Emslie Morgan Academy Ofsted Report

Full report

In accordance with section 44(1) of the Education Act 2005, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector is of the opinion that this school requires special measures because it is failing to give its pupils an acceptable standard of education and the persons responsible for leading, managing or governing the school are not demonstrating the capacity to secure the necessary improvement in the school.

What does the school need to do to improve further?

• Improve leadership and management at all levels, including governance, by:
  • establishing a culture of high ambition for all pupils which is communicated to and shared by everyone, including governors, leaders, staff, pupils and parents
  • making sure that there is clarity across the trust, local governing body and senior leadership team about the allocation of roles and responsibilities
  • establishing clear protocols for the sharing of information at all levels
  • making sure that the school’s website meets statutory requirements and provides parents with frequent, useful information about the school and what their children are doing
  • ensuring that they have up-to-date, reliable information about key aspects of the school’s performance, including pupils’ academic achievement, behaviour and attendance
  • checking regularly on the progress that all the different groups of pupils make and taking swift action if any group is not achieving as well as it should
  • reviewing the school’s performance regularly and using the outcomes of these reviews to evaluate the effectiveness of the improvement plan and hold senior leaders to account
  • sharpening school improvement planning so that it is more effective in driving improvement
  • building the capacity of the local governing body so that it has the skills, experience and expertise to expedite school improvement
  • providing relevant training and support for governors and senior and middle leaders to enable them to fulfil their duties effectively
  • putting in place a staffing structure which distributes responsibilities appropriately
  • providing middle leaders with the time, resources and support to ensure that they contribute to the raising of standards in their subjects across the school
  • making sure that classroom monitoring focuses on the impact of teaching on pupils’ learning
  • ensuring that the school fulfils its statutory responsibilities with regard to the identification and assessment of pupils who may have SEN and/or disabilities
  • making sure that the additional funding to support disadvantaged pupils and those who have SEN and/or disabilities is well used, so it improves outcomes for eligible pupils
  • working with other providers to ensure that all pupils, regardless of when they join the school, are able to move on to suitable, long-term destinations to continue their education.
• Improve teaching, learning and assessment to ensure that all groups of pupils, especially the disadvantaged, those who have SEN and/or disabilities and the most able, make much better progress than at present by ensuring that all teachers:
  • meet the requirements set out in the teachers’ standards
  • have the highest expectations of what pupils can achieve
  • assess pupils’ work and learning accurately and set them work which is well matched to their abilities
  • plan learning which engages and challenges pupils, particularly the most able
  • plan work which pupils find interesting and purposeful so that they develop positive attitudes to learning, particularly in reading, writing and mathematics
  • provide opportunities for pupils to investigate and solve problems, think for themselves and develop fluency in the fundamentals of mathematics
  • make sure that pupils know how to improve their work and are given timely opportunities to respond to teachers’ advice and correct mistakes
  • have a secure understanding of the age group they are working with and the relevant subject knowledge
  • closely scrutinise the impact of the interventions employed to help pupils catch up, to ensure that they are making a positive difference
  • plan a cohesive curriculum which meets the needs of pupils and enables teachers to build on pupils’ prior learning across the full range of subjects
  • plan lessons effectively so that lesson time is well used to optimise pupils’ learning
  • ensure that activities are planned to develop pupils’ positive attitudes to learning and develop essential behaviours for learning, including resilience, independence and perseverance.
• Improve pupils’ personal development, behaviour and welfare by:
  • taking urgent action to improve pupils’ behaviour so that pupils feel safe in school and the climate is conducive to learning
  • ensuring that there are suitable procedures in place so that pupils’ attendance improves rapidly
  • creating a culture of mutual respect and tolerance across the school
  • making sure that pupils understand how to keep themselves and others safe both in school, online and in the community
  • following up assiduously on all instances of bullying.
• Take urgent action to make sure that pupils are safe by:
  • establishing a calm and orderly school environment where all pupils feel safe
  • providing training and support for all staff to equip them with the necessary skills to deal effectively with pupils’ challenging behaviour
  • carrying out required checks on all staff and governors to ensure that they are suitable to work with children
  • ensuring that the designated safeguarding lead has the skills, resources, support and authority to carry out the role effectively
  • making sure that there are clear protocols for the sharing of sensitive personal information
  • ensuring that pupils are taught how to keep themselves safe through a carefully planned curriculum
  • liaising with the local authority to ensure that the children looked after who are on the school’s roll are safe and receiving suitable education. 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 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

• Leaders, including governors and trustees, have not ensured that everyone, including governors and staff, share the high expectations and aspirations for pupils as set out on the school’s website.
• Leaders do not have the capacity to make the required transformational effect on improving the school. Every which way leaders turn there are weaknesses. The scale of the challenges is overwhelming. Since the school opened, the trust has failed to secure a strong, stable senior leadership team with the capacity and expertise to make the long-lasting improvements required.
• There is a lack of clarity at every level about the roles and responsibilities of the trust, local governing body and senior leadership team. For example, leaders, governors and trustees could not agree who is responsible for the publication of statutory information on the school’s website. This disjointed approach to leadership is further exacerbating the school’s endemic weaknesses.
• The school’s improvement plan is not fit for purpose. Given the enormity of the challenge facing leaders, the plan does not provide a clear ‘roadmap’ to improvement. Leaders and governors have not ensured that the actions agreed are aligned closely to pupils’ performance. Consequently, the plan is not helping leaders make the necessary improvements to the school’s performance.
• The recent evaluation of the school’s performance by the Department for Education left trustees, governors and school leaders in no doubt about the school’s woeful performance in all areas. However, they have failed to take decisive and effective action in order to set the school on the right course.
• Only a handful of pupils who join this school ever get a ‘second chance’. Pupils who join the school very rarely leave before the end of Year 11. For those pupils who do get the opportunity to move on, they are often ill-equipped for these next steps so that they end up back at the school. Consequently, too many pupils languish at this school for months and sometimes years, regardless of whether it is the right place for them.
• Leaders have failed to ensure that suitable plans are in place for pupils to get any additional help and support they may need while they are at the school. There are high numbers of pupils who have identified SEN and/or disabilities when they join the school. However, there are no systems for the identification or assessment of needs for any pupil when they join the school or further down the line. Moreover, there is no strategic deployment of resources, interventions or specialist staff training to ensure that these pupils’ needs are met effectively. The school fails to provide the high-quality, compelling evidence required to support any request for statutory assessment for individual pupils. Consequently, at every turn, leaders fail to fulfil their statutory duties with regard to this group.
• The school has no strategy for how additional funding for disadvantaged pupils is to be used. In addition, there has been no evaluation of the impact of spending for last year. Checks by the new headteacher indicate that this money has not been targeted to improve the outcomes of those eligible pupils.
• Too much responsibility for key areas of the school’s work is put on the shoulders of support staff. These staff make valiant efforts to carry out their roles and responsibilities. However, despite this, they lack the training, support and authority to provide the strategic leadership which these aspects require, including safeguarding and SEN and/or disabilities.
• The school’s curriculum is disjointed. Moreover, the school’s curriculum is too narrow and does not offer a wide range of qualifications to meet the diverse needs of pupils. Pupils are woefully ill-equipped for study, work and everyday life when they leave the school. The high proportion of pupils who either do not move on to suitable post-16 provision or drop out testifies to the failure of the curriculum to equip pupils with essential knowledge and skills. There is no effort to inculcate pupils with fundamental British values so they do not treat others with tolerance and respect. Although the new subject leader for personal, social and health education (PSHE) has introduced a new programme of study, it is too early to evaluate its impact. Pupils are given limited responsibility across the school. Any charity fundraising is driven by staff and reliant on the efforts of a few individual pupils.
• It is early days for subject leaders. These middle leaders are keen to take on responsibility for each of their curriculum areas. However, these staff have not been given the high-quality training and support to be able to carry out all aspects of their roles effectively. Consequently, these staff are yet to make any visible difference to the quality of teaching in their subjects.
• The school should not appoint newly qualified teachers.

Governance of the school

• Both the trust and the local governing body are failing to arrest the decline in the school’s performance and ensure that pupils are well cared for and safe. They have failed to take the urgent and decisive actions set out by the Department for Education following their monitoring visit in March 2017.
• The trust has commissioned support from TBAP Multi-Academy Trust. The two members of staff from TBAP Multi-Academy Trust who are supporting the school are providing high-quality support to the headteacher. However, this support is insufficient to stem the tsunami of issues which leaders face on a daily basis, let alone to start making lasting improvements.
• The trust and local governing body are failing to exercise their statutory duties. The trust has not ensured that all trustees, governors and leaders have an accurate understanding of their roles and responsibilities. Moreover, trustees and governors do not carry out checks assiduously to ensure that all agreed actions have been followed up. Consequently, they have had no effect in arresting the school’s decline.
• Membership of the local governing body is depleted. A number of members have resigned recently. These resignations have left the governing body fragile because those governors who resigned had the skills, experience and expertise needed to oversee and drive forward the urgent improvements required.

Safeguarding

• The arrangements for safeguarding are not effective.
• Leaders have failed to ensure that all the required checks on the suitability of staff to work with children are carried out. Leaders have not made sure that the staff who administer these have the necessary training and support to do their jobs well.
• Responsibility for safeguarding has been given to a member of support staff. This member of staff does not have the training, support or strategic oversight to fulfil her roles and responsibilities. Moreover, this member of staff already has other demanding responsibilities which take up much of her time.
• Not all pupils feel safe in school. The behaviour of some pupils is threatening and intimidating and staff do not have the skills or support to deal with some of the behaviours.
• Pupils do not all feel there is an adult who they can confide in. Although in some classes pupil-staff relationships are improving, too many pupils do not trust the adults who work with them. Consequently, some pupils would not share any worries or concerns.
• A number of children looked after no longer attend the school but remain on the school’s roll. School leaders assert that these arrangements are at the request of the local authority. However, leaders have failed to assure themselves of these pupils’ whereabouts.
• There are no clear protocols for the sharing of personal information about pupils. Consequently, highly sensitive, personal information about individual pupils is included unnecessarily in class information files.
• Leaders do not ensure that all new members of staff undertake suitable training prior to taking up their posts. Consequently, leaders cannot be confident that these staff understand their roles and responsibilities and know what to do if they have any concerns.
• Record-keeping for serious incidents which involve physical intervention by staff is weak. There is no evidence that any reported incidents are followed up, senior staff have monitored records or that parents have been informed.
• Staff are confident that any concerns they report using the school’s new online reporting system are followed up by the designated safeguarding lead.

Quality of teaching, learning and assessment Inadequate

• Far too much teaching is weak, inconsistent and does not meet the pupils’ needs.
• Lack of quality training, coupled with weak subject knowledge, means that teachers do not plan lessons which engage and challenge pupils. Too often, the low level, repetitive and mundane tasks set occupy pupils rather than help them acquire new knowledge and skills.
• Far too often the pace of learning is slow. From the start of this academic year, pupils have completed very little work in their books. Teachers do not have high enough expectations of the amount of work pupils should complete during each lesson.
• Teachers do not use the information they have about pupils’ learning to help them pitch work appropriately. Generally, pupils are set the same work in lessons, regardless of age or ability.
• Teachers and support staff over scaffold pupils’ learning. They do not give pupils opportunities to try tricky work, think hard for themselves and learn from their mistakes.
• In too many mathematics lessons, pupils complete similar calculations, often getting most correct. Despite this, pupils are rarely given more challenging work. There are very few opportunities for pupils to develop their reasoning and problem-solving skills.
• Routinely, poor behaviour interrupts learning. All too often, pupils refuse to work, walk out of lessons and then move around the buildings disrupting the learning of others.
• The school has introduced a new marking policy. This is beginning to be used by some teachers so that pupils in these classes know how well they are getting on and what they need to improve. However, the school’s policy is not consistently applied by all staff. Moreover, pupils do not routinely act on their teachers’ feedback.
• Monitoring and evaluation of teaching and learning by leaders does not provide teachers and support staff with sharp feedback which clearly identifies any strengths and weaknesses. Leaders fail to consider the impact of teaching on the progress made by pupils when carrying out monitoring activities. Consequently, weaknesses in teaching persist across the school.
• At key stage 3, teachers and support staff are struggling to deliver lessons. There has been a noticeable decline in the attitudes of pupils to learning as pupil numbers have grown since September. Staff have all but given up. Leaders have been too busy dealing with challenges at key stage 4 to realise the full extent of the issues and put in the support needed.
• There are some classes where pupils do make better progress. Some teachers, most notably in science and in English at key stage 4, have more secure subject knowledge. They set tasks which capture pupils’ interest and have clear expectations for what pupils need to learn and do.
• Older pupils feel that teaching has improved since the start of the year. Organisational changes including the introduction of pods (whereby each class spends most of its school day in the same classroom with a dedicated team of support staff) are making a positive difference. Pupils feel that staff are more willing to listen and classrooms are calmer and more orderly.

Personal development, behaviour and welfare Inadequate

Personal development and welfare

• The school’s work to promote pupils’ personal development and welfare is inadequate.
• Staff struggle to keep pupils safe. Staff lock the main entrance of the key stage 3 building during the school day to stop older pupils coming into the building. This is also a fire exit. Lessons in another building on the school site are frequently disrupted. This houses some of the school’s most vulnerable pupils. Pupils who work in this building reported that almost every lesson every day is interrupted by other pupils banging on windows and the door.
• The school does not have a coherent, credible plan to improve pupils’ health and well-being. Key stage 4 pupils routinely leave the school site to smoke. Staff report that younger pupils are sometimes accompanied to the perimeter of the school grounds to smoke. It is too early to evaluate the impact of the new PSHE scheme of work on pupils’ knowledge and understanding.
• Pupils show little respect to each other, staff and visitors. Pupils use derogatory and aggressive language routinely towards staff and each other. Pupils also swear at staff and each other as a matter of course. Pupils pay little heed to staff requests for them to moderate their language. The school’s own records highlight racist and homophobic incidents. However, there is no evidence that any action has been taken in response to these.
• Pupils value the work of the external careers adviser. Pupils appreciate the opportunity to find out about what is available and help to plan their next steps. Consequently, older pupils have clear, realistic ideas about their post-16 options.
• Pupils have a weak understanding of staying safe. The school’s curriculum fails to provide them with the information they need to protect themselves online, in the community and at school.
• Some pupils, notably those in the ‘bungalow’, are pleasant and polite. They listen attentively to their teachers, follow instructions and complete the work set. However, these pupils spend their days ‘under siege’ due to the attempts of other pupils to break into their building.

Behaviour

• The behaviour of pupils is inadequate.
• The school is chaotic. Lessons are frequently disrupted by pupils’ poor behaviour. Individuals and groups of pupils are often out of lessons, on corridors or around the school site; shouting, swearing and banging on windows and doors. These pupils do not comply with staff requests for them to calm down and rejoin their lessons. This disrupts their own and other pupils’ learning. Moreover, some pupils told inspectors other pupils’ behaviour makes them feel unsafe.
• Bullying records show that there have been repeated incidents involving the same victim and alleged perpetrator. However, there are no records to evidence that any action is taken by school staff when these reports are made or that records are monitored by school leaders. There is no convincing evidence that the school can keep victims safe in school.
• Almost half of all the pupils are persistently absent. The attendance of almost all groups has declined even further in the first half term compared to the same time last year. Despite the efforts of support staff to support those families who struggle to get their children to school, too many pupils rarely, if ever, attend school. In addition, a number of the pupils, such as the pupils attending the bungalow, are on part-time timetables.
• The number of fixed-period exclusions has reduced considerably compared to the same time last year. However, as part of the school’s efforts to improve behaviour, a number of pupils are on part-time timetables.
• New school leaders make sure that checks are made on most alternative providers now. However, these checks are not carried out on every provider. Levels of pupils’ engagement in this provision are variable. However, the school was not able to provide comparative information about pupils’ attendance, behaviour and progress at the different providers.

Outcomes for pupils Inadequate

• The school has no reliable information about how well pupils are achieving. Leaders are wholly reliant on historical external examination results to evaluate pupils’ performance.
• Outcomes at the end of Year 11 in 2017 are poor. Weak teaching, an unsuitable curriculum and inadequate behaviour for learning mean almost all pupils failed to realise their potential.
• In some subjects, including English, mathematics and geography, the vast majority of pupils achieved GCSE grades below those teachers expected of them in 2017. Only a handful of pupils exceeded their expected grades. Moreover, for almost all pupils across all subjects, grades were well below those achieved by pupils nationally with similar starting points.
• Similarly, disadvantaged pupils underachieved considerably at the end of Year 11 in 2017. Leaders have failed to make effective use of pupil premium funding to remove the barriers to learning for these pupils to help them make faster progress.
• In 2017, Year 11 pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities outperformed their classmates. However, the school’s lack of information makes it impossible to evaluate how well they achieved from their different starting points. Leaders failed to make effective use of additional funding or to ensure that these pupils got the support they needed. Consequently, it is highly unlikely that any of these pupils achieved their potential.
• Lack of challenge and low expectations have resulted in the school’s most-able Year 11 pupils underachieving considerably in 2017. The most able pupils in the school now continue to make limited progress as a result of inadequate teaching.
• Current pupils, including disadvantaged pupils and pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities, continue to underachieve. Leaders have failed to eliminate the weaknesses that hindered the progress of previous cohorts. Work in pupils’ books, observations in lessons and the school’s own tracking data testifies to a lack of progress across almost all subjects and year groups.
• In 2016, nearly a third of pupils were not in education, employment or training a few months after leaving the school. The school has no information on how well recent leavers are getting on.
• Very few pupils return to mainstream school or move on to more suitable provision. Almost all pupils, regardless of when they join the school, remain on the school’s roll until the end of Year 11.
• Pupils have had some relative successes in art. Over half the cohort studied art GCSE last year. All of these pupils achieved a GCSE grade A* to G and three pupils gained grades A* to C.
• The proportion of pupils achieving GCSEs in English, mathematics and science since the school opened has increased. However, all pupils are achieving grades well below those of their peers with similar starting points. Almost all are achieving grades below those predicated by their teachers.
• The new leadership team has focused on improving pupils’ engagement in learning. Although staff and pupils agree that there have been some improvements at key stage 4 since September, disruption to lessons is common. Moreover, at key stage 3, teachers struggle to get pupils to settle down to work. Consequently, the school’s records and pupils’ work show that only a handful of pupils have made any progress since the start of this academic year.
• Pupils’ work shows that in science at key stage 4, pupils are taking their learning more seriously. Most pupils take care with their presentation, try to complete the work set and engage in the different activities planned by the teacher. However, it is early days and these improvements are yet to make a noticeable difference to pupils’ rates of progress.

School details

Unique reference number Local authority Inspection number 141620 Wirral 10039876 This inspection of the school was carried out under section 5 of the Education Act 2005. Type of school Alternative provision School category Age range of pupils Gender of pupils Academy alternative provision sponsor-led 11 to 16 Mixed Number of pupils on the school roll 101 Appropriate authority Board of trustees Chair Headteacher Telephone number Website Email address Linda Atkinson Stuart Jamieson 0151 630 8750 www.emaps.wirral.sch.uk sjamieson@ema.wirral.sch.uk Date of previous inspection Not previously inspected

Information about this school

• The school does not comply with Department for Education guidance on what academies should publish on its website.
• The school does not meet requirements on the publication of information about pupil premium, equality objectives, accessibility for pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities, the curriculum and examination and assessment results on its website.
• The school converted to academy status in March 2015. The school is sponsored by the Liverpool City Region Academy Trust which is backed by Hugh Baird College, a further education college. The school is the only school managed by the trust. There is also a local governing body.
• There has been significant turbulence in the senior leadership of the school since it opened. The current headteacher took up post in September 2017. The school is receiving support from the TBAP Multi-Academy Trust since September 2017. The current acting deputy headteacher is seconded from New Horizons Alternative Provision School in Warrington.
• There are a number of vacant posts on the local governing body following several recent resignations.
• The Department for Education carried out a monitoring visit to the school in March 2017. The findings were published in a report which was shared with trustees and governors. The adviser identified key actions to be carried out by leaders.
• Pupils join the school at different ages and different times in the academic year. All pupils have been permanently excluded prior to joining the school. Some pupils have not attended school, attended part-time or have been working outside the classroom for a long period prior to their admission to Emslie Morgan Academy.
• The school serves pupils from mainstream schools across Wirral local authority.
• The proportion of pupils who come from minority ethnic groups is much lower than the national average.
• The proportion of pupils who speak English as an additional language is much lower than the national average.
• The proportion of disadvantaged pupils supported by the pupil premium funding is above the national average. Currently, there are no children attending the school who are looked after.
• There are many more boys than girls on roll.
• The school works with four alternative providers to broaden the curriculum offer for pupils: Cornerstone Vocational Training, Wirral Respite Alternative Provision, The Vocational College and Utopia Project.

Information about this inspection

• Inspectors observed teaching and learning across the school, including joint observations with the headteacher. Inspectors checked work in a range of pupils’ books.
• Discussions were held with senior leaders, middle leaders, the chair and a member of the local governing body, the chief executive officer of Liverpool City Region Academy Trust and representatives of the local authority.
• Inspectors examined a wide range of documentation, including that relating to safeguarding, behaviour and attendance, school improvement planning and assessment information.
• Inspectors spoke formally with pupils as well as informally during the school day and observed them during breaktimes.
• There were no responses to Parent View, Ofsted’s online survey. Inspectors spoke with a number of parents during the inspection.
• Inspectors considered the 14 written responses to Ofsted’s survey. Inspectors spoke formally with a group of staff.

Inspection team

Pippa Jackson Maitland, lead inspector Martin Hanbury Her Majesty’s Inspector Ofsted Inspector