William Lovell Church of England Academy 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?

• Improve the quality of leadership and management by:
  • ensuring that leaders at all levels have an accurate view of the school’s performance
  • putting in place a rigorous and coherent approach to improving the quality of teaching, in order to improve pupils’ progress
  • ensuring that the school’s assessment and feedback policy is applied as leaders intend it to be
  • building the capacity of all subject leaders to monitor and to improve the quality of teaching and learning within their subjects
  • reviewing the curriculum, especially in relation to vocational subjects, so that courses are matched more closely to pupils’ interests and needs
  • ensuring that the trust provides strong and effective support for leaders and the local governing body.
• Improve the quality of teaching, learning and assessment and its impact on pupils’ progress by:
  • using information about pupils’ abilities and needs to plan learning that engages pupils and is sufficiently challenging, particularly for the most able pupils
  • raising expectations of what all pupils are able to achieve, including the presentation and quality of pupils’ work.
• Improve pupils’ personal development, behaviour and welfare by:
  • supporting all pupils to become more self-confident learners, especially older pupils
  • eradicating low-level disruption in lessons, so that all pupils can make at least good progress
  • putting effective strategies in place to reduce persistent absence and exclusions, particularly for disadvantaged pupils and pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities
  • ensuring that the school’s tracking systems to monitor pupils’ attendance and behaviour are fit for purpose.
• Improve outcomes for pupils by ensuring that:
  • leaders act more decisively on the recommendations of the March 2017 review of the use of the pupil premium funding, so that the needs of disadvantaged pupils are met better
  • pupils’ underperformance in mathematics and English is reduced by improving the quality of subject leadership and teaching in these areas
  • disadvantaged and pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities receive better support, so that they can catch up with other pupils. An external review of the school’s governance 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

• Leaders have let pupils down. The work of the trust has not led to improvements in the school. The overall effectiveness of the school has declined since the previous inspection.
• Leaders at all levels have not adequately evaluated plans and improvement strategies. They did not tackle the most pressing weaknesses to secure accurate assessment, good teaching and outcomes. As a result, for too long, pupils have underachieved.
• Changes to leadership have left the school in a state of flux. While some improvements are now evident, they have come too late to ensure that all pupils have been able to fulfil their potential.
• The trust did not secure the right support for the school quickly enough. Since September 2017, the trust has appointed a new acting headteacher and four consultant headteachers, in order to reverse the decline in standards and lead the improvements. The school has recently become part of a local teaching school alliance. The school is currently over-reliant on external support and lacks the capacity to build on and sustain improvements.
• Leaders have been slow to act on all of the recommendations from the pupil premium review in March 2017. Leaders’ plans to improve the achievement of disadvantaged pupils lack precision, and disadvantaged pupils continue to underachieve.
• Leaders do not have a detailed understanding of the patterns of pupils’ attendance, or of pupils’ fixed-term exclusions. Leaders do not consider how potentially vulnerable groups of pupils who underachieve, such as disadvantaged pupils and pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities, are affected by poor attendance, or by being excluded. Leaders have not used SEN funding effectively to raise the attendance and achievement of pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities.
• Leaders have introduced new systems to manage the behaviour of pupils and, as a result, staff now apply sanctions more consistently. Records of behaviour incidents, including bullying, are poorly kept by leaders. Leaders cannot evaluate their work to improve behaviour and do not know which initiatives are working.
• Many pupils have had different teachers over time and experienced inconsistencies in the quality of teaching they have received. There has been a significant amount of turbulence in staffing. More staffing changes have taken place this year, which has hampered the new leaders as they have aimed to improve teaching.
• Teaching has not been good enough in recent years. Older pupils have, therefore, more to catch up on from previous years, but are still not consistently taught well enough to ensure that they make adequate progress. New leaders have identified that outcomes for pupils in 2017 were inadequate, as a result of poor leadership and teaching.
• Recently, leaders have focused on improving the quality of teaching, learning and assessment. Subject leaders are beginning to make a difference, but some are new to their roles. They are now monitoring the quality of teaching and sharing good practice in their departments. Inspectors observed stronger teaching practice in, for example, English and science. These improvements have not been rapid, or sustained.
• Leaders have not made sure that the curriculum meets the needs of most pupils and allows the pupils to be successful. Leaders have changed the key stage 4 curriculum recently and included more vocational courses. The impact of the changes on pupils’ outcomes will not be seen for some time.
• The leaders are not currently able to assess and to track the performance of pupils at key stage 3 and then act on the findings. Very recently, leaders have put into place systems that are allowing them to check pupils’ progress more regularly.
• Year 7 and Year 8 pupils who receive extra support to catch up in reading, writing and mathematics are making modest improvements. For example, these pupils are improving their reading ages.
• Pupils have good opportunities to explore spiritual, moral, social and cultural matters. The curriculum reinforces these things well in tutor time, religious education lessons and assemblies. The pupils have good opportunities to take up extra-curricular activities. Pupils are very accepting of others who are different from themselves and are well prepared for life in modern Britain.
• The new acting headteacher conveys a strong passion and determination to build the culture of the school. Staff morale is high. Other new leaders are building good relationships with the pupils and establishing systems and routines, for example a new behaviour policy.
• Leaders have taken actions swiftly since September 2017, and there are clear signs of progress recognised by staff, pupils and some parents and carers. Leaders still have a lot to do to secure the school’s capacity for improvement.
• It is recommended that newly qualified teachers should not be appointed to the school.

Governance of the school

This sharper system has not yet allowed leaders to being about the necessary changes to allow pupils to progress more rapidly.

• In the past, governors have not ensured that leaders have provided them with the relevant and detailed information which they need. Previously, governors have largely accepted leaders’ reports and have not monitored strategic plans thoroughly. Governors have not made sure that improvement happens quickly enough or that pupils’ outcomes have improved.
• Governors do not make sure that additional government funding for disadvantaged pupils has the maximum impact, in order that these pupils achieve and attend school as well as others.
• In September 2017, a new chair of the governing body was appointed by the trust. The chair of the governing body is knowledgeable, and governors recently established individual links with different areas of the school, so that they are better informed.
• Governors now have a clear picture of the school’s strengths and weaknesses from the new acting headteacher and they have high expectations and ambitions for the pupils. The governors are now able to provide the appropriate challenge and support to school leaders in relation to, for example, pupils’ attendance and outcomes.
• Governors have a good understanding of their responsibilities in relation to the safeguarding of pupils and they receive regular training.

Safeguarding

• The arrangements for safeguarding are effective and pupils feel safe in school.
• An appropriate range of checks is made on any staff prior to their being recruited.
• School policies for child protection and safeguarding are robust.
• Staff receive regular updates through training, including about radicalisation and the risks of extremism. All staff recognise their responsibility in ensuring the safety and well-being of pupils and understand the local risks. Staff do not fully understand the processes included within the policy relating to allegations being made about a member of staff.
• Leaders are effective in protecting potentially vulnerable pupils in the school. When these pupils do not attend school, leaders follow appropriate systems to make sure that the pupils are safe.
• Records relating to safeguarding are well maintained and are detailed. Leaders make timely referrals when concerns arise to the relevant external agencies.

Quality of teaching, learning and assessment Inadequate

• The quality of teaching is poor across a range of different subjects and year groups. For some time, too few pupils have made the progress that they should. This is clear from the school’s assessment information, from the visits to lessons and from the work in the current pupils’ books, reviewed jointly with leaders.
• Classes in modern foreign languages and humanities are more likely to be taught by non-specialist teachers than other subjects. Pupils told inspectors that this has a negative impact on their learning experience and that they make less progress as a result. Frequent changes to their teachers have caused boys, in particular, to lose confidence in their ability to do well.
• Teachers do not have high enough expectations of what their pupils can achieve, particularly boys. The most able pupils are not challenged sufficiently, and disadvantaged pupils do not make rapid progress. Many teachers accept work from pupils that is not good enough.
• When teachers ask questions, pupils’ answers are often brief and in simple language. Teachers do not insist that pupils provide explanations and show their understanding. Some teachers lack the skills and the confidence to know how to get the best out of their pupils. As a result, teachers miss opportunities to enthuse pupils with a love of learning, and pupils’ progress slows.
• Teachers do not consistently give pupils precise feedback, in line with the school’s policy, about how they can improve. Teachers sometimes fail to identify weaknesses in pupils’ literacy skills. Without the appropriate guidance, pupils do not improve their progress.
• Teaching assistants provide support for pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities in lessons. This support is not effective, since the work given to pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities does not take account of their particular needs. Outcomes for these pupils remain too low.
• Some teaching is effective. In these cases, teachers and pupils have positive relationships. Teachers have strong subject knowledge and plan activities that challenge the pupils. Pupils contribute to their own learning by responding well to feedback and meeting the high expectations of their teachers. Pupils make more rapid progress on these occasions. Inspectors saw examples of stronger practice in English, music and science.

Personal development, behaviour and welfare Inadequate

Personal development and welfare

• The school’s work to promote pupils’ personal development and welfare requires improvement.
• Pupils want to do well, but feel let down by poor teaching that has not allowed them to make the progress of which they are capable. Pupils recognise that the school’s new leaders want them to be successful.
• Pupils do not always show pride in their work or commitment to their learning, particularly older boys and pupils who are less able. Pupils make better progress in lessons in which teachers meet pupils’ learning needs and have consistently high expectations.
• Pupils feel safe at school and understand how to keep themselves safe in a range of situations. Staff support this view. Pupils have all received advice from the police in assemblies about online safety and the dangers of radicalisation. Pupils know whom they can talk to in school if they have a concern.
• Pupils reported that bullying is not an issue. On the rare occasions that bullying does happen, pupils are confident that teachers will deal with the incident. One pupil said, for example, ‘We don’t get racism or homophobia in this school.’
• Pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural awareness is good. This was evident during an assembly about the work of young carers. Pupils said that they fully accept cultures, beliefs and lifestyles other than their own.
• Pupils receive suitable guidance about careers. For example, Year 8 pupils take part in a ‘world of work’ day to learn about different types of jobs, while Year 10 pupils enjoy one week of work experience. Year 11 pupils benefit from careers advice from an external adviser about their options for continuing in education, training or employment.

Behaviour

• The behaviour of pupils is inadequate.
• The proportion of pupils who do not attend school regularly is well above the national average. Disadvantaged pupils and pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities are less likely to attend school regularly than their peers. One third of all disadvantaged pupils are absent regularly. The regular absence of these pupils contributes significantly to their underachievement.
• Pupils in Year 9 are more likely to be absent regularly than other pupils. A quarter of Year 9 pupils are absent from school regularly.
• Overall, pupils’ absence has increased since 2015 and it remains above the national average.
• The number of pupils who received a fixed-term exclusion was above the national average in 2017. Leaders introduced a new behaviour policy in September 2017. As a result, the behaviour of pupils is improving and the proportion of pupils who have received a fixed-term exclusion from school this year is lower than last year.
• In lessons, pupils are usually quiet and compliant with teachers’ requests for good behaviour. When teaching does not interest or challenge pupils, they lose focus and start to misbehave. This is especially true of some of the older boys.
• Pupils and staff said that behaviour is beginning to improve. Pupils know what is expected of them and most are starting to respond. A large minority of pupils are struggling to conform to these higher expectations. Pupils told inspectors that their learning in some subjects is still interrupted by poor behaviour.
• A majority of staff who responded to the online questionnaire are positive about the behaviour of pupils and the support that they receive from leaders in its management.
• Around the school during social times and between lessons, pupils were seen to behave well, treating each other and adults with respect.
• Pupils are respectful of their environment. There is very little litter or graffiti around the school.
• There are good links between the school and the providers of off-site provision to check on pupils’ safety and learning.

Outcomes for pupils Inadequate

• Pupils make inadequate progress when compared to other pupils nationally. Over a number of years, successive groups of pupils have underachieved and have left the school ill equipped for the next stage of their education, employment or training.
• In 2016, the overall progress of pupils in Year 11 was significantly below the national average. According to information for 2017, the progress of Year 11 pupils decreased further.
• There are significant gaps in achievement between disadvantaged pupils and other pupils, and these gaps are not closing quickly enough. Disadvantaged pupils’ progress was in the lowest 10% of all schools nationally in 2016 and 2017.
• Disadvantaged pupils underachieve across a range of subjects, including English and mathematics. Leaders have not ensured that they have used additional funding to support these pupils effectively. The progress of some disadvantaged pupils is also affected by poor attendance.
• Most-able pupils are capable of achieving more. They make less progress than pupils of the same ability nationally, including in English and mathematics.
• Pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities, particularly those who have an education, health and care plan, make inadequate progress compared to that of other pupils nationally, across a wide range of subjects.
• Boys make slower progress than girls in all subject areas, and the difference between overall girls’ and boys’ progress increased in 2017.
• Too many pupils of all abilities underachieved in English and mathematics in 2016 and their progress decreased further in 2017. Some improvements are evident. Current Year 11 pupils are beginning to make better progress in English and mathematics as a result of close support and improved teaching.

,,

School details

Unique reference number Local authority Inspection number 138756 Lincolnshire 10037610 This inspection of the school was carried out under section 5 of the Education Act 2005. Type of school Secondary comprehensive School category Age range of pupils Gender of pupils Academy sponsor-led 11 to 16 Mixed Number of pupils on the school roll 312 Appropriate authority Board of trustees Chair Mr Jeremy Woolner Acting Headteacher Mrs Carol Acheson Telephone number 01205 480352 Website Email address www.stickney.lincs.sch.uk william.lovell@stickney.lincs.sch.uk Date of previous inspection 12–13 June 2013

Information about this school

• The school is smaller than an average-sized secondary school.
• The school has been sponsored by the Lincoln Anglican Academy Trust (LAAT) since April 2015. The trust is responsible for the school’s governance. The school has a local governing board. The trust holds all of the legal responsibilities for the school.
• The majority of pupils are of white British heritage. The proportion of pupils who speak English as an additional language is below average.
• The proportion of disadvantaged pupils who are eligible for pupil premium funding is average.
• The proportion of pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities supported by the school through education, health and care plans is well above average.
• The proportion of pupils who have support for SEN and/or disabilities is well above average.
• The school uses The Gainsborough Academy as an alternative provider.
• The school does not meet requirements on the publication of information about its curriculum on its website.
• The school does not meet the government’s current floor standards, which are the minimum expectations for pupils’ attainment and progress in English and mathematics at the end of Year 11.
• The school meets the Department for Education’s definition of a coasting school based on key stage 4 academic performance results in 2014, 2015 and 2016.
• There have been significant changes in staffing and leadership since the previous inspection. In September 2017, an acting headteacher was appointed who has been seconded to work for LAAT from the Lincoln Diocese. The school is also receiving support from three consultant headteachers who are external to the multi-academy trust. An additional interim headteacher has also been appointed by the LAAT to work specifically with pupils in Years 7, 8 and 9.

Information about this inspection

• Inspectors observed learning in 17 lessons, across a wide range of subjects and in key stages 3 and 4. Some lessons were observed jointly with senior leaders. Inspectors also observed intervention sessions during tutor time and one assembly.
• Inspectors looked at pupils’ work in lessons across all year groups and a sample of pupils’ books.
• The lead inspector held a range of meetings, including with: the acting headteacher; two consultant headteachers; the chair and members of the local governing body; two representatives of the multi-academy trust, including the chief executive officer; the leader responsible for the pupil premium funding; the safeguarding leader and pastoral leaders.
• Inspectors held a range of meetings, including with: leaders responsible for behaviour and attendance, teaching and learning, and the curriculum; the coordinator for the provision for pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities; the careers leader; the personal, social, health and economic (PSHE) education coordinator; and subject leaders.
• 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 with a group of other pupils. Inspectors also spoke with other pupils informally.
• An inspector spoke with a representative of an alternative provider which pupils from the school attend.
• Inspectors scrutinised a wide range of documents relating to the school’s provision, including: self-evaluation and improvement planning; minutes of the local governing body meetings; plans related to additional government funding; behaviour, attendance and exclusion records; achievement information; and safeguarding. The lead inspector also checked the school’s single central register and the school’s system for recruiting staff.
• Inspectors evaluated 10 responses to Parent View, Ofsted’s online survey, including one free text response.
• Inspectors analysed the 34 responses to Ofsted’s online questionnaire for staff.

Inspection team

Rachel Tordoff, lead inspector Matthew Sammy Her Majesty’s Inspector Ofsted Inspector Aune Turkson-Jones Ofsted Inspector