St Matthew's RC 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 leadership and management by:
  • ensuring that senior leaders assess the quality of teaching at the school accurately so that they can plan the improvements that are urgently required
  • ensuring that school leaders monitor and assess plans regularly and accurately in order to check that improvements are rapid and secure
  • sharpening governors’ understanding and analysis of the information that they are given, so that they can hold leaders to account more effectively for the quality of teaching and pupils’ progress
  • ensuring that the leadership of teaching, including subject leadership, is more effective so that current weaknesses are addressed rapidly and sustainably
  • providing Year 7 pupils who are eligible for the literacy and numeracy catch-up funding with the support that they are entitled to
  • reviewing the subjects that pupils are taught so that they all follow courses that meet their needs and interests
  • ensuring that additional funding for disadvantaged pupils is managed effectively so that these pupils make the same progress as others nationally
  • ensuring that the leadership of mathematics is effective so that the quality of teaching and pupils’ outcomes improve rapidly
  • ensuring that the additional funding used to support pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities continues to improve their progress, especially in mathematics.
• Improve pupils’ personal development, behaviour and welfare by:
  • further raising expectations of pupils’ behaviour so that their conduct around school is consistently good
  • further increasing the regular attendance of disadvantaged pupils and those who have SEN and/or disabilities so that it is at least in line with other pupils nationally
  • insisting that pupils’ conduct in lessons is consistently good, so that they make the progress that they should.
• Urgently improve the quality of teaching and learning and pupils’ progress, particularly in mathematics, by:
  • setting challenging work that takes account of pupils’ starting points and previous learning so that pupils, including those who are most able, make the progress that they should
  • making it clear to pupils what they need to do to improve their learning and providing them with the opportunities to do so routinely
  • sharpening the planning and use of questioning so that pupils think, respond and learn with more precision, depth and detail
  • ensuring that teachers routinely share high expectations of pupils’ work with them so that pupils are challenged to achieve high standards
  • ensuring that teaching is consistently strong in order to secure the rapid increase in outcomes that is required
  • ensuring that the planning and support provided for pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities leads to more rapid progress. 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

• The school’s leadership has not been successful in acting upon the recommendations to improve the school at the previous inspection in September 2015. In fact, the standard of education the school provides has declined further and is now inadequate.
• School leaders, including governors, have an overgenerous view of the school’s effectiveness, especially regarding the standard of teaching, learning and assessment. Consequently, they have not acted with the urgency and effectiveness required to prevent the decline in the school’s effectiveness.
• Senior leaders lacked the capacity to prevent pupils’ examination outcomes from falling below the minimum floor standard set by the government in 2017, despite recognising that this was likely to be the case beforehand.
• Leaders’ monitoring and evaluation of improvement plans and other information about the school is not routinely effective. It is overgenerous and fails to identify the correct priorities. For example, leaders’ weak monitoring of teaching has not remedied the lack of challenge in the work that teachers set for pupils. Therefore, the improvements that are urgently required are not secured.
• School leaders do not use the additional funding for disadvantaged pupils effectively. Leaders do not plan, assess or review actions for disadvantaged pupils well enough, so the outcomes and progress of these pupils remain too low and their attendance requires improvement.
• The use of Year 7 catch-up funding is ineffective. The pupils who are entitled to this additional support in literacy and/or numeracy have not received it this year.
• Subject leadership is ineffective, especially in mathematics. Leaders have not acted upon the recommendations of the last inspection. Middle leaders do not routinely monitor or manage actions to improve the subjects that they lead effectively. Consequently, teachers’ expectations of pupils, including those with high starting points, remain too low. This includes in mathematics, where pupils’ outcomes remain stubbornly low.
• School leaders have not been effective in improving the quality of teaching. Despite regular training activities for teachers, too many pupils make inadequate progress because the training programme lacks the impact that is needed. In the areas of the school where there is stronger teaching, learning and assessment, leaders have not been effective in sharing this to improve the teaching of others.
• School records show that staff and school leaders have routinely received pay progression at a time when the standard of education at the school has declined. Performance management systems and practice are not effective because they have not promoted improvements in teaching and outcomes that are required urgently.
• The curriculum is not effective. School leaders accurately say that the subjects that pupils study, particularly at key stage 4, do not routinely match the needs and interests of all pupils. Therefore, pupils currently in Years 10 and 11 are not achieving their full potential. Leaders have plans in place to review the range of subjects on offer.
• Leaders’ use of the funding for pupils who have special needs and/or disabilities requires improvement. These pupils make insufficient progress and their attendance is too low.
• The school’s work to develop pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural knowledge and their appreciation of fundamental British values is effective. Pupils regularly explore issues relevant to modern Britain and the values that underpin British society. Inspectors saw some strong examples focused upon Remembrance Day during the inspection.
• School leaders provide a wide range of extra-curricular options; they help pupils to overcome barriers that might otherwise prevent them from taking part and benefiting from these opportunities. Pupils spoke positively about the variety of activities offered, which includes a STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) group, drama, sports, baking and musical sessions.
• Leadership of careers education, information, advice and guidance is better than was previously the case. Consequently, almost all pupils who completed Year 11 in 2016 moved on to education, employment or training. Senior leaders acknowledge that monitoring and evaluating the destinations of pupils, including those who are disadvantaged, is an area to sharpen.

Governance of the school

• Governors have not been effective in holding leaders to account for pupils’ underachievement and the performance of staff. They have presided over a period in which outcomes for pupils have declined significantly and are currently below the minimum floor standard set by the government.
• Governors accept information provided by school leaders too readily. Consequently, they do not challenge school leaders sufficiently and do not have an accurate understanding of the quality of teaching or the progress that pupils make.
• Governors have not been effective in ensuring that school leaders use the additional funding provided to support pupils effectively.
• Governance has been strengthened by recent appointment of individuals who have work-related and specialist knowledge in financial management, school administration and safeguarding. Accordingly, governors have secured the financial security of the school.

Safeguarding

• The arrangements for safeguarding are effective.
• School leaders promote the high priority given to the safety and well-being of pupils. Consequently, there is an effective culture of safeguarding at the school.
• Staff, including non-teaching staff, are vigilant in identifying potential risks to pupils, such as radicalisation, alcohol- or drug-related dangers, bullying and sexual exploitation. Concerns are reported and acted upon effectively.
• Leaders maintain good-quality safeguarding records. There are systematic procedures for checking the backgrounds of staff when they are appointed.
• School leaders work effectively with parents, 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.
• Most pupils, parents and staff say that pupils are safe and well looked after. Pupils have a clear understanding of the risks which might affect them and how to keep safe, including in e-safety. Pupils know whom to report concerns to and how to do this. The school has filters in place to prevent inappropriate internet usage.

Quality of teaching, learning and assessment Inadequate

• Teaching, learning and assessment are inadequate. This is because teaching does not routinely support pupils to make the progress that they should.
• School leaders have an inaccurate and overgenerous view of the standard of teaching at the school. Consequently, they have not been effective in tackling poor teaching and making the improvements that are urgently required.
• Too many teachers do not use the information they have about pupils to plan work at the appropriate level. Therefore, pupils often complete the same work as their peers, regardless of whether it is too easy or too hard for them. Pupils, including those with mid and high starting points, are not provided with the challenge that allows them to make the progress that they should. At other times, pupils falter because the work that they are set is too hard for them.
• Teachers do not routinely assess pupils’ work effectively. School leaders were able to point to examples of weak assessment practice which were preventing pupils from moving on with their learning. Accordingly, pupils’ misconceptions are not routinely picked up on or improved effectively across a range of subjects, including mathematics.
• Teachers’ assessment of pupils’ work in mathematics does not routinely challenge them to produce work of a high enough standard. Mathematics teachers too often make comments that are too positive about pupils’ work when it is not of a high enough standard, including work that is incomplete, incorrect or poorly presented. Therefore, because teachers’ expectations are regularly too low in mathematics, pupils are not making the progress that they should.
• Many teachers plan and use questioning to support pupils’ learning. However, questioning is not routinely effective, especially in mathematics. Teachers’ questioning lacks sufficient rigour, therefore pupils are not stimulated to think deeply and widely about their learning. Furthermore, pupils are not regularly provided with opportunities to respond with sufficient detail, depth and fluency. Consequently, pupils are not engaged or challenged to make the progress that they should, especially those with mid and high starting points in mathematics.
• Pupils read regularly and most read well. Many begin Year 7 as capable and confident readers. However, the reading of pupils who join with low starting points is not being improved as it should because leaders have not used the catch-up funding that is provided for this purpose. Consequently, these pupils struggle to access the wider curriculum and therefore make weak progress across a broad range of subjects.
• Most pupils join the school with good writing skills. Therefore, they record information effectively. However, teachers do not build on these skills. They do not provide pupils with sufficient opportunity to extend their writing skills, for example in writing longer pieces of work. Accordingly, pupils including those who are most able, do not make the progress that they should because they are not taught how to write extended responses at a high enough standard regularly.
• Most teachers manage behaviour successfully and ensure good conduct and attitudes to learning. Accordingly, most pupils take care over the presentation of their work, bring the correct equipment and behave well. However, pupils’ attitudes to learning decline when the work set fails to engage and challenge them or when teachers fail to communicate expectations that are high enough Sometimes this leads to low-level disruption in lessons which hinders pupils’ progress.
• The small number of pupils who attend alternative provision are taught well. Consequently, they are successful when moving on to further education, employment or training.
• School leaders monitor and evaluate homework effectively. Accordingly, their view that homework is set regularly and that the work is usually of an appropriate standard matches that of most of the parents who responded to Ofsted’s online survey, Parent View. Leaders are clear where any inconsistencies remain within and between subjects and have plans in place to reduce these.
• School leaders provided inspectors with reports that they send home to parents. These documents contain clear information about pupils’ recent outcomes. Most of the parents who responded to Ofsted’s online survey said that they receive valuable information from the school about their child’s progress.

Personal development, behaviour and welfare Requires improvement

Personal development and welfare

• The school’s work to promote pupils’ personal development and welfare requires improvement.
• School leaders say that instances of bullying, which were too high in the past, are now recognised, reported and resolved more quickly and effectively than previously. School bullying records indicate that this is the case and most pupils spoken to by inspectors agree that this is so. Most pupils and their parents say that they feel safe in school and although incidents of bullying remain, the number is reducing. Pupils are unaware of any incidents of racist or homophobic bullying.
• Pupils’ social, moral, spiritual and cultural development is a strength of the school. Pupils learn to respect differences and tolerate views that are different from their own. They learn about fundamental British values and other faiths and cultures regularly.
• Leaders plan the transition of pupils from primary to secondary school effectively. Year 7 pupils who spoke to inspectors said that they are happy at the school. They value the support that they received from staff and other pupils during their first weeks at the school.
• Pupils who spoke to inspectors said that the school teaches them how to remain physically healthy. School leaders provided information to show how pupils’ mental well-being is promoted in lessons and how this is further supported through staff training. Some pupils reported that they would value an increased emphasis on their mental well-being in the advice and guidance that they are given by teachers.
• The school provides effectively for the personal development and welfare of the very small number of pupils who attend alternative provision.

Behaviour

• The behaviour of pupils requires improvement.
• Pupils’ attendance overall is broadly in line with the national average. School leaders have been effective in encouraging some pupils who have been persistently absent in the past to attend school more regularly. However, despite this improvement, the attendance of disadvantaged pupils and those who have SEN and/or disabilities remains below that of others nationally and therefore requires improvement.
• Many pupils behave well in lessons, have positive attitudes to learning and take pride in their work. However, a significant minority of pupils do not behave well, especially when the work planned for them is too easy or too hard.
• The school is generally an orderly place. Most pupils are polite and have positive relationships with one another and staff. However, there is a minority of pupils who do not behave well around the school. Although most pupils move around the school in a calm manner at break, lunchtime and at the change of lessons, this is not always the case.
• School leaders manage effectively the attendance, behaviour and safeguarding of the small number of pupils who attend alternative provision.

Outcomes for pupils Inadequate

• Pupils’ outcomes in 2017 were inadequate because they did not make the progress that they should over a broad range of subjects, including English and mathematics. Consequently, they were not suitably prepared for their next steps in further education, employment or training.
• Records provided by school leaders and inspectors’ analysis of pupils’ current work, including those pupils due to take their examinations in 2018, show that pupils continue to underachieve in a number of subjects and there is little sign of any improvement.
• Examination results in English and mathematics in 2017 were well below the national average. Pupils’ outcomes in mathematics have been consistently poor over time; there is no evidence of any significant impact of leaders’ intervention to improve matters. In 2016 pupils’ results in mathematics were in the lowest 10% nationally and they showed no improvement in 2017. Information provided by leaders showed a similar picture in mathematics for pupils currently in Year 11.
• The outcomes for disadvantaged pupils were in the lowest 10% nationally across a broad range of subjects in 2016 and they declined further in 2017. They were very low, when compared to the averages for other pupils nationally, not only in English and mathematics, but also in the other subjects that they studied. Work seen by inspectors shows that the differences in achievement between current disadvantaged pupils and their peers are not diminishing rapidly or significantly and that the progress that disadvantaged pupils make is persistently inadequate.
• In 2016, the outcomes for the middle- and high-ability pupils across a range of subjects were significantly lower than for other pupils nationally with similar starting points. In 2017, the progress that these pupils made declined further. Information shared by school leaders and the work seen by inspectors show that the outcomes of the most able pupils in Year 11 and other year groups in the school currently remain too low.
• Year 7 pupils who joined the school with low starting points in literacy and/or numeracy are not making the progress that they should. This is because leaders do not currently use the additional funding provided to support these pupils in catching up with their peers.
• Pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities are making stronger progress in English than was the case previously, partly because of the better attendance of some of them. However, the progress of these pupils in mathematics, where the legacy of underachievement has proved harder to overcome, remains too slow.
• Leaders monitor effectively the outcomes of the small number of pupils who attend alternative provision. Consequently, these pupils achieve well and move on to next steps in further education, employment or training successfully.
• Figures provided by the local authority show that the proportion of pupils who progress to further education, employment or training has improved and was in line with the national average when last reported in 2016. School leaders have not monitored the destinations of pupils more recently than this, so were not able to provide more current figures or the destination figures for disadvantaged pupils.

School details

Unique reference number 105577 Local authority Manchester Inspection number 10036777 This inspection of the school was carried out under section 5 of the Education Act 2005. Type of school Secondary comprehensive School category Voluntary aided Age range of pupils 11 to 16 Gender of pupils Mixed Number of pupils on the school roll 1158 Appropriate authority The governing body Chair Ian Worrall Headteacher Kevin Hogan Telephone number 0161 681 6178 Website www.smrchs.com Email address contact@smrchs.com Date of previous inspection 22–23 September 2015

Information about this school

• The school meets requirements on the publication of specified information on its website.
• The school does not meet the government’s current floor standards, which set the minimum expectations for pupils’ attainment and progress by the end of Year 11.
• The proportion of disadvantaged students and those supported by the pupil premium funding is above the national average.
• The number of pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities supported by the school is below the national average. The number of pupils who have a statement of special educational needs or an education, health and care plan is above the national average.
• The school uses alternative provision for a small number of pupils.

Information about this inspection

• Meetings took place with school leaders, teachers, members of the governing body, a representative from the local authority and a telephone conversation with a representative of the Diocese of Salford.
• Discussions were held with pupils from all year groups to gather their views on issues including safeguarding, bullying, behaviour, teaching, careers guidance and the curriculum.
• Inspectors examined a range of supporting documentation such as the school’s self-evaluation, the school’s improvement plan, the school’s assessment information, the school’s pupil premium plan, minutes of governing body meetings, attendance and behaviour records and safeguarding documentation.
• Inspectors considered 76 responses to the Ofsted online parental questionnaire and 88 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 lesson observations.
• Inspectors scrutinised the work in pupils’ books by undertaking a work analysis with school leaders.

Inspection team

Stephen Ruddy, lead inspector Ofsted Inspector Mark Burgess Ofsted Inspector Annette Patterson Ofsted Inspector David Roberts Ofsted Inspector Debra Wood Ofsted Inspector