Chingford Hall Primary School 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 in all the circumstances reasonably be expected to perform.

What does the school need to do to improve further?

• Leaders, including those responsible for governance, should take urgent and effective steps to secure pupils’ welfare and safety by:
  • adopting a consistent and rigorous approach to staff recruitment, completing all the required pre-employment checks and maintaining accurate and reliable records
  • ensuring that all staff understand and follow the school’s policies and procedures for safeguarding and recruitment, and completing the admission register
  • checking that pupils taken off roll are not at risk of harm and making timely referrals to external agencies when concerns are identified
  • maintaining high-quality and accurate safeguarding records, including those related to pupils’ medication, admissions to the school and staff training
  • assessing specific risks in the local area thoroughly and raising pupils’ and staff’s awareness of these risks.
• Ensure that trustees and governors hold leaders to account for the impact of their work and the quality of education that the school provides.
• Improve the quality of leadership and management by ensuring that:
  • leaders have an accurate and reliable picture of pupils’ outcomes in all areas of the curriculum
  • leaders’ improvement plans focus clearly on the areas in need of most attention
  • pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities are assessed correctly and that these pupils receive the extra help they need to learn well
  • the additional funding to support pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities and those who are disadvantaged is spent effectively.
• In key stage 2, ensure that teaching and the curriculum routinely challenge pupils to make good gains in all the subjects they study.
• Ensure that the children in Reception who have fallen behind catch up quickly and that all children are supported to improve their early writing skills in readiness for Year 1.

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

• Leadership of safeguarding is complacent. While leaders expressed confidence in the school’s arrangements, they have not checked what happens in practice. Inspectors identified numerous failings that posed a potential risk to pupils’ welfare and safety. Leaders were unaware of these issues until inspectors brought them to their attention.
• Leaders’ evaluation of the school’s effectiveness is over generous. Leaders rely too much on the standards attained by previous Year 6 cohorts in statutory tests to assure themselves that pupils receive a high-quality education. Consequently, leaders’ plans for improvement are not focused on specific priorities that promote and sustain a culture of high ambition.
• Additional funding for pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities is not spent well. Leaders do not ensure that pupils’ needs are assessed promptly or carefully. While some pupils receive extra help, leaders have a limited awareness of whether this help is beneficial to pupils. The trust has recently appointed new leaders with responsibility for this aspect of the school’s work. They have made a positive start with the aim of ensuring that pupils’ needs are fully understood and planned for.
• Leaders’ analysis of pupils’ outcomes is inaccurate and superficial. Assessment information indicates that the current attainment of some year groups at key stage 2 is low in comparison with their starting points, which were typically average or better. Leaders have not checked whether teaching in key stage 2 ensures that pupils make strong gains in their learning across the curriculum.
• Leaders have recently introduced a new curriculum. Older pupils explore thought-provoking questions such as, ‘How are humans similar to a tsunami?’ However, in key stage 2, leaders have given too little emphasis to the specific learning they want pupils to acquire over time in all curriculum subjects. Leaders have narrowed the curriculum for Year 6 pupils. This hinders pupils from deepening their knowledge and understanding progressively in subjects such as art and music.
• The pupil premium grant is not used well. Leaders do not know what impact the school’s strategies have on outcomes for the current disadvantaged pupils. The school’s assessment information indicates that in some year groups in key stage 2, disadvantaged pupils do not attain as well as they could.
• Staff said that they feel well supported and enjoy working at the school. However, turnover of staff has been high. This has contributed to some parents and carers losing confidence in the school’s work, particularly the provision for pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities.
• Leaders have been successful in ensuring that pupils behave well and have positive attitudes to learning.
• Through the school’s after-school enrichment programme, pupils participate in a range of stimulating activities, such as an arts and crafts club and computing. This programme contributes effectively to pupils’ positive attitudes to school. Leaders have installed a new cookery room so that pupils learn how to prepare their own food.
• Appropriate provision is made for pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. Pupils are respectful of others and are curious about the world around them. Leaders and staff encourage pupils to share their views. For example, in a whole-school assembly, older pupils presented their opinions on topics such as ‘whether chocolate should be eaten for breakfast’, or ‘who was the best footballer in the world’. Pupils listen attentively and understand that everyone has the right to their own point of view. Pupils are suitably prepared to play a positive role in modern Britain.
• Leaders use the physical education and sport premium funding effectively. They have renewed sporting resources and equipment. Leaders encourage pupils to participate in sporting activities and competitions. Pupils take part in competitive sports, including tag rugby, football and golf. Through well-targeted extra-curricular activities, leaders have successfully increased girls’ participation in physical activity in particular.

Governance of the school

• Those responsible for governance have not checked the effectiveness of safeguarding arrangements. Governors and trustees do not discuss safeguarding with any degree of rigour or depth. Governors and trustees have not made sure that they receive the information they need to check that pupils are kept safe.
• The trust’s oversight of other aspects of the school’s work is also weak. For example, they have not held leaders to account on the use of additional funding to support disadvantaged pupils or those who have SEN and/or disabilities. Written records of meetings indicate that those responsible for governance have limited oversight of the impact of funding on pupils’ outcomes. Trustees have been slow to identify areas of the school’s work that need to improve, or to challenge leaders to secure the necessary improvements. The high turnover in trustees has contributed to a breakdown in governance arrangements.
• The local governing body is not fulfilling its responsibilities as set out in the trust’s scheme of governance. In part, this is because governors lack the experience and expertise to challenge leaders over the school’s effectiveness. Governors’ work has been largely focused on improving communication with parents. Other aspects of their role, including safeguarding and school improvement, have been overlooked.

Safeguarding

• The arrangements for safeguarding are not effective.
• The culture of safeguarding is weak. Leaders have not made sure that staff understand and follow the school’s policies and procedures. Leaders’ safeguarding reviews are not thorough and do not identify or address failings. For instance, leaders were unaware that the school’s pre-employment checks have not followed requirements fully.
• Record keeping is of poor quality and lacks attention to detail. Leaders do not have an accurate knowledge of pupils who may be at risk of harm and whether effective steps have been taken to secure pupils’ welfare. Leaders are unable to demonstrate that they have taken appropriate measures to ascertain the whereabouts of some pupils removed from the school’s roll, including pupils who may be at increased risk of harm.
• At the start of the inspection, the school’s records of pre-appointment checks incorrectly recorded that required checks on the suitability of those appointed to leadership or management positions were not applicable.
• Leaders have not ensured that staff know what to do if they have any safeguarding concerns. Some recently appointed staff are unsure which leaders have specific safeguarding responsibilities. Some staff are unclear what to do should they have concerns about another adult working in the school. Aspects of the school’s safeguarding documentation for visitors, staff and parents lack clarity.
• The school has introduced a new electronic system for recording and reporting child protection concerns. However, leaders have not ensured that all staff can access the system.
• Leaders have not made sure that staff and pupils have a secure understanding of potential risks that pupils may face in the local community.

Quality of teaching, learning and assessment Requires improvement

• The quality of teaching and learning for pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities depends too much on the class they are in. Extra support for these pupils is not tailored to pupils’ needs as well as it should be. Leaders and staff are sometimes uncertain about specific barriers to pupils’ learning and what they need to do to help pupils overcome any difficulties.
• The quality of teaching is variable across all subjects and classes in key stage 2. Teaching does not routinely challenge pupils to deepen their understanding of what they are learning. Teachers’ expectations for the quality, quantity and presentation of pupils’ work are uneven between classes and subjects. Where expectations are low, pupils do not attain the standard of which they are capable.
• Leaders do not check whether information gathered about pupils’ outcomes in different curriculum subjects is reliable or accurate. For example, the school’s assessment information indicates that pupils’ attainment is high in science in Year 5. The work in current Year 5 pupils’ books is not as strong.
• In key stage 1, teachers usually make effective use of resources to develop pupils’ understanding of the concepts being taught. Occasionally, the impact on pupils’ learning is reduced because adults do not encourage pupils to make effective use of the resources provided.
• In Year 6, pupils receive a range of support to help them to approach statutory assessments in key stage 2 with confidence. Pupils are positive about the extra help they receive to prepare them for the tests.
• The quality of teaching in key stage 1 is typically better than in key stage 2. Teachers in key stage 1 have high expectations and plan activities that enable pupils to build progressively on what they already know or can do.
• Phonics teaching is effective. Staff have strong subject knowledge. They demonstrate sounds clearly and are quick to correct pupils’ inaccuracies.
• In some year groups, including Year 1, specialist art teaching supports pupils to produce artwork of high quality. However, this is not consistent across all year groups.

Personal development, behaviour and welfare Inadequate

Personal development and welfare

• The school’s work to promote pupils’ personal development and welfare is inadequate. Weaknesses in safeguarding arrangements mean that pupils are not kept safe.
• Pupils have a basic awareness of how to keep themselves safe from potential dangers that they may face. For example, older pupils described the importance of not sharing personal information when they use the internet.
• Leaders and staff work together effectively to nurture pupils’ self-esteem and belief in their own abilities. For example, during an assembly, older pupils confidently read examples of their writing out loud to their peers. Pupils who may be experiencing mental health difficulties receive effective additional support from the school’s pastoral team.
• Bullying is unusual. Pupils told inspectors that pupils typically get along well with each other. The vast majority of pupils were confident that the adults would help them to resolve any problems that may arise, including those related to bullying or unkind behaviour.

Behaviour

• The behaviour of pupils is good.
• Pupils are polite and friendly towards their peers and adults. In classrooms, pupils typically concentrate on the tasks set. Pupils’ learning is rarely disrupted by poor or off-task behaviour. Occasionally, some pupils require reminders from adults to remain focused on their learning.
• Leaders and staff encourage pupils to reflect on the choices they make and how they can improve their behaviour. This contributes successfully to pupils’ good conduct around the school. Pupils who struggle to manage their behaviour benefit from well-targeted extra help which helps them to improve their behaviour over time.
• The attendance of pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities is below average. Staff work closely with families to improve pupils’ punctuality. This work has had a positive impact. The school’s information indicates that the number of pupils arriving late to school has reduced considerably over the last term. Pupils’ attendance overall is broadly similar to that of other schools nationally.

Outcomes for pupils Requires improvement

• Current pupils are not making strong progress in key stage 2. Work in pupils’ books shows that pupils’ outcomes vary between classes and subjects. Teaching does not routinely challenge pupils, including the most able, across the range of curriculum subjects. Current pupils in lower key stage 2 have not made strong progress from their above-average starting points at the end of key stage 1.
• School assessment information and work in pupils’ books show that outcomes for pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities are variable and require improvement.
• Current pupils’ outcomes in science are uneven. Pupils’ work shows that teaching does not routinely enable pupils to make good gains in their skills and knowledge. Teaching does not typically encourage pupils to deepen their understanding in key stage 2.
• In the past, pupils’ outcomes in reading, writing and mathematics were strong at the end of Year 2 and Year 6 in statutory assessments. In 2017, pupils’ attainment was above the national average in reading, writing, mathematics and science. Disadvantaged pupils also attained well, typically reaching standards above those of other pupils nationally. Year 6 pupils were well prepared for secondary school.
• Subjects such as art, geography or music are not taught regularly in Year 6. Although subjects such as music and art are taught as enrichment activities, leaders have not ensured equality of opportunity because not all pupils attend these sessions. This limits pupils’ progress in these subjects over time.
• Pupils attain well in the Year 1 phonics screening check. The proportion of Year 1 pupils who met the expected standard has been above the national average for the last two years. Pupils apply their phonics knowledge confidently when they read.
• Over time, pupils in Years 1 and 2 make good gains in reading, writing and mathematics. Pupils typically acquire the knowledge and skills they need to be ready for key stage 2.

Early years provision Inadequate

• Weaknesses in whole-school safeguarding arrangements undermine the work of leaders and staff to promote children’s safety and welfare. Children are not kept safe.
• Leaders have not made sure that the provision meets the statutory safeguarding and welfare requirements of the early years foundation stage. Records of children’s medication were not accurate at the time of the inspection. Records suggested that children’s medication was out of date, or that medication was required when it was no longer needed. Leaders were unaware of this until the inspection. These issues were rectified during the inspection.
• Children in the current Reception Year have not benefited from the teaching they need to make strong gains in their learning. Children’s work shows that progress over time has been uneven. Newly appointed early years leaders have identified that Reception children have fallen behind in their learning. They have set ambitious targets to help children to catch up. Leaders have rightly focused on ensuring that teaching challenges children to acquire the basic skills they need to be well prepared for Year 1, particularly in early writing skills. This work is recent, and it is too soon to judge the impact.
• In 2016 and 2017, the proportion of children, including disadvantaged children, who reached a good level of development was higher than in 2015 and above national averages.
• However, in 2017, boys’ attainment was below national averages in reading, writing and mathematics. Leaders’ work to raise standards for boys has not had a strong impact on improving boys’ outcomes, particularly in writing.
• Activities cater for all areas of the early years curriculum. Adults provide children with clear boundaries and guidance to ensure that they feel settled and use equipment safely.
• Children respond quickly to adults’ instructions and play well together. They are keen to take part in the activities that staff organise and do so sensibly and confidently.

School details

Unique reference number Local authority 138325 Waltham Forest Inspection number 10051893 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 Primary School category Age range of pupils Gender of pupils Academy converter 3 to 11 Mixed Number of pupils on the school roll 332 Appropriate authority Board of trustees Chair Head of School Telephone number Website Email address Anna Layman Andrew Davies 0208 527 7433 www.chingfordhallinformation.co.uk office@chingfordhall.waltham.sch.uk Date of previous inspection Not previously inspected

Information about this school

• The school became an academy within the Silver Birch Academy Trust in June 2012. The trust comprises four primary schools in Waltham Forest and Redbridge local authorities. There have been many changes in teaching staff over recent times.
• Governance arrangements consist of a board of trustees, an executive leadership team and a local governing body.
• Chingford Hall is larger than the average-sized primary school. There are two classes in each year group, apart from the current Year 3, Year 4 and Year 6, where there is only one class.
• The proportion of pupils eligible for the pupil premium funding is higher than for other schools nationally, as is the proportion of pupils who have an education, health and care plan. The proportion of pupils who receive SEN support is lower than for other schools nationally.
• The school meets the government’s current floor standards, which are the minimum expectations for pupils’ progress and attainment at the end of key stage 2.

Information about this inspection

• The inspection was carried out following several complaints made to Ofsted that raised serious concerns. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector decided that an inspection of the school should take place to follow up the whole-school issues that were raised. Inspectors sought to establish whether safeguarding, governance arrangements and the provision for pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities were effective.
• Inspectors visited classrooms and reviewed work in pupils’ books. Inspectors also spoke to pupils about their experiences at school.
• The views of parents were considered through informal discussions before and after school. There were too few responses to Parent View (Ofsted’s online survey for parents) to draw conclusions.
• Meetings and telephone discussions were held with leaders, governors and members of the academy trust.
• Inspectors visited an assembly and observed pupils’ behaviour, both during lessons and at breaktime.
• A range of school documentation was reviewed, including safeguarding policies and records, the school’s self-evaluation, assessment information, records of pupils’ behaviour and the admission register.
• Inspectors spoke to staff informally throughout the inspection and held meetings with groups of staff, including teachers at the early stages of their career.
• The school’s website was reviewed.

Inspection team

Sarah Murphy-Dutton, lead inspector Ann Pratt David Bryant

Her Majesty’s Inspector Ofsted Inspector Ofsted Inspector