Christ The King College 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?

• Raise the quality of teaching, learning and assessment across the school by:
  • sharing widely the stronger practice that exists, notably in English
  • insisting that departmental assessment policies are fully aligned to the school’s overarching policy and checking regularly that these are being followed closely by all staff
  • ensuring that teachers take account of what pupils already know, understand and can do, especially in key stage 3
  • focusing on removing the barriers to learning faced by disadvantaged pupils
  • providing challenging activities for higher attaining pupils.
• Increase average rates of attendance and reduce rates of persistent absence, especially for disadvantaged pupils, by:
  • strengthening the work already under way in partnership with the local authority
  • evaluating carefully the impact of strategies to improve attendance
  • applying rigorously successful strategies, including the use of fixed-penalty notices.
• Continue robustly the work already under way to improve the poor behaviour of the large minority of pupils who disrupt other pupils’ learning by:
  • re-setting pupils’, teachers’, parents’ and leaders’ understanding of what constitutes acceptable standards of behaviour
  • standardising, and making fair, all processes for rewards and sanctions
  • developing parents’ and pupils’ understanding of what constitutes bullying, what can be considered a serious incident, and how parents and pupils can raise well-founded concerns with the school
  • treating all allegations of poor or unacceptable behaviour in an even-handed way.
• Strengthen leadership at all levels by:
  • ensuring that all school policies are adopted and acted on consistently by all staff
  • improving the quality of information available to teachers and governors to support their work
  • monitoring the school’s work firmly against clear criteria
  • ensuring that all safeguarding arrangements are reviewed and urgently improved where necessary. Those responsible for governance should continue the review of governors’ work, which is already under way with the support of the local authority. A review of the school’s use of the pupil premium should be undertaken.

Inspection judgements

Effectiveness of leadership and management Inadequate

• Leadership at Christ the King College is going through a transition. Previous leadership arrangements did not enable leaders to prevent the school from declining. Even when published information about the school showed that it was not doing as well as it should, there was little action taken to challenge custom and practice.
• The new interim executive principal is acutely aware of the scale of the school’s decline since the last inspection, when it was judged to be a good school. He has a realistic understanding of what is required to improve the school.
• Leaders’ access to information is hampered by ineffective systems. In addition, leaders do not share the limited information they have effectively enough. Therefore, the current leadership team does not have a secure grasp of basic information about the school and its performance. For example, three different numbers were given to inspectors for pupils currently receiving alternative provision. This is just one example of inaccurate and imprecise, but extremely important, information.
• Leaders provided little evidence that the decision-making process, until recently, has been effective. This has led to the well-founded perception among a significant minority of staff that decisions were taken without due consideration and sometimes to the detriment of their workload or well-being.
• While teachers participate in professional learning activities, these have not had the necessary impact over time. As a result, improvements to teaching have been partial and inconsistent.
• There is inconsistency in the ways leaders adopt or implement strategies. Consequently, effective practice in one part of the school is not necessarily found in other subject areas.
• Leaders’ evaluation of the school’s performance has been over generous and unrealistic over time. The interim executive principal has made a start on re-setting benchmarks and expectations. It is too soon to see the impact of this on teachers’ work overall.
• Current approaches to the monitoring and evaluation of performance are not sufficiently rigorous. Leaders have not identified weak practice or challenged underperformance effectively enough. Subject leaders generally do not do enough to challenge their teams or raise levels of performance and professionalism. In the most effective departments, leaders ignore custom and practice in the school and implement their own approaches, leading to inconsistency in pupils’ experiences.
• Leaders’ unrealistic view of the school’s strengths and weaknesses contributed to their failure to take into account that pupils arrive at the school having learned more now in key stage 2 than they realised. For example, inspectors saw several examples of pupils receiving teaching in key stage 3 mathematics that repeated learning from key stage 2.
• Other aspects of the curriculum are not planned with sufficient depth, breadth or challenge for the most able pupils, meaning that they neither acquire new knowledge nor develop their skills rapidly. The personal, social, health and economic education programme is hampered currently by weak planning and teaching so its impact is lost. This means that the content is rarely received by all pupils.
• In religious education, history, geography and English, pupils experience teaching that contributes to their spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. For example, pupils in Year 8 in religious education learn about Islam and Hinduism as well as learning about the contribution of William Wilberforce to the abolition of slavery. It is disappointing, therefore, that a small minority of pupils still express racist, sexist and homophobic attitudes.
• The school has an extensive programme of collective acts of worship that reflect its joint Roman Catholic and Church of England foundation. Members of the clergy from both denominations participate in services, celebrating the ecumenical character of the school. A few pupils play important leadership roles at these times.
• The school has a good reputation for extra-curricular sport. Staff arrange occasional trips to the theatre and art galleries on the mainland, which widen the horizons of the pupils who access them.

Governance of the school

• The governance of Christ the King College is under review. This review is being carried out in partnership with the local authority and with the full cooperation of the current governing body. The new chair of the governing body is very keen to ensure that this review leads to the strengthening of the arrangements. She acknowledges that there is much to be done.
• Not all governors have had access to the type of information that would help them form judgements about how well the school was doing. They agreed with internal assessments of the school’s performance and many believed that the school was doing well.
• Governors have been increasingly willing to share the school’s work with external advisers. Recent reports on the school’s performance and some challenge from the local authority have contributed to governors’ much more realistic assessment of its strengths and weaknesses. Governors are aware, for example, of:
  • the budgetary challenges faced by the interim executive principal
  • the relatively weaker performance of boys compared with that of girls
  • the underperformance of disadvantaged pupils
  • the declining rates of attendance, especially of disadvantaged pupils
  • where teaching is stronger and where it requires improvement.
• Governors complete mandatory training so that they can make, for example, safe staff appointments.

Safeguarding

• The arrangements for safeguarding are not effective. The new interim executive principal is fully aware of this and has immediately put in place a series of measures to start to address shortcomings in the school’s safeguarding. This includes a different reminder each week to staff about an aspect of safeguarding.
• Site access is not properly managed and insufficient attention is paid to the additional site security required during the building works. Security is totally dependent on staff locking gates at the right time, checking visitors on both sites, and the quality of supervision as pupils move between the two parts of the school. Inspectors agree with a large minority of pupils and a few staff that the site is ‘too open’. This is caused only partly by the current extensive building works.
• The school’s work to keep pupils safe from bullying is not having the desired effect. A large minority of pupils reported that they had experienced what they perceive to be bullying. Some bullying is described by pupils as ‘casual racism’.
• Inspectors found some unusual arrangements set up for a minority of pupils to spend time working rather than at school. While risk assessments were found to be in place for such activities, the value of these placements is not clear. No checks on the safety of these pupils in these placements had been undertaken.
• Levels of supervision on the lower college site are insufficient to guarantee the safety and good behaviour of pupils at break- and lunchtimes.
• The recruitment checks that leaders make on staff or volunteers wishing to work at the school are carried out properly. They are recorded in a single central register that is checked by the governors.
• Staff have mandatory training each year on aspects of safeguarding, such as the ‘Prevent’ duty and how to spot signs of neglect, vulnerability or abuse. This training has not, however, created a culture where safeguarding dominates everyone’s thinking.
• The lower college site is not well maintained. This is understandable, given the pending merger onto the upper college site, but, in the meantime, movement around it is hampered by uneasily accessed classrooms and many sections of the campus that are ‘out of sight’ to adults. There are potential trip hazards in many places.
• A few staff are to be commended for their watchfulness, which includes challenging unidentified and unknown persons near the premises. However, the safety risks when teachers are on duty on Wellington Road at the end of each day are not managed consistently well.

Quality of teaching, learning and assessment Requires improvement

• Assessment practice in the school is underdeveloped and unevenly implemented. Some pupils get informative feedback on their work and act on it. Others rarely receive support and guidance so that they know what to do in order to improve. As a result, the standards achieved by pupils do not represent strong progress in subjects such as mathematics and modern foreign languages.
• Teaching in the majority of subjects is not planned with pupils’ prior learning taken into account. Some staff do make good use of the wealth of information available to them. However, a majority of teachers do not plan work with different groups of pupils in mind, so that some find the work too easy and others struggle to keep up.
• The quality of teaching is too variable, so that pupils in the same year group have very different experiences depending on their individual timetables. Consequently, some parents are pleased with the quality of their children’s education while a large minority are disappointed.
• Where teaching is at its weakest, behaviour deteriorates quickly. Pupils lose interest, misbehave and, too often, disrupt other pupils’ learning. When teachers take action against poor behaviour, misbehaving pupils respond quickly, but pupils are frustrated that action is not always taken. Pupils at Christ the King College know how to behave well; a significant minority choose not to.
• Similarly, pupils receive varying amounts of homework. Some teachers make good use of an online system to provide easy-to-access tasks and activities, but others do not. Parents express reasonable concerns that their children do not develop study habits early enough in school in part because of the inconsistency with which homework is set.
• Pupils who receive support for the development of their reading generally increase the level at which they read. Pupils who receive support in class for their special educational needs (SEN) and/or disabilities report that this support helps them to keep up in lessons.
• There are areas of the school’s work, notably in English, religious education and the humanities, where strong practice exists. Until recently, however, there has not been a culture in the school where this stronger practice was shared with others. Teachers report that their subject leaders are helpful, but that there is little evidence that, alongside the support, there is regular challenge or inspiration to do even better.
• Teachers do not routinely challenge pupils and groups of pupils to do their best and aim high, running counter to the carefully worded and ambitious statements in the school’s publicity materials.

Personal development, behaviour and welfare Inadequate

Personal development and welfare

• The school’s work to promote pupils’ personal development and welfare is inadequate. The school’s provision of personal, social, health and economic education does not, as yet, have sufficient impact on pupils’ attitudes. Some pupils reported experiences of racist bullying, and others that the term ‘gay’ was used frequently as a term of abuse.
• Pupils in key stages 3 and 4 do not consistently display positive attitudes to learning. Few take up the opportunities to improve their work, even when teachers have taken time to suggest amendments or challenge them to do better.
• Many pupils wear their uniform with pride. They talk positively about their time at school and about how it has helped them develop as people. Others, however, flout school uniform rules, take far too long to move between lessons and ignore the advice that teachers give about appropriate behaviour.
• The school’s work to minimise bullying and its effects does not have the desired intention of reducing the incidence of bullying. It has not yet created a culture where all pupils feel secure at school or free from bullying.
• Pupils, and some parents, do not have, as yet, a shared understanding with leaders of what constitutes bullying. This means that a small minority of parents believe that well-founded concerns that they have reported are ignored. A few parents feel clear that historically their concerns were not treated seriously or fairly.
• The systems for recording and tracking major incidents show that leaders act decisively when things happen. There is less evidence that the system for tracking less serious matters is as well developed. This means that leaders are not able to point out, with confidence, those that are isolated incidents and those that are sustained sequences of events that might be bullying.

Behaviour

• The behaviour of pupils is inadequate. A large minority of pupils regularly disrupt lessons. Pupils, parents and teachers all informed inspectors that these pupils disturb other pupils’ learning.
• Overall attendance rates are declining. The attendance of disadvantaged pupils is not as good as that of other pupils in the school. Rates of persistent absence are increasing. Disadvantaged pupils are more frequently persistently absent than their classmates.
• Teachers expressed well-founded concerns that there is inconsistency in the way in which leaders respond to poor behaviour when it is reported. Inspectors observed low- level disruption in both key stage 3 and key stage 4 classrooms. They also witnessed some examples of boisterous behaviour around the toilet areas and in the narrow corridors. The conduct of pupils at breaktimes and when they move from the lower college to the upper college, and vice versa, varies, depending on the volume and visibility of on-duty staff.
• The new interim executive principal is taking control of the situation. He is insisting on the consistent management of behaviour. He has taken steps to sharpen the processes by which pupils are excluded and the criteria by which this will happen. With other leaders, he is working towards helping parents understand fully all aspects of the school’s behaviour and complaints policy.

Outcomes for pupils Requires improvement

• Outcomes for pupils require improvement because the quality of teaching observed during the inspection, coupled with the quality of work over time as seen in current pupils’ books, is not good enough to ensure that pupils make strong progress in most subjects.
• Teaching has not contributed to strong progress in too many subjects over time. This means that pupils’ attainment overall is broadly average when they could and should be doing much better, given their starting points.
• Pupils generally arrive at Christ the King College having attained above-average results in key stage 2. Progress is only broadly average across the school, as shown in published information. GCSE results in 2016 and 2017 show that some pupils did very well. However, the headline figures mask the reality that some pupils did not achieve as well as they should have.
• Over the last two years, the average rate of progress of disadvantaged pupils by the end of key stage 4 was below that of their peers and other pupils nationally. Disadvantaged pupils’ progress in science was particularly weak. This key group of pupils’ slower progress in several subjects is one of the reasons why pupils’ outcomes require improvement.
• The most able Year 11 pupils made below-average progress in mathematics in 2017, when the progress of previous cohorts had been good. Equally, they attained less well on average than their peers nationally. They made less progress in science than pupils with similar starting points in comparable schools.
• Inspectors observed many able pupils receiving too little challenge in their work. Such pupils were not provided with tasks that enabled them to develop their thinking, extend their writing or work at a much higher level than their peers.
• The progress of girls currently on roll, as seen in their work, is typically stronger than that of boys.
• Pupils’ onward destinations on leaving Christ the King College are limited by the fact that they have not made strong enough progress, thereby limiting their opportunities. A minority of pupils were critical of the information, advice and guidance they received to support the process of applying to college for traineeships or apprenticeships.
• Outcomes in English are an exception to the rest of the school. Most groups of pupils make above-average progress in this subject. Even in English, disadvantaged pupils’ attainment lags behind that of their classmates and pupils with similar starting points nationally.
• The school is in the process of developing a new system for tracking the performance of current pupils. However, this is not being used effectively to ensure that teachers challenge pupils appropriately. Senior leaders are not using this information to hold subject leaders to account. Inspectors saw examples from mathematics and English only of how this information contributes to subject development plans.
• What teachers record about pupils’ achievement varies in accuracy. Leaders do not have a confident view, therefore, about how well individual pupils or groups of pupils are doing.
• Pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities receive support for their learning requirements. Some of this was, until recently, provided by the now closed ‘STEPS’ facility. However, such pupils do well in English, especially in key stage 3. They make less progress in mathematics.

16 to 19 study programmes Requires improvement

• The Christ the King College sixth form provides overall a better quality of education than the rest of the school. However, there is a limit on the effectiveness of this provision due to the historic decision not to adopt a systematic approach to work-related learning.
• Teaching is generally better on the 16 to 19 study programmes than in other parts of the school. Strengths were seen in taster sessions in computing science and drama, and level 3 vocational programmes in sport, as well as A-level mathematics teaching and sociology. Teachers’ subject knowledge is appropriate for the level at which they are working. They use the technical language of their subject well. In history, for example, teachers provide access to additional reading using the school’s online system.
• Teaching leads to broadly average outcomes on A-level and AS-level programmes. On the applied general programmes it leads, over time, to outcomes significantly below national levels. This is again evidence of the variability of the quality of teaching that is good in some parts of the curriculum, but not all.
• While students who follow traditional A-level programmes generally make average rates of progress, some make good progress. However, few go on to attain high grades. The average grade at A-level for the past three years has been grade C. Those whose average grades were high at GCSE only attained a grade B on average at A level. As with the rest of the school, teaching is not sufficiently challenging for students so that they are motivated to do their very best.
• Those students who did not attain at least a grade 4 (formerly grade C) in GCSE English or mathematics or both by the end of key stage 4 are given the opportunity to re-sit the examinations in Year 12. Results in these subjects were disappointing in 2017, with less than half meeting the standard in English and only a sixth meeting it in mathematics.
• Some students are motivated to seek work experience opportunities themselves. The programme of support for the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) is effective and starts in a timely manner as soon as Year 11 students come back from their AS-level examinations.
• About half the students choose to extend their studies further by undertaking an extended project qualification and are supported to do so by sixth-form staff. This aids their preparation for independent learning in higher education.
• Each year, a small number of student are supported successfully to make applications to prestigious universities or into medical and/or veterinary school. A few attain the necessary qualifications and take up those places.
• Students are provided with opportunities to undertake leadership responsibilities. Representatives of the student leadership team account positively for their wider contribution to school life. Some assist with charitable activities or support the school’s programme of worship.
• Students benefit from a purpose-built sixth-form centre from which they come and go freely, and where they have a limited set of privileges.
• Students’ conduct is better in the sixth form than in other parts of the school. They are given more advice on how to stay safe online, in relationships and while travelling. There is a more positive culture among sixth-form students so that the name-calling and potential bullying reported by pupils in key stages 3 and 4 are not repeated.
• The arrangements for safeguarding students in the sixth form are effective. As with pupils in key stages 3 and 4, they become at risk when they leave their own area to attend lessons on the lower college site.
• The leadership of the sixth form is in transition. This is due to the recent retirement of the vice-principal who oversaw its inception and development. The current senior leader responsible for the sixth form is due to leave at the end of the year. The remaining leaders of the 16 to 19 study programmes are relatively inexperienced. The new interim executive principal is aware of this and is working to implement a coherent line-management and accountability structure.

School details

Unique reference number Local authority Inspection number 135552 Isle of Wight 10054429 This inspection of the school was carried out under section 5 of the Education Act 2005. Type of school Comprehensive School category Age range of pupils Gender of pupils Gender of pupils in 16 to 19 study programmes Voluntary aided 11 to 18 Mixed Mixed Number of pupils on the school roll 1,606 Of which, number on roll in 16 to 19 study programmes 308 Appropriate authority The governing body Chair Elizabeth Burden Interim Executive Principal Matthew Quinn Telephone number 01983 537070 Website Email address www.christ-the-king.iow.sch.uk admin@christ-the-king.iow.sch.uk Date of previous inspection 27–28 March 2014

Information about this school

• Christ the King College is larger than the average-sized secondary school. It serves a community of pupils drawn from all parts of the Isle of Wight.
• The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portsmouth and the Church of England Diocese of Portsmouth have joint control of the school, in partnership with the Isle of Wight local authority.
• Christ the King College was recently subject to an inspection of its religious foundation under section 48 of the Education Act 2005. The outcome of that inspection was not known at the time of this inspection.
• Since the last inspection, the principal has resigned. A new interim executive principal was asked to lead the school part time from May 2018. One of the vice-principals was asked to act as head of school during this period. A new substantive head of school takes up her post in September 2018.
• The school is split across two sites, but has a building programme under way so that pupils will be fully housed on the existing upper college site by September 2019. The school’s current sixth-form provision is housed on the upper college site.
• The proportion of disadvantaged pupils is below average.
• The proportion of pupils who speak English as an additional language is below average. The vast majority of pupils are from White British backgrounds.
• There is a broadly average proportion of pupils who receive support for their special educational needs (SEN) and/or disabilities.
• The proportion of pupils who have an education, health and care plan is above the national average.
• The school serves a community that has median levels of deprivation.
• The school is in partnership with Southampton Football Club Foundation, which provides a level 3 vocational programme in sport.
• The school provides alternative placements for a few pupils with the Isle of Wight College.
• The school meets the government’s current floor standards.

Information about this inspection

• Inspectors observed learning in 63 parts of lessons and conducted learning walks around the both the upper and lower college sites. Some of the learning was observed jointly with leaders.
• Inspectors met senior leaders regularly, including the member of staff responsible for assessment, those responsible for monitoring pupils’ attendance and behaviour, leaders of the 16 to 19 study programmes and the special educational needs coordinator (SENCo).
• Inspectors met with a group of four teachers formally. They met the leaders of the core subjects and they talked to many teachers informally. They took into account 82 responses to Ofsted’s confidential staff survey, including 70 individual free-text comments. Some staff contributed more than one free-text comment.
• Inspectors met with four groups of pupils formally, and the sixth-form student leadership team. They spoke to many pupils informally, including individual pupils accessing the student services area and others who were out of lessons as they moved around the school. Inspectors took into account 194 responses to Ofsted’s confidential online pupil survey and considered 90 free-text responses. Some pupils contributed more than one free-text comment.
• Inspectors met with seven parents formally, spoke to one parent by phone and took into account 109 responses to Parent View, Ofsted’s confidential survey. They also considered 71 free-text comments.
• Inspectors met with the governing body. They conducted three phone calls with representatives of the local authority.
• Inspectors also contacted workplace settings where current pupils are placed.

Inspection team

Simon Hughes, lead inspector Debbie Godfrey-Phaure Harry Kutty Mary Davies Colin Lankester

Her Majesty’s Inspector Ofsted Inspector Ofsted Inspector Ofsted Inspector Ofsted Inspector