Newall Green High 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 outcomes for all pupils, particularly those who are disadvantaged or have SEN and/or disabilities, so that they make good progress from their starting points.
• Improve leadership and management by ensuring that:
  • leaders monitor, assess and refine improvement plans regularly and rigorously, so that improvements are rapid and sustained
  • all leaders evaluate the impact of their actions on pupils’ progress
  • leaders use the pupil premium funding so that disadvantaged pupils make the progress that they should
  • leaders manage additional funding for pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities effectively, so that this group makes at least good progress
  • leaders manage the Year 7 catch-up funding effectively
  • senior leaders assess the quality of teaching in the school accurately so that they can precisely plan the improvements that are urgently required
  • the leadership of teaching, including subject leadership, is effective.
• Improve the quality of teaching, learning and assessment, by:
  • insisting that all teachers have the highest expectations so that pupils achieve high standards
  • ensuring that pupils are routinely set work that closely matches their ability, so that they make the progress that they should.
• Improve pupils’ personal development, behaviour and welfare, by:
  • increasing the attendance of all pupils, especially that of disadvantaged pupils, so that it is at least in line with the national average
  • eliminating poor behaviour in lessons and around the school
  • reducing the number of disadvantaged pupils who are excluded from the school.
• Improve the quality of the 16 to 19 study programme by ensuring that all students:
  • attend school regularly
  • complete their study programme
  • achieve qualifications that enable them to progress to their next stage of education, employment or training. An external review of the school’s use of the pupil premium should be undertaken in order to ascertain how this aspect of leadership and management may be improved.

An external review of 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, including those of the Prospere Learning Trust, which sponsors the school, are not effective in providing an adequate standard of education at the school. The trust currently provides additional leadership at the school, particularly focused on improving teaching and pupils’ progress. However, their actions and those of other leaders in the school lack sufficient impact. Leaders do not demonstrate the capacity to bring about the improvements that are urgently required.
• Senior leaders are aware of the challenges that the school faces. They describe recent and current outcomes as inadequate. Pupils’ examination results in 2017 were below the government’s current minimum floor standard and among the lowest 5% nationally in English and mathematics. Leaders’ actions to improve pupils’ progress have not been effective. Consequently, senior leaders were unable to provide evidence of an improving picture for current pupils.
• Leaders’ actions to ensure that pupils experience a good quality of education are not effective. Plans are not monitored, evaluated and refined regularly or precisely enough. As a result, the quality of teaching, pupils’ conduct and attendance, and pupils’ progress remain poor.

• The proportion of disadvantaged pupils at the school is far larger than average. School leaders recognise that by securing a good standard of education for these pupils, school standards will rise overall. However, leaders’ use of the additional funding for disadvantaged pupils is not effective. The actions that they plan do not have the impact required. As a result, in 2016 and 2017 disadvantaged pupils made significantly less progress than others nationally and the progress of current disadvantaged pupils remains weak. The attendance of disadvantaged pupils is lower than that of other pupils nationally. In addition, disadvantaged pupils are far more likely to be excluded from the school than others. Almost all pupils who were excluded for a fixed period in this academic year are disadvantaged.
• The school has a larger-than-average proportion of pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities. School leaders do not manage or use the funding for these pupils effectively. Leaders have commissioned a review of the effectiveness of the school’s special educational needs provision because they recognise it is an area of weakness. The support that pupils currently receive is not routinely matched to their specific requirements. Consequently, too many pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities do not make the progress that they should.
• When meeting with inspectors, senior leaders demonstrated a secure understanding of the characteristics of effective teaching. However, their current evaluation of the quality of teaching across the school is overgenerous. Consequently, school leaders’ plans to improve teaching, including staff training, are not based upon an accurate picture of current practice. As a result, they have not made the improvements urgently required to ensure that pupils are routinely taught well.
• Too often, subject leadership is not effective in improving the standard of education pupils receive. At its best, such as in art, pupils are taught well, enjoy learning and make strong progress. In these areas, teachers routinely uphold the high expectations set by senior leaders. However, too regularly subject leaders in other areas, including in English, mathematics and science, are not effective in ensuring that the same strengths are consistently in evidence in the subjects for which they are responsible.

• Leaders’ use of the Year 7 catch-up funding is not well managed. Actions to improve pupils’ literacy and/or numeracy are not regularly monitored, evaluated and refined. As a result, the impact of the support that pupils receive is not consistently effective.
• Senior leaders ensure that pupils have access to a curriculum which broadly matches their needs. However, pupils do not make the progress they should because the quality of teaching is inadequate. Pupils follow a range of academic, arts, technical and sporting subjects at key stage 3. The choice available to pupils at key stage 4 is designed to prepare them well for the next stage of their education. It includes academic and vocational courses. Pupils enjoy attending the broad range of cultural, creative and sporting activities which take place outside of lessons.
• Leadership of careers education is effective. The impartial advice provided means that despite too many pupils achieving lower examination results than they should, almost all of them move on to post-16 education, training or employment.
• Pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development is effective. Leaders ensure that pupils are prepared well for life in modern Britain. Pupils have a clear understanding and knowledge of fundamental British values, including their own rights and responsibilities and those of others.
• Of the 15 responses to Ofsted’s online survey, Parent View, 10 of respondents said that they would not recommend the school to others.
• It is recommended that the school does not appoint newly qualified teachers because the school requires special measures and pupils’ personal development, behaviour and welfare are inadequate.

Governance of the school

• Governance is not effective in ensuring an acceptable standard of education at the school. Those responsible for governance, including trustees, do not know the school well enough, so they do not challenge and support school leaders effectively. For example, governors told inspectors that they were caught by surprise by the poor examination results in 2017. The impact of actions to improve the progress of current pupils does not demonstrate the capacity to improve. Governors themselves describe current outcomes as ‘inadequate’.
• Governors are not effective in ensuring that school leaders use the additional funding provided to support disadvantaged pupils and those who have SEN and/or disabilities effectively.

Safeguarding

• The arrangements for safeguarding are effective.

• Leaders maintain good-quality safeguarding records. There are systematic procedures for checking the backgrounds of staff when they are appointed.
• Staff, including non-teaching staff, are vigilant in identifying potential risks to pupils, such as radicalisation, bullying and pupils’ mental well-being. Staff and pupils’ awareness of potential risks is regularly maintained and kept up to date. There is an effective culture of safeguarding at the school.
• School leaders work effectively with parents and carers and external agencies and act swiftly when required. Checks made by inspectors demonstrated that referrals are followed up in a robust manner and that record-keeping is good.
• Pupils, parents and staff say that pupils are safe and looked after well. Leaders ensure that pupils have a clear understanding of the risks which might affect them and how to keep safe, including online. Pupils know to whom they should report concerns and how to do this.

Quality of teaching, learning and assessment Inadequate

• Teaching, learning and assessment are inadequate. Weak teaching is too prevalent over a range of subjects, including English, mathematics and science, and in all year groups, including Year 7. It does not support pupils, including the many who are disadvantaged or those who have SEN and/or disabilities, in making the progress that they should. Teaching is consistently stronger in a small number of arts-focused subjects, including art, dance and drama.
• School leaders have an overgenerous view of the standard of teaching at the school. They have not been effective in tackling poor teaching and making the improvements that are urgently required.

• Teachers do not routinely use the assessment information they have about pupils to plan work at the appropriate level. Pupils are often set the same work as their peers, regardless of their starting point or level of understanding. Consequently, teachers do not challenge pupils sufficiently for them to make good progress.
• School leaders accurately identify the current weaknesses in the teaching and progress of pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities. However, too often these pupils are not provided with the support they need to complete successfully the work that they are set.
• Teachers in some subjects, such as art, dance and drama, plan questions that provide pupils with the opportunity to think and reason deeply. However, in other subjects pupils, including those with middle and high starting points, are not asked sufficiently challenging questions. Consequently, they do not make the progress that they should.
• Teachers effectively inform pupils about how to improve their work in art, dance and drama. Teachers in these subjects plan interesting activities and use their strong subject knowledge to make it clear to pupils what they need to do to improve. Consequently, pupils make alterations and clarify their misunderstandings, for example when performing or speaking. However, in too many subjects, including English, mathematics and science, such practice is weak or too variable.
• Pupils and parents say that homework is set regularly and that the work is of an appropriate standard.
• School leaders provided inspectors with reports that they send home to parents. These documents contain information about pupils’ current progress. Most parents who responded to Ofsted’s online survey, Parent View, said that they receive valuable information from the school about their children’s progress.

Personal development, behaviour and welfare Inadequate

Personal development and welfare

• The school’s work to promote pupils’ personal development and welfare requires improvement.
• Most of the pupils whom inspectors met during the inspection spoke positively about their school. They say that they are well supported and cared for by staff. They would recommend the school to others.
• Leaders’ plans to support the transition of pupils from primary school are generally effective. Staff gather information that supports pupils’ transition to secondary school and they share pastoral information effectively. The Year 7 pupils with whom inspectors spoke were positive about the school. They said that they are happy at the school. However, they said that, despite feeling safe generally, the boisterous behaviour of some of the older pupils around the school sometimes unsettles them.

• Teachers’ expectations of how pupils present their work are not consistently high enough. In these cases, too many pupils do not demonstrate strong resilience and so their work lacks accuracy and care. Consequently, this aspect of pupils’ personal development requires improvement.
• Pupils regularly learn about fundamental British values and other faiths and cultures. They provided inspectors with effective examples to demonstrate how they value differences and respect views different from their own. Pupils are adamant that racism and homophobia have no place at the school.
• Most pupils and parents say bullying is rare at the school. When bullying does take place, pupils say that they know how to report it and are confident it is dealt with effectively by school staff.
• Pupils are taught how to identify dangers and remain safe online. Their online safety is further supported by safety checks, including filtering systems across the school’s computer network.
• School leaders take seriously their responsibility for pupils’ mental and physical health. Pupils’ emotional well-being is in sharp focus. Leaders ensure that staff are vigilant in identifying signs that a pupil’s emotional well-being may be at risk. Leaders provide or direct these pupils to a range of services to support them and meet their needs.
• The school provides effectively for the personal development and welfare of the small number of pupils who attend alternative provision.

Behaviour

• The behaviour of pupils is inadequate.

• Pupils’ attendance overall is lower than the national average. The number of pupils who are persistently absent is above the national average. School leaders’ actions to improve pupils’ attendance, especially those who are disadvantaged, have not been consistently effective. Consequently, there is no trend of sustained improvement and rates of absence remain higher than historical national averages.
• Pupils’ behaviour in lessons is too variable. Pupils generally behave well where teachers have high expectations and set work that matches their ability. However, too frequently teachers’ expectations of pupils’ behaviour do not match those set by school leaders and this results in disruption to learning. Additionally, pupils lose concentration when the work that they are set is not challenging enough.
• At break, lunchtime and change of lessons, pupils’ conduct is too variable. Many pupils move around the school in an orderly manner but a significant minority do not. These pupils are slow to respond to staff when they encourage them to moderate their behaviour or arrive punctually at lessons. The conduct of disadvantaged pupils is particularly concerning because almost all pupils excluded from the school this year are disadvantaged.
• School leaders manage effectively the attendance, behaviour and safeguarding of the small number of pupils who attend alternative provision.

Outcomes for pupils Inadequate

• Pupils’ examination results in 2016 and 2017 were significantly lower than those of others nationally. In 2017, results were below the government’s minimum floor standard.
• Inspectors’ analysis of pupils’ current work showed that their progress is inadequate. Too many pupils across a broad range of subjects have not been challenged sufficiently or supported in making the progress that they should. Consequently, their current attainment is not at the level that it should be.
• Outcomes for disadvantaged pupils are inadequate. There are proportionally more disadvantaged pupils in the school than is the case nationally. The progress that these pupils made in examinations in 2016 and 2017 was significantly less than that of others nationally. The current progress of disadvantaged pupils in key stage 4 remains stubbornly low across a wide range of subjects.
• Pupils’ outcomes in English and mathematics are inadequate. In 2017 pupils’ examination results in these subjects were in the lowest 5% nationally. Despite an improving picture for a minority of current pupils in English at key stage 3, school leaders accurately judge that too much variation remains. Pupils do not make the progress that they should in English and mathematics.
• Pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities do not currently make the progress that they should. There are proportionally more pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities than is the case nationally. Staff do not set these pupils the appropriate level work or ensure that the support that they provide is well matched to their needs. Consequently, the outcomes of pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities are inadequate.
• Leaders have acted effectively to improve the outcomes of pupils who follow alternative provision. The quality of these courses has improved because of the development of the school’s own provision and the scrutiny provided by leaders. Consequently, the pupils who follow these courses move on to further education, employment or training.

• The proportion of pupils who progress to further education, employment or training is in line with the national average. However, because of the inadequate quality of their education, too many pupils do not move on to the higher qualifications of which they are capable.

16 to 19 study programmes Inadequate

• Leaders are not effective in providing an acceptable quality of education in the sixth form. Too many students do not complete the courses that they begin or attend school regularly. Consequently, too many students do not make the progress that they should or move on to appropriate education, employment or training.
• Leaders have not demonstrated the capacity to secure the rapid and sustained improvements required in the sixth form.
• Leaders’ vision for the sixth form is to provide an opportunity for pupils with low outcomes at key stage 4 to sustain an educational pathway and attain the qualifications they require to move on to appropriate education, employment or training. Most students follow level-2 vocational courses. However, the number of pupils who study at the sixth form is small and decreasing. Currently, only three of the six level-2 courses that are offered are running. A small number of students opt for the level-1 qualifications offered.
• Students’ outcomes show that they fail to reach the standard of which they are capable because the quality of teaching is too variable. In 2017 only five of the 24 students who completed their level-2 courses attained the grades that were expected. Consequently, students are not well prepared for their next steps in education or employment.
• Leaders’ support for students who need to resit GCSE English and/or mathematics is variable. In 2017 no students who were within a grade of a standard pass at the end of Year 11 attained a grade 4 in their resit. However, for other students the improvements that they made in both subjects exceeded those of others nationally.
• Students who spoke with inspectors said that they are supported well and that they feel safe. Checks made by inspectors confirmed that safeguarding in the sixth form is effective.
• Students’ conduct and attitudes to learning are generally positive. However, too many students currently do not attend school regularly. Overall attendance figures for students are lower than they were last year.
• Leaders do not ensure that the students’ curriculum consistently meets all the requirements of the 16 to 19 study programmes. Students benefit from some stronger aspects, notably non-qualification activities and work experience. However, careers guidance is not consistently effective. As a result, only 24 of the 35 students completed the courses they began last year. Of those students who completed their course in 2017, one third did not move on to recognised education, employment and/or training.

School details

Unique reference number Local authority Inspection number 141392 Manchester 10042415 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 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 sponsor-led 11 to 18 Mixed Mixed 619 24 Appropriate authority Board of trustees Chair Principal Telephone number Website Email address Jenny Collinson Andy Park 0161 4138546

www.newallgreenhigh.manchester.sch.uk admin@newallgreenhigh.manchester.sch.uk

Date of previous inspection Not previously inspected

Information about this school

• The school does not meet the government’s current floor standards, which are the minimum expectations for pupils’ attainment and progress by the end of Year 11.

• The proportion of disadvantaged pupils is well above the national average.
• The proportion of pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities is well above the national average. The proportion of pupils who have a statement of special educational needs or an education, health and care plan is well above the national average.
• The school uses alternative provision for a small number of pupils at Manchester Secondary Pupil Referral Unit, EdStart 13–16 Alternative Provision and Sporting Pathways (MCR).

• The school is part of the Prospere Learning Trust.

Information about this inspection

• Meetings took place with school leaders, teachers, the chief executive officer and representatives of the Prospere Learning Trust, members of the local governing body, and representatives of the local authority.
• Discussions were held with pupils to gather their views on variety of issues including safeguarding, bullying, behaviour, teaching, careers guidance and the curriculum.
• Inspectors examined a range of the school’s documentation such as self-evaluation, the improvement plan, assessment information, the pupil premium plan, minutes of governing body meetings, attendance and behaviour records and safeguarding information.
• Inspectors considered 15 responses to the Ofsted online parent questionnaire, Parent View, 30 responses to the Ofsted online pupil questionnaire and 53 responses to the Ofsted online staff questionnaire.
• Inspectors conducted learning walks and lesson observations across a range of subjects and year groups. They were accompanied by school leaders on some of these observations of teaching and learning.
• Inspectors scrutinised the work in pupils’ books by undertaking a work analysis with school leaders.

Inspection team

Stephen Ruddy, lead inspector Mark Burgess Linda Griffiths Andrew Cooper

Ofsted Inspector Ofsted Inspector Ofsted Inspector Ofsted Inspector