’ behaviour have undermined their relationships with pupils. It is recommended that newly qualified teachers should not be appointed to the school.
• The temporary coordinator of the provision for pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities has begun to accurately identify pupils’ needs and provide them with additional support. Leaders were not able to provide any evidence of the impact of the additional support that these pupils have received.
• Recently appointed assistant headteachers have identified accurately the strengths and weaknesses in their respective areas of responsibility. Teachers and support staff say they feel well supported by each other and the teams within which they work, despite the lack of effective school leadership.

Governance of the school

• Officers of the L.E.A.D. Trust acknowledge that the support given has not resulted in the rapid improvements needed by the school. Trust leaders have not monitored the work of school leaders closely enough. They have not held school leaders to account with the necessary rigour to ensure the quality of the school’s educational provision and the safety of the pupils in their care.
• The trust’s actions to address the school’s underperformance have necessarily increased staff mobility. The trust and school leaders have not effectively secured permanent specialist subject teachers, especially in mathematics and science. This has reduced the impact of the school leadership team on raising standards. Too many of the pupils’ lessons are delivered by temporary staff who do not know the pupils, their learning needs or the school’s systems.
• Those responsible for governance have not accurately assessed the quality of safeguarding procedures and practices within the school until very recently. Their response to a previous safeguarding review was inadequate.
• Leaders have not ensured that the trust’s policies, including those related to safeguarding, are fit for purpose. Leaders have not been diligent in tailoring trust-wide policies to the specific needs and context of the school.
• The trust has recently brought in extra leadership support for behaviour and attendance, which is beginning to have an impact. It has also provided additional support in mathematics, English and science. Subject leaders have valued this guidance in helping them to produce new schemes of work and good-quality resources.

Safeguarding

• The arrangements for safeguarding are not effective. Leaders do not promote a culture of safeguarding within school. They have not taken previously highlighted concerns about the safety and welfare of the pupils in their care seriously or acted swiftly to resolve them. Leaders’ plans to improve safeguarding do not focus on the wide range of weaknesses that require urgent action.
• Pupils do not feel safe in school. Leaders have not done enough to keep pupils safe. Incidents of serious misbehaviour, including physical assaults and bullying, are too frequent. Many parents are concerned about pupils’ welfare and safety.
• Pupils are not taught how to stay safe. Leaders have not ensured that pupils learn about the risks they face, and have not helped pupils to look after themselves and stay away from harm.
• Some staff do not feel safe in school. Leaders have not considered the well-being and safety of staff in their improvement plans.
• Leaders of safeguarding have not all received training appropriate to the significance of the roles that they are carrying out. They do not fully appreciate their responsibilities, nor do they have the skills required to ensure that pupils are safe.
• Leaders have not ensured that the recording of safeguarding activities is secure. Too often, records lack vital details about the actions taken by leaders. On occasion, records show that leaders have not acted quickly enough to keep a pupil safe.
• There is a lack of clarity among leaders as to who is responsible for some of the school’s most vulnerable pupils, for example those pupils who attend alternative providers for their education.
• Pupils who spoke with inspectors had no awareness of the dangers of radicalisation and extremism or how these dangers relate to them.
• Leaders have ensured that appropriate staff have received safer recruitment training. During the inspection, leaders tightened procedures and updated records of recruitment checks for those working and volunteering at the school.
• Staff have recently received safeguarding training. They understand their responsibilities for reporting any concerns they may have about a pupil in a timely manner.
• Pupils know how to stay safe online.
• Leaders have ensured that there are clear procedures in place to keep the site secure and for when visitors arrive in school.

Quality of teaching, learning and assessment Inadequate

• The quality of teaching is inadequate across a range of subjects and year groups. As a result, the school’s assessment evidence and inspectors’ observations indicate that pupils’ knowledge, understanding and skills are not sufficiently well developed.
• Instability of staffing has meant that many pupils have experienced several changes of teacher, non-specialist staff teaching some subjects and, on occasion, no teaching at all for a subject. Too many pupils no longer have faith in the staff who teach them and are rarely enthused with a love of learning. These staffing inconsistencies mean that very few pupils make the progress they should from their individual starting points.
• Too much of pupils’ learning is disrupted by unacceptable behaviour which is not challenged by adults. For example, inspectors witnessed pupils ignoring teachers’ requests, being openly defiant and using inappropriate language towards teachers and derogatory language towards others in the classroom. On occasion, adults do not model acceptable ways of speaking with pupils. Inspectors’ observations of learning often revealed that relationships between teachers and pupils were poor.
• Teachers’ expectations of what pupils are capable of are not high enough. In too many lessons, teachers do not insist on pupils working hard. Pupils do not take pride in their work and achievements. They often leave work incomplete, particularly when temporary teachers cover lessons. Many teachers accept work from pupils that is simply not good enough.
• Teachers do not use information on pupils’ progress to plan activities that build precisely on pupils’ prior learning or plug gaps from previously poor teaching. In most instances, teaching does not fully stretch the most able and fails to help disadvantaged pupils or pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities to make adequate progress. Nor do teachers plan precisely enough to close the gaps between the progress made by different groups of pupils. This is especially the case for disadvantaged pupils compared to other pupils, and boys compared to girls.
• Leaders do not promote pupils’ literacy and numeracy skills well enough across the curriculum. For example, when inspectors listened to and spoke with Year 7 readers, these pupils did not have a love of reading and did not read widely to develop their literacy.
• Teaching assistants do not have a close enough focus on the progress pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities make with their learning.
• The vast majority of parents who responded to Parent View did not think that their children make good progress or are taught well. They said they do not receive enough clear information about how well their children are progressing.
• Inspectors saw examples of stronger practice in only a few lessons observed. In these cases, teachers and pupils have positive relationships and this encourages pupils to trust their teacher and behave well. These teachers have strong subject knowledge and plan activities that challenge and support pupils. They ask probing questions to extend pupils’ learning and build their confidence. As a result, pupils make sound progress in these lessons. As one pupil said, ‘If you want to learn, teachers will help you.’

Personal development, behaviour and welfare Inadequate

Personal development and welfare

• The school’s work to promote pupils’ personal development and welfare is inadequate.
• Pupils do not value their education. Over time, leaders and staff have repeatedly let pupils down. As a result, too many pupils no longer believe that they deserve to receive good-quality teaching and learning opportunities.
• A small number of pupils attend alternative providers for their education. Leaders have not established clear systems and lines of responsibility to ensure that alternative providers are meeting these pupils’ needs. While providers promote the welfare of these pupils effectively, school leaders do not rigorously ensure that these pupils are safe, well and making good progress in their studies.
• Leaders lack clarity about who is accountable for monitoring the progress and well-being of a small number of pupils who are on part-time timetables. Too many vulnerable pupils are not receiving their full entitlement to education. Leaders have no way of knowing if these pupils are safe and making the progress of which they are capable. Leaders do not have robust plans in place to re-integrate these pupils back into school.
• Recent improvements in the identification and support for pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities are making a difference. The attendance of this group of pupils is slowly beginning to improve, although it is still too low. Strategies, including a breakfast club, nurture lunch and after-school drop-ins, are helping to provide these pupils with more support.
• Leaders provide pupils in key stage 3 and key stage 4 with valuable careers advice and guidance. For example, pupils in Year 7 experience a ‘world of work’ day, while older pupils receive careers support from Rolls Royce and Toyota. Pupils also benefit from speaking with past pupils about their experiences of work.
• There are many pupils who are polite, confident and self-assured. These pupils were happy to speak to inspectors and keen to share their views.

Behaviour

• The behaviour of pupils is inadequate.
• Too often, pupils’ behaviour, both around the school and in lessons, is unacceptably poor and goes unchallenged by staff. Pupils do not respect the environment or the equipment around school. Persistent low-level disruption in lessons is widespread. Frequently during the inspection, inspectors saw disrespectful and defiant behaviour by pupils towards members of staff. Temporary staff exacerbate this situation because they do not know the pupils and do not understand the school’s systems. As one member of staff stated, ‘It feels like, most of the time, the pupils are in charge.’
• Staff do not consistently apply the school’s behaviour policy and often do not follow sanctions through to their conclusion. Leaders do not provide staff with the necessary support. As a result, pupils exploit these inconsistencies and their behaviour continues to deteriorate, including at lunchtimes. A significant minority of pupils show a complete disregard for their own learning and that of their peers.
• Pupils told inspectors that bullying, including homophobic bullying, happens regularly in school and is not resolved. Leaders have no consistent approach to resolving incidents.
• The proportion of pupils who have been permanently excluded from school is notably higher than the national average.
• Leaders’ monitoring of pupils’ absence is not robust. The proportion of pupils who are absent is increasing and is well above the national average. This is particularly the case for pupils who are disadvantaged and pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities. Both these groups of pupils attend less well than other pupils. As pupils get older, their attendance declines still further. For example, the current attendance of pupils in Year 11 is 10% lower than the school’s average.
• The proportion of pupils who are regularly absent from school is too high. This is particularly the case for disadvantaged pupils and pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities. More than one third of these pupils attend for less than 90% of the sessions. Leaders do not closely track the attendance of the most vulnerable pupils to ensure that they are safe.
• Too many pupils are not learning because they are not in lessons. During the inspection, inspectors observed countless pupils wandering the corridors unsupervised, either truanting or having walked out of lessons. A growing number of pupils make their own choices about being in a lesson, with, seemingly, few consequences.
• Leaders’ strategies to improve pupils’ punctuality are not effective. Too many pupils arrive late to school. Leaders’ expectations that these pupils attend a lunchtime detention are rarely met.
• Inspectors heard pupils use derogatory language repeatedly, during formal times such as an assembly and informally around the school. Too often, adults heard this too but did not challenge the pupils.
• The proportion of pupils who have received a fixed-term exclusion from school is falling. Leaders have improved their communication with some of the parents of those pupils who are at risk of being excluded.

Outcomes for pupils Inadequate

• Leaders predict that current Year 11 pupils will leave school with levels of attainment significantly below those of which they are capable, including in English and mathematics.
• Current Year 10 pupils are making even less progress than Year 11 pupils from their different starting points. The most able pupils are making extremely weak progress, particularly in English and mathematics.
• Disadvantaged pupils are capable of achieving more. They are not making strong enough progress to catch up with other pupils across a range of subjects, including English and mathematics. For some of these pupils, poor attendance and unacceptable behaviour have a detrimental impact on their progress.
• Boys make weaker progress than girls in most subject areas, particularly English.
• Across all subject areas, pupils of all abilities, and particularly the most able pupils, underperform because teachers do not provide them with appropriate support or challenge.
• Leaders were unable to provide a convincing account of the progress being made by current pupils in key stage 3. Target setting in Years 7, 8 and 9 is unrealistic and assessment is inconsistent. Leaders do not track the progress of groups of pupils, such as those of different abilities.
• Leaders do not ensure that they keep parents informed about their children’s progress. Parents do not understand the school’s assessment system, particularly at key stage 3. An overwhelming majority of parents who responded to Ofsted’s online survey said their children were not making good progress.
• Pupils are not prepared well enough for the next stage of their education. Too many pupils leave the school having underachieved in their key stage 4 studies. They do not have the necessary numeracy and literacy skills to be successful.
• Current pupils in Year 11 who have SEN and/or disabilities are making stronger progress than other pupils, although their progress is still inadequate, given their different starting points. Leaders could not account for why these pupils are performing better, relative to other pupils, since they have not received any targeted support.
• A small number of Year 7 pupils who have received additional help to catch up in reading have made some positive gains.

16 to 19 study programmes Inadequate

• As safeguarding is ineffective across the school, it is also ineffective for the sixth form. Poor safeguarding practices and procedures mean that sixth-form students are as vulnerable as the younger pupils. Their safety and welfare have not been the priority of the school’s leadership team.
• Senior leaders have not ensured that the sixth-form leader has been supported to carry out her role effectively. Leaders and those responsible for governance do not have a clear strategic oversight of the sixth form-provision, its strengths or its weaknesses. They are, therefore, unable to plan effectively for improvements.
• The school’s tracking information shows that current Year 13 students are not making the progress of which they are capable, both in their academic and vocational studies. Significant inconsistencies exist in students’ performances across different subjects. Leaders’ actions to improve progress across subjects are not effective.
• Leaders did not provide inspectors with any information about the attainment and progress of current Year 12 students. Inspectors’ evidence from students’ work files indicates that they are working well below their target grades.
• Leaders do not rigorously monitor or track the progress of students in the sixth form. Leaders were unable to provide inspectors with any detailed information about how different groups of students are performing.
• Students’ attendance in the sixth form is too low and has declined over time. Leaders do not monitor students’ attendance. They do not take effective action to challenge students when they do not attend well.
• Leaders were unable to provide inspectors with information about student retention in the current sixth form. Leaders do not track and monitor how many students complete their courses or use this information to inform future plans for the provision.
• Teachers’ expectations of students are not sufficiently high. Leaders are unable to identify where students are underachieving or demonstrate that they plan support purposefully to ensure that all students make at least good progress.
• The quality of teaching and learning is inconsistent. Teachers do not challenge students or provide opportunities to consolidate and deepen their learning. When teaching is stronger, teachers use their good subject knowledge to provide students with valuable feedback about how to improve their work. A number of students said their learning is often disrupted by younger pupils who have been removed from other classrooms and are required to sit in with sixth formers.
• Opportunities for students to enrich their sixth-form experience are poorly developed. For example, while leaders have recently introduced the extended project qualification to widen students’ learning, they have not provided students with sufficient support to allow them to complete the necessary work successfully.
• Leaders recognise that students’ next-step preparations lack rigour. Students receive some helpful support to apply for university or apprenticeships. However, leaders do not offer students equitable opportunities to access independent careers advice and guidance. Students who spoke with inspectors said they did not feel ready for the next stage, whether it be education, employment or training.
• The programmes in place to develop students’ personal, social and employability skills are, at best, sporadic and, at worst, non-existent. Leaders do not provide students with age-appropriate guidance to help keep them safe, for example in relation to driving, gambling or consent within relationships.
• Leaders have not ensured that students’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development is promoted well in the sixth form. Students have a limited understanding of fundamental British values and issues related to radicalisation and extremism.
• Effective teaching supports students to make good gains in resit lessons for English and mathematics. As a result, many pass their GCSE qualifications in these subjects with the equivalent of a standard pass.
• All sixth-form students have the option to undertake meaningful work experience or work-related learning. However, not all students take up this option and, therefore, the requirements of the 16 to 19 study programmes are not met.

School details

Unique reference number Local authority Inspection number 143853 Derby 10048831 This inspection was carried out under section 8 of the Education Act 2005. The inspection was also deemed a section 5 inspection under the same Act. Type of school Secondary comprehensive School category Age range of pupils Gender of pupils Gender of pupils in 16 to 19 study programmes Academy sponsor-led 11 to 18 Mixed Mixed Number of pupils on the school roll 1,256 Of which, number on roll in 16 to 19 study programmes 50 Appropriate authority Board of trustees Chair of trustees Headteacher Telephone number Website Email address Mark Blois Simon Cotton 01332 572 026 www.noelbakeracademy.co.uk/ enquiries@noel-baker.derby.sch.uk Date of previous inspection Not previously inspected

Information about this school

• The school is larger than an average-sized secondary school.
• The school has been sponsored by the L.E.A.D. Academy Trust since February 2017. The trust is responsible for the school’s governance. The school has an academy advisory board. The trust holds all the legal responsibilities for the school.
• The headteacher was appointed in September 2017. Since then, responsibilities in the senior leadership team have been reorganised. A new head of sixth form was appointed in January 2018, as well as a temporary part-time coordinator of the provision for pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities. Three new assistant headteachers and a new business manager were appointed in April 2018. Two further temporary assistant headteachers have been supporting school leaders with behaviour and attendance issues. A significant number of teaching staff left the school in July 2017. The current headteacher is due to leave the school in August 2018 and a new headteacher will be in post from September 2018.
• The proportion of disadvantaged pupils who are eligible for pupil premium funding is well above average.
• The majority of pupils are of white British heritage. The proportion of pupils who speak English as an additional language is well below average.
• The proportion of pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities supported by the school through education, health and care plans is below average, although the proportion of pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities is above average.
• The school uses The Kingsmead School and Derby Pride Academy as alternative providers.
• The school does not meet requirements on the publication of information about its 16 to 19 study programme on its website. Also, it is not clear who currently is the named coordinator of the provision for pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities.

Information about this inspection

• Inspectors observed learning in 52 lessons, across a wide range of subjects and in all key stages, including the sixth form. Some lessons were jointly observed with senior leaders. Inspectors also observed form time and two assemblies.
• Inspectors looked at pupils’ work in lessons across all year groups.
• Inspectors held a range of meetings, including with senior and middle leaders, teachers and support staff. Inspectors also met with representatives of the multi-academy trust, including the chief executive officer.
• Inspectors observed pupils’ behaviour during lessons, before school and during breaktimes and lunchtimes.
• Inspectors spoke formally with pupils from key stage 3 and key stage 4, and students from the sixth form. Inspectors also spoke informally with other pupils.
• An inspector listened to pupils from Year 7 reading.
• An inspector spoke with representatives from alternative providers attended by pupils from the school.
• Inspectors scrutinised a wide range of documents relating to the school’s provision, including: self-evaluation and improvement planning; minutes of meetings of the trust; plans related to additional government funding; behaviour, attendance and exclusion records; information about the attainment and progress of all pupils and students; safeguarding information; and information on the school’s website. The lead inspector also checked the school’s single central register and the school’s system for recruiting staff.
• Inspectors evaluated the 84 responses to Parent View, Ofsted’s online survey.

Inspection team

Rachel Tordoff, lead inspector Chris Davies Deborah Mosley Chris Stevens Clare Considine Kathryn Hardy Mark Henshaw Her Majesty’s Inspector Her Majesty’s Inspector Her Majesty’s Inspector Her Majesty’s Inspector Ofsted Inspector Ofsted Inspector Ofsted Inspector