Kirkby College 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:
  • urgently establishing robust and transparent systems for making and following up referrals around safeguarding
  • ensuring that roles and responsibilities for safeguarding arrangements are clear and understood by all
  • establishing a clear vision for school improvement and ensuring that this is understood by all staff
  • ensuring that leadership roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and understood by all
  • evaluating all aspects of the school’s work thoroughly, amending plans accordingly
  • ensuring that all improvement plans identify clear and precise actions, measurable success criteria, specific timescales and those responsible for monitoring and evaluating actions
  • developing a strategic approach for the provision for pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities to ensure that they are fully supported in all aspects of school life and make good progress
  • challenging staff underperformance swiftly and supporting them to improve
  • ensuring that teachers consistently apply the school’s assessment and feedback policy
  • establishing clear strategies for the allocation of additional funding and evaluating its impact
  • ensuring that those responsible for governance have the skills, knowledge and understanding to hold leaders to account.
• Improve the quality of teaching, learning and assessment by ensuring that teachers:
  • plan activities which meet pupils’ different needs and abilities
  • routinely plan activities which interest and motivate pupils
  • are held to account for pupils’ outcomes.
• Improve personal development, behaviour and welfare by:
  • providing adequate facilities and a suitable atmosphere for pupils to eat their lunch in comfort
  • ensuring that toilet facilities provide adequate hygiene and privacy
  • ensuring that teachers apply the behaviour policy consistently
  • reducing low-level disruption in lessons
  • improving pupils’ behaviour at unstructured times further developing strategies already in place to improve attendance and reduce persistent absence.
• Improve the provision in the sixth form by:
  • supporting the leader of the sixth form to take a strategic role to improve the quality of the education provided
  • increasing opportunities for students to participate in work-related learning and to undertake work experience
  • improving students’ attendance. External reviews of governance and the school’s use of the pupil premium funding should be undertaken in order to assess how these aspects of leadership and management may be improved.

Inspection judgements

Effectiveness of leadership and management Inadequate

• The principal has not used his time or energy effectively in order to ensure that the school provides an adequate quality of education.
• Leaders do not have a realistic understanding of the quality of education provided by the school. They do not recognise the considerable weaknesses in most aspects of the school’s work. They have, therefore, been unable to identify fundamental concerns that require urgent attention.
• The potential improvements that were noted at the time of the last inspection have not been brought to fruition. Leaders have not demonstrated the capacity to bring about the necessary improvements. They have not taken effective action to tackle the weaknesses that have been identified.
• Leaders have not ensured that pupils’ interests come first. They have not created a culture where pupils feel valued, nor have they ensured that pupils’ basic needs are met. Pupils are not able to learn effectively in the atmosphere and environment which surrounds them.
• Leaders are not aspirational for pupils’ success. They have not communicated high expectations of staff to realise pupils’ potential.
• The principal has not communicated a clear vision for the direction of the school. Whole-school priorities are unclear and therefore not recognised by staff. Improvement plans are vague and they are not strategic. They do not identify specific aims, nor do they state clear actions to bring about improvements. This has resulted in a lack of purposeful direction for most aspects of the school’s work.
• Despite the relatively large size of the leadership team, there is a lack of clarity around leadership roles. Staff, and leaders themselves, are unclear about who holds responsibility for key aspects of the school’s work.
• Performance management arrangements are not robust. Staff are set targets in relation to pupils’ performance but they have not been challenged for pupils’ poor outcomes. More recently, trustees have increased the rigour of the principal’s appraisal.
• Leaders were unable to provide evidence to demonstrate that pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development is promoted well across the school. Inspectors noted that a range of topics to consider fundamental British values are included within the curriculum but pupils’ understanding of these values is limited.
• Leaders do not have an overview of the school’s use of the pupil premium funding. They are unable to account for its use or impact. As a result, they are unable to report to trustees who cannot hold leaders to account for the spending of this considerable sum of money.
• Leaders are unable to demonstrate that the Year 7 catch-up funding has been used effectively. Leaders do not know how this funding has been deployed, nor can they evaluate it impact.
• The leadership of the provision for pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities is weak. Leaders have not supported the special educational needs coordinator (SENCo) to be effective in her role. For example, the SENCo provides teachers with information about individual pupils’ needs but this is not used well to ensure that the needs are met. There is a lack of strategic oversight of the provision for this group of pupils. Leaders have not ensured that statutory duties are met.
• Leaders have taken some action to improve the quality of teaching, learning and assessment. For example, they have led whole-staff training and arranged coaching groups. However, a lack of understanding of what the weaknesses are has meant that this work has had limited impact. Furthermore, processes to monitor the quality of teaching throughout the school are not robust and leaders have been too slow to challenge poor teaching.
• Leaders have not ensured that teachers consistently apply the school’s assessment and feedback policy. Pupils do not understand what they need to do to improve their work.
• Leaders have amended the curriculum to provide opportunities for pupils in Year 11 to achieve appropriate qualifications. For example, pupils are able to study a range of vocational courses, including motor vehicle engineering and hairdressing.
• The extra-curricular programme provides some opportunities for pupils to experience sport and art. Pupils appreciate these activities.
• Leaders have not secured effective external support. The school improvement partner does not understand the extent of the school’s weaknesses. He has not provided an accurate evaluation of the school’s effectiveness and has thus hindered leaders’ capacity for improvement.
• I recommend that the school does not seek to appoint newly qualified teachers.

Governance of the school

• The governance of the school is inadequate. As an academy, the body responsible for the governance of the school is the board of trustees. There is a lack of clarity about this among those involved, and of the functions delegated to the local governing body and sub-committees. There are internal disputes between trustees and school leaders that have resulted in a complete breakdown in relationships and ensured that the leadership of the school has been utterly dysfunctional.
• Trustees and local governors do not have sufficient oversight of additional funding. They have not ensured that leaders have provided them with the information that they require to hold leaders to account.
• Over time, trustees have been too ready to accept, unquestioningly, information given to them by school leaders. Some of this information, particularly around pupils’ outcomes, has been inaccurate. It is only relatively recently that trustees have realised this. They accept that this is too little, too late. Nevertheless, trustees have taken appropriate and effective action, of late, to resolve matters in the best interests of pupils.

Safeguarding

• The arrangements for safeguarding are not effective. There is a lack of clarity over roles and responsibilities. Systems for monitoring and recording are also unclear.
• The deputy designated safeguarding lead and the attendance officer work diligently with individual pupils and take their duty of care seriously. However, the administrative systems in place are not robust or transparent enough to ensure that issues, including the follow-up of referrals to other agencies, do not potentially ‘fall through the cracks’.
• The attendance officer takes swift action to check on pupils’ safety and well-being when teachers identify that they are not present in lessons. However, protocols to report and follow up such situations are unclear. Pupils interviewed said that it was commonplace for some pupils to be out of lessons unsupervised.
• Staff members receive appropriate training on a wide range of issues and pupils are taught how to keep themselves safe, including online.

Quality of teaching, learning and assessment Inadequate

• Leaders have not ensured that teachers have been guided to recognise the weaknesses in their practice. They have not been supported to develop and improve fundamental aspects of their work.
• Teachers are aware of the leaders’ expectation that they plan activities to meet the needs of individual pupils. However, they do not understand the means by which to do this. Teachers do not consider what pupils can already do and understand when planning activities. This means that the most able pupils are not sufficiently challenged and the least able are not supported effectively.
• Teachers do not always ensure that all pupils are actively engaged in lessons. Pupils’ participation is often dependent on their own motivation. It is easy for pupils to ‘opt out’.
• Questioning is not used effectively. Teachers seek responses from volunteers and do not routinely ensure that other pupils develop their understanding through their answers or through discussion.
• In many lessons, pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities are not supported effectively. The SENCo provides teachers with information about individual pupils’ needs but teachers do not consider this effectively when planning activities. Teaching assistants do not consistently provide effective support to promote pupils’ progress.
• Provision for pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities is more effective in small or one-to-one group situations.
• There are some pockets of stronger teaching where teachers use assessment information to inform their planning. In these lessons, pupils are more effectively supported to make progress.
• Many teachers have sound subject knowledge and some use this to plan activities which interest and motivate pupils. For example, pupils in a Year 8 French lesson were observed describing celebrities carrying out daily activities, to practise their speaking skills. Pupils were keen to participate and proud of their achievements.

Personal development, behaviour and welfare Inadequate

Personal development and welfare

• The school’s work to promote pupils’ personal development and welfare is inadequate.
• Leaders have not ensured that pupils’ well-being is promoted as they go about their daily school life. For example, there are insufficient facilities to enable pupils to sit and eat their lunch in comfort. Pupils told inspectors that they do not use the toilets during the school day because their privacy cannot be guaranteed, nor do facilities provide adequate hygiene. Pupils say that they do not feel welcomed by the school. Many pupils are unhappy at school.
• The majority of pupils who made their views known to inspectors are not proud to be members of the school. Although there are some exceptions, the majority of pupils’ workbooks do not reflect a sense of pride in their work. Poor presentation is frequently unchallenged.
• Many pupils are independent and hard-working. However, this is largely dependent on their self-motivation. There is very little work to promote pupils’ understanding of how to become successful learners.
• Pupils are taught how to keep themselves safe in a variety of situations. For example, they recognise the potential dangers of the internet. The curriculum provides opportunities for pupils to consider their mental health. For example, Year 11 pupils learn about anxiety and strategies to manage stress, as part of their tutor programme.
• Pupils say that although bullying does happen, staff take action to deal with it effectively. Very few bullying incidents are recorded. Pupils identify staff that they would be able to speak to if they have concerns.
• There are many pupils who are polite, confident and self-assured. Pupils were happy to speak to inspectors and keen to share their views.
• The attendance officer monitors the attendance of pupils at alternative, off-site provision. She liaises closely with providers and takes swift and effective action when pupils do not attend. Pupils are taught social skills to help prepare them for their next steps.

Behaviour

• The behaviour of pupils is inadequate. Staff do not consistently apply the school’s behaviour policy. Inspectors noted many examples, in lessons and around school, where poor behaviour was unchallenged. Pupils say that this is often the case.
• During the inspection, behaviour at lunchtime was unsafe. Inspectors saw pupils fighting and when this was brought to the attention of staff, they were slow to respond. Pupils say that fights are frequent. They do not have faith in leaders’ ability to deal with this issue.
• Inspectors witnessed many examples of poor language and abusive behaviour. These were not always challenged by staff in close proximity.
• Leaders and teachers have not communicated high expectations of pupils’ behaviour in lessons. Low-level disruption is frequent. Pupils report that there is often wilful disregard of teachers’ instructions.
• Attendance, including that of disadvantaged pupils, and those who have SEN and/or disabilities, is below the national average. Current attendance has declined further. The proportion of pupils who are persistently absent from school is increasing. The attendance officer works hard to support pupils to attend more regularly. For example, she works with families and undertakes frequent home visits. She is aware of the need to further develop strategies to improve this aspect of the school’s work.
• Exclusion is used rarely. Some pupils feel that the lack of exclusions does not deter poor behaviour.

Outcomes for pupils Inadequate

• Pupils enter the school with levels of attainment that are below national averages. Not only do pupils fail to catch up with their peers, they fall further behind and leave the school with levels of attainment that are significantly below other pupils nationally.
• In 2017, pupils made considerably less progress, by the end of key stage 4, than the national average in all subjects. Disadvantaged pupils’ progress was in the lowest 3% of all schools nationally.
• Pupils’ attainment was also much lower than national averages in a range of subjects. The proportion of pupils who achieved a standard pass in English and mathematics was much lower than the national average. Similarly, far fewer pupils achieved a strong pass in GCSE English and mathematics than was seen nationally.
• Pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities also made considerably slower progress than other pupils, in all subjects. Their progress in English was particularly slow.
• In 2017, pupils made faster progress in humanities than in other subjects. Nevertheless, their progress in these subjects was still below that achieved by other pupils nationally.
• There is no clear strategy to support disadvantaged pupils’ progress. Leaders are unable to account for the considerable sum of money the school receives to support this group of pupils. There is no evidence that disadvantaged pupils are making faster progress than in the past.
• Leaders are unable to provide accurate information about current pupils’ progress. During the course of the inspection, contradictory information was shared with inspectors by different leaders. At the time of the last inspection, leaders predicted improved outcomes for pupils in 2017. These predictions were not realised and pupils’ outcomes declined.
• The principal is predicting that pupils’ outcomes will be similar to national averages in 2018. Inspectors were unable to find any evidence to corroborate this view.

16 to 19 study programmes Inadequate

• The leader of the sixth form is well intentioned but has not been supported by senior leaders to carry out his role effectively. Leaders do not evaluate the quality of education provided in the sixth form, thus they do not have an awareness of the provision’s strengths and weaknesses. They are therefore unable to plan effectively for improvement.
• Teachers do not ensure that all students are fully involved in lessons. Less motivated students are not encouraged effectively to participate. Students complete appropriate assessments which provide them with an understanding of their attainment. However, students are not consistently clear about how they can improve their work and thus increase their rates of progress.
• Students in the sixth form do not attend well. Leaders do not monitor students’ attendance and they do not take effective action to challenge students when they do not attend. Current attendance has declined.
• A number of students retake GCSE English and mathematics. In the past, students, particularly disadvantaged students, have not made good progress in these subjects. Leaders were unable to provide information about the progress of current students. Attendance at these lessons, in the past, has been poor. Current students do not attend well.
• In 2016 and 2017, students made less progress than the national average in academic courses. In 2017, progress was in the lowest 10% of all schools nationally. Disadvantaged students’ progress was considerably lower than the national average. Leaders are unable to provide information about the progress of current students.
• Students taking vocational courses made faster progress than the national average in 2017. The small number of students who studied performing arts and sports studies made good progress.
• In the past, the proportion of students who completed their courses was similar to the national average. However, the retention of current pupils has declined.
• Leaders are unable to provide information about the proportion of students who progress to appropriate destinations, including higher education and employment.
• 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.
• Students who are following vocational courses undertake associated work experience, as part of their qualification. However, leaders have not ensured that other students have access to work experience. Thus, the requirements of the 16–19 study programmes are not met.
• The tutor programme provides opportunities to prepare students to take the next steps in their employment, education or training. Students appreciate the mentoring programme which encourages and supports them to apply to university. However, a lack of monitoring and tracking means that leaders are unclear about the impact of this advice and guidance.

School details

Unique reference number 138481 Local authority Nottinghamshire Inspection number 10044762 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 Number of pupils on the school roll Of which, number on roll in 16 to 19 study programmes Academy converter 11 to 18 Mixed Mixed 474 67 Appropriate authority Board of trustees Chair Principal Telephone number Website Email address Sue Reast Simon Taylor 01623 455925 www.kirkbycollege.org.uk admin@kirkbycollege.notts.sch.uk Date of previous inspection 18 January 2017

Information about this school

• The school is smaller than the average-sized secondary school.
• The proportion of disadvantaged pupils is higher than average.
• The proportion of pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities is higher than the national average. The proportion of pupils who have an education, health and care plan is average.
• The majority of pupils are White British.
• A small number of pupils attend alternative, off-site provision at Pollyteach, CAST, First Class Solutions and EMVA (East Midlands Vocational Academy).
• The school does not meet the government’s current floor standards, which are the minimum expectations for pupils’ achievement and progress in English and mathematics by 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 2017, 2016 and 2015.
• The school does not meet requirements on the publication of information about the pupil premium funding, the Year 7 catch-up funding, key stage 4 and 5 results, or a link to the Department of Education’s performance tables on its website.

Information about this inspection

• Inspectors observed learning in 34 lessons and five tutor sessions, some jointly with senior leaders.
• Discussions were held with senior and middle leaders, other staff and the school’s improvement partner.
• Inspectors looked at pupils’ work in lessons and a sample of pupils’ books.
• Inspectors observed pupils’ behaviour before school, during lessons, around school, at breaktime and at lunchtime.
• Inspectors observed pupils’ learning and behaviour during registration periods.
• Inspectors spoke with pupils in discussion groups and informally around the school.
• Inspectors scrutinised a wide range of documents, including the school’s self-evaluation, its improvement plans, minutes of meetings of the board of trustees, information about the attainment and progress of all pupils, records relating to behaviour and safeguarding, and information on the school’s website.
• There were too few responses to Ofsted’s online questionnaire, Parent View, for inspectors to analyse. Only one response has been received by the school in the past two academic years.
• The principal was absent for most of the inspection.

Inspection team

Deborah Mosley, lead inspector Ian McNeilly Sally Wicken Gary Nixon Kathryn Hobbs Her Majesty’s Inspector Senior Her Majesty’s Inspector Ofsted Inspector Ofsted Inspector Ofsted Inspector