Humphrey Perkins School Ofsted Report

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?

• Rapidly improve the quality of teaching, learning and assessment and reduce the inconsistencies in teaching by making sure that all teachers: use information about pupils’ attainment and progress to provide work that is at the right level have high expectations of what pupils can achieve and provide them with work that is appropriately challenging follow the school’s agreed marking and feedback policy, ensuring that they instil in pupils a pride in their work and encourage them to complete unfinished work have a clear focus on the attainment and progress of disadvantaged pupils to reduce the difference between their achievement and that of other pupils nationally have a clear focus on the progress made by boys and middle-ability pupils, so that it is at least in line with their peers nationally.
• Substantially improve pupils’ personal development, behaviour and welfare by: working with parents to increase the attendance of disadvantaged pupils making sure that all teachers use the whole-school behaviour system consistently so that low-level disruption is eradicated, especially for boys.
• Improve the quality of leadership and management by: securing effective leadership at all levels, including governance, across the school ensuring that leaders use pupil premium funding effectively to improve the attendance, attainment and progress of disadvantaged pupils, and use catch-up funding effectively to accelerate the progress of relevant pupils in Year 7 making sure that leaders closely monitor the work they do to check that all their actions have a positive impact on pupils’ achievement ensuring that the school’s own evaluation of its performance, including the quality of teaching, is accurate supporting non-specialist teachers with effective training, particularly in English, mathematics and science ensuring that the school’s website includes the required information. 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 should be undertaken in order to assess how this aspect of leadership and management can be improved.

Inspection judgements

Effectiveness of leadership and management Inadequate

• Leaders and the governing body have overseen poor standards for pupils for too long, and they have not demonstrated the capacity to improve them.
• Leadership is in a state of flux. The substantive headteacher is on a two-term ill-health sabbatical and the interim headteacher took up the role in January 2017. The governing body has yet to confirm who will be leading the school in September 2017. This inaction on the part of governors is hindering the governing body’s ability to secure urgently needed improvements.
• The interim headteacher has introduced a raft of strategies to improve checks on the quality of teaching and learning, but it is too early to see the impact of these. Subject leaders are now being encouraged to monitor and support teachers with their teaching. As a result of these developments, subject leaders are increasingly clear about their roles in improving the quality of teaching.
• Since the previous inspection, the quality of teaching has declined and leaders have not been doing enough to tackle poor teaching. Pupils are underachieving in all the main subjects and the school’s data indicates that the attainment of current pupils in Year 11 will show no improvement on the poor results in 2016. Leaders are projecting that standards will improve for the current pupils in Year 10, but these would still be well below where they should be for the majority of pupils. In other year groups, pupils are making much slower progress than they should.
• Leaders have not improved the quality of teaching quickly enough. They have not taken sufficient action to ensure that teachers who are teaching subjects outside their specialisms have had appropriate training. Leaders have not monitored the quality of teaching of these teachers and so are unaware of their development needs.
• Governors now recognise that standards have been too low and accept that they have been slow to act to seek improvements that will accelerate pupils’ progress. They have accepted the information they receive from leaders without any checking by external colleagues. Consequently, they have had an over-optimistic view of the strengths of the school, have not fully recognised its weaknesses and have not put robust plans in place to tackle the poor teaching.
• Leaders and governors are not doing enough to stem the decline in the progress of disadvantaged pupils, both historically and currently. Leaders do not measure carefully the impact of additional funds to support disadvantaged pupils, those needing to catch up in Year 7, and pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities. Some of the plans to speed up the progress made by these pupils lack precision and do not focus sharply on removing barriers to achievement.
• In 2016, boys’ achievement was worse than that of girls and was very low. In the same year, the achievement of middle-ability pupils was particularly low. Leaders have not provided effective strategies to improve this situation.
• Leaders have not done enough to arrest pupils’ poor attendance. Too many are absent from school for long periods of time. The attendance of disadvantaged pupils is particularly low and declining. Leaders and the governing body have not monitored attendance closely enough to recognise this decline and have not taken robust steps to reverse this trend.
• Under new leadership, the provision for pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities is beginning to improve. There are signs of rising achievement for younger year groups, but for the older pupils these improvements have come too late to ensure that they achieve in line with their potential.
• The school makes use of an alternative provider for a very small minority of pupils. Checks by the school are rigorous and sufficiently timely to ensure that these pupils achieve and attend well.
• The curriculum is broad and balanced, but is yet to lead to good outcomes for all pupils. Through the personal, social, health and education programme, pupils learn about topics such as racism, prejudice, recognising differences between right and wrong, extremism and radicalisation. This is well supported through the rest of the curriculum where pupils develop their understanding about moral dilemmas, religious beliefs and how society works, which helps to develop their knowledge about British values.
• It is recommended that newly qualified teachers should not be appointed.

Governance of the school

• Governance is inadequate because the governing body has not done enough to prevent the decline in the school’s performance. Although there is some evidence of challenge in the minutes of meetings of the governing body, governors have too readily accepted inaccurate and unsupported information from school leaders about pupils’ performance. The governing body has therefore failed to hold leaders to account for pupils’ underachievement.
• The governing body has not ensured that the additional pupil premium funding provided for disadvantaged pupils has been spent effectively. As a result, these pupils do not make progress in line with other pupils nationally. The governing body has not reviewed the effectiveness of the school’s use of this funding over the last year. Consequently, this information has not been published on the school’s website.
• Governors are also ineffective in holding leaders to account for the extra funding received to help pupils in Year 7 catch up in English and mathematics. They have not reviewed the impact of actions taken last year and do not have a plan for improvement for the current year.

Safeguarding

• The arrangements for safeguarding are effective.
• The school has a strong culture of safeguarding. Leaders responsible for safeguarding carry out their roles well. Pupils feel safe at the school. The vast majority of parents believe their child is safe at school.
• Clear and appropriate measures are in place to ensure that leaders check the suitability of staff and keep careful records. All staff receive regular safeguarding updates.
• Leaders work effectively with external agencies to support pupils and their families. The initial response from the local authority’s social care service for children following requests for referrals, however, does not always lead to prompt action to ensure pupils’ well-being.
• Pupils feel safe. They are taught to identify potential dangers and how to avoid them. Staff know their pupils well and follow up any potential issues.
• Pupils are taught how to keep safe from the dangers of radicalisation and extremism through the school’s personal, social and health education programme and through assemblies. Leaders have a good understanding of risks in the local community and all staff have undergone ‘Prevent’ duty training. Pupils who spoke with inspectors know the systems in place for ensuring their safe use of the internet in school. Staff are alert to the possible signs that pupils may be at risk.

Quality of teaching, learning and assessment Inadequate

• Too much teaching is mundane, poorly planned and not well matched to pupils’ abilities. There is not enough good teaching to accelerate pupils’ progress.
• Teachers do not understand assessment information well enough and therefore do not know where pupils are in their learning. Teachers do not regularly check on pupils’ understanding in lessons or plan learning that matches pupils’ needs. Consequently, learning is either too easy or too difficult, and does not take into account pupils’ starting points. For example, in a mathematics lesson, the teacher did not recognise that some pupils in Year 8 were able to complete an activity on shapes quickly. While they were waiting for others to catch up, they began talking to each other and stopped learning.
• The teaching of English, mathematics and science is not good enough. In too many of these lessons work is repetitive and at too low a level to accelerate learning. This means that pupils are not able to catch up with others nationally.
• Some teachers are teaching subjects outside their specialisms. They have not received training and support to help improve their practice. Consequently, pupils are making very slow progress in these subjects, particularly in some science, English and mathematics lessons.
• Most teachers have low expectations of what pupils can achieve. This is particularly evident for middle-ability pupils and, consequently, their progress is very slow. Teachers frequently accept work in pupils’ books that is not completed. When they ask pupils to complete it, this is rarely done. Many teachers also accept low standards of presentation from pupils in their books, particularly from boys.
• Teachers do not provide feedback to pupils in line with the school policy. When it is well focused, pupils relish the opportunity of responding to it to improve their learning. This is too rare, however, and pupils rarely act on the pointers for improvement given to them by teachers. Consequently, they make slow progress.
• Teaching in science is particularly poor. It is better for older pupils because leaders ensure that better-quality teaching is given to them. Consequently, pupils in key stage 3 receive weaker teaching, much from non-specialist teachers. In too many lessons, teachers do not support pupils well enough in their learning. For example, pupils in Year 9 were not able to complete an activity on different forms of energy because they had not been given enough information by the teacher. As a result, pupils behaved poorly, became disengaged and made very little progress.
• Pupils are more motivated and are keen to work hard on the few occasions when teaching is effective. In the majority of lessons, pupils just sit quietly when teaching is less effective, but inspectors saw examples of poor behaviour from a small minority of pupils, predominantly boys, that disrupted learning. Pupils confirm that this is a regular occurrence.

Personal development, behaviour and welfare Inadequate

Personal development and welfare

• The school’s work to promote pupils’ personal development and welfare is inadequate.
• There were mixed views about the extent of bullying in the school and how leaders dealt with it. A large minority of pupils and parents expressed concerns about bullying and said that they are not confident the staff always deal with it effectively. Other groups of pupils from both key stages 3 and 4 who spoke with inspectors, however, said that they do not have concerns about bullying generally and that, if it did happen, teachers ‘dealt with it’.
• Recorded incidents of bullying are extremely low and leaders believe that there is confusion over what constitutes bullying. Consequently, they cannot be sure if all incidents are recorded, a view also held by a number of pupils inspectors spoke with. Leaders acknowledge that they have not yet done enough to make sure that all pupils are confident that any incidents will be dealt with quickly.
• A small number of pupils in key stage 4 have their education at an alternative provider. Leaders are effective in monitoring these pupils to ensure that they attend regularly, are safe and make sufficient progress.
• Leaders have provided assemblies, personal, social and health education lessons, and mentor activities to teach pupils how to stay safe. This has included being safe online and, as a result, all pupils who spoke with inspectors are confident that they know how to protect themselves on the internet.
• Careers guidance enables pupils to move on to the next stage in their learning successfully. For example, a group of pupils in Year 10 attended a careers event at a local college during part of the inspection. As a result of this effective provision, the proportion of pupils remaining in sustained education, employment or training after they leave Year 11 is very high.

Behaviour

• The behaviour of pupils is inadequate.
• The school’s behaviour policy is not used consistently enough by teachers to ensure that all pupils behave well. Disruption by pupils, particularly boys, was observed during the inspection and pupils confirm that this is a regular occurrence. It includes calling out, talking over the teacher, not listening to the teacher or other pupils, fidgeting and just not working. Disruption prevents teachers from teaching and hinders pupils’ learning.
• Pupils say that teachers deal with poor behaviour very differently and that they can get away with behaving poorly in the lessons that they believe are taken by supply teachers. Approximately one third of parents who responded to Ofsted’s online questionnaire, Parent View, do not believe that the school ensures that pupils are well behaved.
• Attendance has been close to the national average for the past few years for all pupils but this has declined to below average this year. The attendance of disadvantaged pupils has been particularly low in recent years but this has dramatically declined during this current year and is now very low.
• The school’s procedures for checking attendance are not rigorous enough. The attendance of individual pupils is closely monitored. Nevertheless, leaders are not checking closely enough the attendance of different groups of pupils. Historically, persistent absences have been frequent for disadvantaged pupils and those who have special educational needs and/or disabilities. Leaders accept that the school’s systems and approaches are not tight enough.

Outcomes for pupils Inadequate

• Outcomes have been very low for all pupils since the previous inspection. The school has entered pupils for GCSE examinations for two years. In both of these years, pupils’ results have been very low, despite the overwhelming majority of pupils having been at the school since Year 7, showing that pupils underachieved.
• From their starting points, all pupils leaving Year 11 in 2016 made very slow progress in English, mathematics, humanities and modern foreign languages. This situation showed no improvement from the previous year. This pattern is replicated for middle-ability pupils, for boys and for those pupils who have a statement of special educational needs or an education, health and care plan.
• Outcomes for disadvantaged pupils have been very low for the past two years. Their progress from their starting points was in the lowest 10% nationally in 2016. They made particularly slow progress in English, mathematics, science, humanities and modern foreign languages. Disadvantaged pupils currently in Year 11 are predicted to achieve even lower standards than in 2016.
• The school’s tracking system shows that standards are not set to significantly improve for the current pupils in Year 11 in English and mathematics, with results predicted to be well below their targets. In Year 10, there are signs of improvement but the pupils are still making slow progress. There is some improvement for younger pupils but, again, they are making weak progress towards their targets. Leaders agree that this is not acceptable but feel they have been unable to do much to rectify the situation until more recently.
• Current information from the school shows that boys are still making slower progress than girls in English, mathematics and science.
• Disadvantaged pupils continue to make slow progress. Differences between the progress for disadvantaged pupils and their peers are still evident across the curriculum and in every year group. Leaders have not planned effectively to meet the needs of disadvantaged pupils using the additional funds from the government.
• Outcomes for pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities have been weak in the past two years. The school’s own information shows that this position is set to continue for current pupils in Year 11 although, for younger year groups, there are emerging signs of improvements in their rates of progress.

School details

Unique reference number Local authority Inspection number 137799 Leicestershire 10031114 This inspection of the school was carried out under section 5 of the Education Act 2005. Type of school Secondary School category Age range of pupils Gender of pupils Academy converter 11 to 16 Mixed Number of pupils on the school roll 826 Appropriate authority The academy trust Chair Robert Shields Interim headteacher Krysia Butwilowska Telephone number 01509 412 385 Website Email address www.humphreyperkins.leics.sch.uk office@humphreyperkins.leics.sch.uk Date of previous inspection 30 April–1 May 2013

Information about this school

• This is an average-sized secondary school.
• This is a converter academy, whose governing body is the Humphrey Perkins School Trust.
• Since its previous inspection, the school has changed its age range from 11–14 to 11–16.
• The school currently uses one alternative provider, Loughborough College.
• The vast majority of pupils are of White British heritage.
• The proportion of disadvantaged pupils is below average.
• The proportion of pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities and receive support through a statement of special educational needs or an education, health and care plan is close to the national average.
• In 2016, the school met the government’s current floor standard, which sets the minimum expectations for pupils’ progress.
• The school does not meet requirements on the publication of information on its website about pupil premium funding and Year 7 literacy and numeracy catch-up premium funding.
• The school does not comply with Department for Education guidance on what academies should publish about examination and assessment results at key stage 4, details on courses for all year groups, how parents or members of the public can find out more about the school’s curriculum, its accessibility plan for pupils with disabilities, and details of its provision for pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities.

Information about this inspection

• Inspectors visited 35 lessons, eight of which were seen jointly with senior leaders. Inspectors made short visits to mentor time.
• Inspectors observed the behaviour of pupils at breaktime and lunchtime, and as pupils moved around the school.
• Inspectors scrutinised, in detail, a sample of pupils’ books in a range of subjects.
• Inspectors held a number of meetings with the interim headteacher, senior and middle leaders, the chair of the governing body and other governors.
• Inspectors spoke with a wide range of pupils from all year groups in meetings, in lessons and around the school at breaktimes and lunchtimes.
• The inspection team looked at a wide range of the school’s documentation, including the school’s evaluation of its own performance, its action plan, data on pupils’ attainment and progress, attendance and behaviour records, safeguarding procedures, evaluations of the quality of teaching and minutes of meetings of the governing body.
• Inspectors took account of 100 responses to Parent View, 40 responses to the online staff questionnaire and 125 responses to the online pupil questionnaire.

Inspection team

Jamie Clarke, lead inspector Frances Le Pla Jane Burton Andy Hunt Ofsted Inspector Ofsted Inspector Ofsted Inspector Ofsted Inspector