The Peele Community College Ofsted Report

Full report

In accordance with section 44(2) of the Education Act 2005, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector is of the opinion that this school requires significant improvement, because it is performing significantly less well than it might be in all the circumstances reasonably be expected to perform.

What does the school need to do to improve further?

• Improve leadership and management by:
  • creating a culture where staff feel supported to develop and improve their practice
  • ensuring that governors have the knowledge, understanding and skills to perform their duties and hold leaders to account
  • developing a school-wide approach to improvement, ensuring that all staff understand and commit to agreed aims
  • urgently devising a strategy to improve the outcomes for disadvantaged pupils, ensuring that funding is appropriately accounted for
  • evaluating the impact of the school’s work, amending plans and strategies accordingly
  • further empowering middle leaders to take greater responsibility for the quality of provision in their areas
  • ensuring that performance management is used to support and challenge staff to improve their work.
• Improve teaching, learning and assessment by developing the consistency with which teachers:
  • use assessment information to plan activities which meet the different needs of pupils
  • check pupils’ understanding and adapt their provision accordingly
  • have high expectations of what pupils are able to achieve
  • plan activities which challenge all pupils
  • apply the marking, assessment and feedback policy.
• Improve personal development, behaviour and welfare by:
  • reducing pupils’ off-task behaviour
  • supporting pupils to become more engaged in their learning
  • ensuring that teachers consistently apply the behaviour policy
  • developing strategies to improve attendance, particularly of disadvantaged pupils and those who have special educational needs and/or disabilities. 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 may be improved.

Inspection judgements

Effectiveness of leadership and management Inadequate

• Governors and leaders have not created an open culture where staff feel able to seek advice and support to improve their practice. Staff morale is low and many describe the atmosphere in the school as oppressive and intimidating.
• Governors and leaders have an overgenerous view of the school’s strengths and weaknesses in many areas. They have, therefore, been unable to identify fundamental aspects of the school’s work which require urgent attention. Actions taken to improve the quality of education provided by the school have been too slow.
• Since the last inspection, governors and senior leaders have not taken effective action to ensure that key roles are appropriately staffed. They have not secured replacements for staff who have left at short notice. A significant proportion of lessons are delivered by non-specialist, temporary staff. This has had a detrimental effect on the quality of teaching.
• As a result of poor planning, leadership responsibilities have been frequently reallocated. This has created confusion and a lack of clarity over roles. This has considerably limited leaders’ capacity to bring about improvements to the school.
• Leaders have not supported staff who have taken on additional responsibilities. These staff have therefore not been able to be effective in their roles.
• Senior leaders do not work collaboratively. They are not aware of the impact of their work in relation to that of others. There is a lack of a strategic approach which has impeded school improvement in recent years. This has been compounded by the frequent reallocation of responsibilities.
• There is a lack of transparency and clarity over processes and procedures. Many staff are concerned that systems are not followed appropriately.
• Senior leaders have not ensured that staff are effectively supported to improve their practice. Monitoring activities identify staff in need of support, but systems for providing such support have not been consistently followed. In addition, staff do not actively seek support from senior leaders because they are fearful of the consequences. Retention of staff is poor.
• Leaders have not ensured that the funding to support disadvantaged pupils is used effectively. There is no strategy to raise standards or improve outcomes for these pupils. Leaders cannot account for the spending of this considerable amount of funding. In many subjects, disadvantaged pupils make far less progress than other pupils, both in the school and nationally.
• There is no strategic oversight of the use of the Year 7 catch-up funding. Leaders are unable to account for its spending or evaluate its impact on pupils’ progress.
• Leaders have ensured that plans to support pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities are in place. Leaders track these pupils’ progress but there is a lack of strategic oversight of provision throughout the school. Leaders have not yet ensured that pupils’ needs are consistently met in all aspects of their life at school. Leaders do not evaluate the impact of additional funding on pupils’ outcomes.
• Leaders have not ensured that performance management has been used to improve staff practice. Reviews are not robust and do not support and challenge staff effectively. They do not lead to the implementation of appropriate support or training. Staff are unclear about processes.
• Representatives of the local authority have accurately identified areas in need of urgent improvement. They have provided support through conducting reviews and making clear recommendations for improvement. However, leaders have been too slow to act on these and the necessary improvements have not been realised.
• Until recently, middle leaders have not been empowered to take responsibility for leading improvements in their areas. This is beginning to improve and they are keen to develop. However, they are not yet sufficiently clear about their roles.
• Leaders introduced a new behaviour policy in September 2016. However, they have not ensured that it is consistently applied by all staff. Leaders collect a vast amount of information about pupils’ behaviour but this is not analysed or used to support further improvements.
• Leaders have not taken effective action to ensure that pupils attend regularly. Leaders do not track pupils’ attendance carefully. For example, a weekly attendance report is produced but leaders do not routinely use this information to support pupils to improve their attendance.
• Despite a lack of support and strategic oversight from leaders, teachers do their best to promote pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development and extend their experiences. For example, pupils are able to participate in visits abroad and to the theatre. A range of extra-curricular activities is available.
• Leaders have taken steps to prepare pupils for life in modern Britain. ‘Super learning days’ take place throughout the year to support pupils’ personal, social and health education. For example, older pupils participate in workshops to develop understanding and skills in securing employment or applying for further education.
• Leaders have amended the curriculum to ensure that it offers courses that meet pupils’ varied needs. For example, alternative courses in hair and beauty and information technology have been delivered. Pupils appreciate these amendments and feel that the curriculum now meets their needs and interests.
• The leadership of teaching, learning and assessment has improved, particularly recently where the deputy headteacher has been empowered to take more effective action to support staff to address weaknesses. She has a clear vision of good practice and a sound understanding of the strengths and weaknesses in this aspect of the school’s work. She has recently introduced a ‘teaching and learning steering group’ to share good practice. Staff recognise and appreciate the value of this work. However, the infancy of these developments means it is too early to demonstrate impact on pupils’ progress.
• Leaders are beginning to identify the staff training needs more accurately through more rigorous and appropriate monitoring activities. They are making effective use of external support to provide more individualised training. The deputy headteacher has brokered support from the Lincolnshire Teaching School Alliance to support individual staff. Until recently, this has not been strategically planned.
• Some members of the senior leadership team are beginning to take effective action, through determination and resilience, to bring about the necessary improvements. These leaders recognise that there is much work to be done to restore the staff’s confidence and to bring about much needed stability.

Governance of the school

• The governing body has not worked effectively with leaders to communicate a clear vision for school improvement. The governing body does not have the knowledge and understanding required to support school improvement.
• Some members of the governing body are hindering school improvement because they do not understand their role in challenging and supporting leaders. They are too involved in the day-to-day running of the school and operational activities. They do not focus on raising standards or ensure that actions are in pupils’ best interests.
• Staff are aware of the procedures for raising concerns and seeking support but are fearful of doing so. They do not have confidence in the governing body’s ability or willingness to take appropriate action or to support leaders to drive improvements.
• The governing body has not ensured that it has the relevant and detailed information that it needs. This means it is not able to hold leaders to account for the use of the school’s funding to support disadvantaged pupils and those who have special educational needs and/or disabilities. Outcomes for these pupils have not been good enough in recent years and governors have not challenged leaders about plans to improve them.
• Members of the governing body are over-reliant on the advice of others. This advice has not been helpful in improving the quality of education provided by the school.

Safeguarding

• The arrangements for safeguarding are effective. The designated safeguarding lead is well supported by a team of trained staff.
• Leaders are knowledgeable and work effectively with external agencies, taking swift action when required. Leaders ensure that concerns are carefully monitored and followed up appropriately.
• Safeguarding processes are straightforward and understood by staff. Records are well kept and detailed. Leaders support staff in monitoring the well-being of pupils and ensuring that they receive appropriate support.
• Staff have an up-to-date understanding of safeguarding issues and have undertaken appropriate training. Leaders ensure that staff who join the school in the middle of the school year are also appropriately trained.
• Safer-recruitment processes are correctly followed. Full checks are undertaken and carefully recorded.
• The school’s single central record is well maintained and regularly checked by the designated safeguarding lead and the designated governor for safeguarding.
• Staff recognise their duties to ensure the well-being of pupils. Positive relationships between staff and pupils support this.

Quality of teaching, learning and assessment Requires improvement

• The quality of teaching, learning and assessment is inconsistent across the school and within year groups and subjects. High levels of staff turnover have led to instability which has hindered improvements over time.
• In many subjects, pupils work on the same tasks, regardless of their ability. Teachers do not routinely use assessment information to plan activities which meet the needs of pupils. This means that, often, the least able pupils are not effectively supported and the most able are not sufficiently challenged.
• The quality of teaching in the English department has been particularly inconsistent for some time. Consequently, pupils’ progress has typically been below that of mathematics and science in recent years. Considerable instability in staffing and leadership in this area has exacerbated the weaknesses. A new subject leader has been appointed for September 2017.
• The recently amended marking, assessment and feedback policy is inconsistently applied. Consequently, there is some variability in the quality of feedback given to pupils. Where the policy is consistently applied, pupils are given clear guidance about how to improve their work.
• Many teachers have strong subject knowledge and use this to effectively engage pupils’ interests. This is particularly evident in mathematics and science.
• Teachers and pupils have good relationships. This has a positive impact on pupils’ learning and progress.
• Teaching assistants are used effectively to support the needs of pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities. They help these pupils to focus on their learning, providing support without removing their independence.
• There are pockets of stronger teaching. In mathematics and science, for example, teachers plan to meet the needs of pupils’ different abilities. This leads to purposeful learning activities and contributes to pupils making more rapid progress in these areas.

Personal development, behaviour and welfare Requires improvement

Personal development and welfare

• The school’s work to promote pupils’ personal development and welfare requires improvement.
• Pupils are not consistently supported to develop positive attitudes to learning. For example, weaker teaching does not encourage independence and resilience.
• Not all pupils demonstrate pride in their work. Inconsistent application of the school’s marking, assessment and feedback policy does not encourage pupils to take responsibility for improvement.
• Pupils are positive about their experiences at school. They feel valued and recognise that many staff ‘go the extra mile’ for them. They appreciate staff’s efforts to help them to succeed.
• Pupils say that teachers are keen to develop their confidence and self-esteem. Pupils are happy at school.
• Pupils understand how to keep themselves safe in a variety of situations, including online. They understand the potential dangers posed by the internet, for example the risk of child sexual exploitation. Pupils feel safe at school.
• Pupils say that bullying is rare but when it does happen, it is dealt with quickly and effectively.

Behaviour

• The behaviour of pupils requires improvement.
• Pupils do not behave as well in lessons that are taught by temporary staff as they do elsewhere. Some pupils are concerned about the disruption to their learning as a result of this. Furthermore, behaviour in lessons that immediately follow those covered by temporary staff is also less positive than the norm.
• Pupils behave well in the majority of lessons that are taught by permanent staff. There is little low-level disruption. However, where teaching is weaker, pupils engage in off-task behaviour.
• The introduction of a new behaviour management policy, in September 2016, has led to improvements that are recognised by staff and pupils. However, the policy is not consistently applied throughout the school. Pupils do not fully understand the consequences of poor behaviour.
• Whole-school attendance has declined and is now below the national average. The attendance of disadvantaged pupils and those who have special educational needs and/or disabilities has also declined and is now considerably lower than the national averages.
• The number of exclusions has reduced but remains above the national average.
• Pupils’ conduct around school is orderly and calm.
• Pupils have responded well to increased expectations of uniform compliance.

Outcomes for pupils Inadequate

• Instability in staffing and subsequent inconsistencies in the quality of teaching have meant that many pupils have made less progress over time in many subjects than other pupils nationally.
• Disadvantaged pupils have made considerably less progress than other pupils nationally in a range of subjects. The lack of a strategic approach to supporting disadvantaged pupils and the use of additional funding has meant that there are currently no plans in place to improve this aspect of the school’s work.
• Year 7 catch-up funding is not used effectively to support pupils who enter the school with literacy and numeracy levels below those typical for their age. They do not make the rapid progress necessary to catch up with their peers.
• Progress in English is weak. For a number of years, pupils’ progress has been far slower than the national average. In 2016, pupils made considerably less progress than all pupils nationally. Disadvantaged pupils’ progress was in the lowest 10% of all schools. The quality of teaching, learning and assessment in English is in need of rapid improvement to improve outcomes for pupils in this subject.
• Pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities made considerably less progress than other pupils nationally in 2016. However, current pupils are making more progress than in the past as a result of effective in-class support in many areas.
• The proportion of pupils achieving grade C or above in both English and mathematics in 2016 was higher than in previous years. However, it remains below the national average. This is due to the limited progress that pupils make in English.
• Progress in languages has improved in recent years, although it remains below the national average.
• In 2016, progress in science was below the national average. However, strengthened leadership in this area has led to better teaching more recently. This, combined with changes to the curriculum, is leading to improved progress for current pupils in science.
• Stronger teaching in mathematics has helped pupils to make good progress over recent years. In 2016, progress was above the national average. The most able disadvantaged pupils also made good progress compared to other pupils nationally. Work in current pupils’ books indicates that this strength is set to continue.

School details

Unique reference number Local authority Inspection number 120645 Lincolnshire 10037501 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 Maintained 11 to 16 Mixed Number of pupils on the school roll 615 Appropriate authority The governing body Chair Acting headteacher Telephone number Website Email address George Hoyles Simon Gilman 01406 362120 www.peele.lincs.sch.uk headteacher@peele.lincs.sch.uk Date of previous inspection 12–13 January 2016

Information about this school

• The school is smaller than the average-sized secondary comprehensive school.
• The proportion of disadvantaged pupils is higher than average.
• The majority of pupils are White British.
• The proportion of pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities is higher than average.
• The school does not use any off-site alternative provision.
• The school does not meet requirements on the publication of information about examination results and the allocation and use of pupil premium funding for 2016/17 on its website.
• The school is part of the Lincolnshire Teaching Schools Alliance.
• The school meets the government’s current floor standards, which are the minimum expectations for pupils’ achievement and progress by the end of Year 11.
• Since the last inspection, the headteacher has left. The acting headteacher has been in post since 21 June 2017.

Information about this inspection

• Inspectors observed learning in 28 lessons, some jointly with senior leaders.
• Discussions were held with senior and middle leaders, other staff and members of the governing body. Conversations were held with a representative of the local authority by telephone. Inspectors also spoke to a number of staff, on several occasions, who asked to share their views with inspectors.
• Inspectors looked at pupils’ work in lessons and a sample of their books.
• Inspectors observed pupils’ behaviour during lessons, before school and at lunchtime. They also observed pupils’ learning and behaviour during morning tutor sessions.
• Written communications from staff and governors were considered. Inspectors also took into account parents’ views shared in surveys conducted by the school.
• Inspectors heard pupils read and spoke with pupils in discussion groups and informally around the school.
• Inspectors scrutinised a wide range of documents, including the school’s self-evaluation, improvement plans, minutes of meetings of the governing body, information about the attainment and progress of all pupils, records relating to behaviour and safeguarding, and information on the school’s website.
• During the inspection, the special educational needs coordinator was absent. Discussions were held with this member of staff’s line manager.

Inspection team

Deborah Mosley, lead inspector Christine Horrocks Nigel Boyd Nina Bee Claire Shepherd

Her Majesty’s Inspector Ofsted Inspector Ofsted Inspector Ofsted Inspector Ofsted Inspector