Cropredy Church of England Primary School Ofsted Report

Full report

What does the school need to do to improve further?

• Improve teaching, learning, assessment and pupils’ outcomes, especially in writing, by:
  • securing greater consistency of effective practice across classes
  • ensuring that the level of challenge in teaching and tasks meets pupils’ needs and enables them to achieve well
  • teaching thoroughly all important elements of the curriculum in each subject, including problem-solving and reasoning in mathematics, to avoid gaps in pupils’ knowledge and understanding.
• Strengthen leadership and management, including governance, to secure a good or better quality of education for pupils by:
  • using all available information to plan, take and review the specific steps necessary to secure the required improvements
  • securing helpful and accurate information about current pupils’ progress and making effective use of it to improve their achievement, including disadvantaged pupils and those who have SEN and/or disabilities.

Inspection judgements

Effectiveness of leadership and management Requires improvement

• The school is led by a dedicated headteacher who was described by governors as ‘the glue that keeps the school together’. She has ensured that staff have felt supported during recent times of turbulence. However, over time, leaders have not focused enough on improving teaching and learning to raise standards across the school.
• Leaders have a solid knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses in the school. However, improvement plans do not routinely show what needs to be done to tackle the weaknesses. Consequently, staff have not driven forward the specific actions required to improve teaching and learning, as well as outcomes for pupils.
• Leaders do not have a clear enough picture of how well pupils are progressing across the school. Systems for tracking pupils’ outcomes do not support teachers well enough in planning learning that routinely meets the needs of their pupils.
• The school is outward-looking. The headteacher has fostered purposeful relationships with leaders of other schools and has been proactive in seeking advice from the local authority to support areas identified as in need of improvement. This support has worked particularly well in the early years. A local authority adviser is also providing helpful guidance to the lead teacher for English to improve the teaching of writing.
• Leaders have high aspirations for both staff and pupils, but not all adults reflect this in their own practice. Some teachers’ expectations of pupils’ behaviour and academic ability are not high enough. Consequently, some pupils do not work as hard as they could and do not, therefore, learn as well as they should.
• Suitable training for some staff who are new to post supports them in deepening their understanding of how to be more effective in their roles. After training, the new special educational needs coordinator provided helpful guidance for teachers. However, other aspects of teachers’ practice are not being developed well.
• Leaders use additional funding for disadvantaged pupils effectively. Staff know pupils’ personal and learning needs well and create bespoke support packages for them using this funding. This support has made a positive impact on targeted pupils’ progress, especially in reading. However, leaders do not use their evaluation of the difference the funding makes well enough to inform future spending decisions.
• Leaders have not ensured that the planned curriculum is covered by all teachers each year. Some pupils miss out on important learning opportunities. However, pupils comment that they particularly enjoy the wider enrichment opportunities, including the science club, sports competitions and trips that allow them to widen their experiences of learning outside of the classroom.

Governance of the school

• The school was previously governed by an interim executive board (IEB). The IEB highlighted the need to improve pupils’ performance across the school and challenged school leaders well. They paved the way for the new governing body, which has been operating since September 2017.
• New governors are fully committed to the school already and have good levels of experience individually but are still developing their skills as a governing body. They have rightly identified the need for a clear, shared vision for the school and have worked successfully to bring back a sense of community and inclusivity. They have a good understanding of the school’s main areas of weakness, despite their relatively recent formation in September 2017, but have yet to formulate a strong plan to tackle them and drive forward improvement. For example, governors have correctly identified the need to monitor effectively the impact of the spending of additional funding for disadvantaged pupils. However, their evaluation of this is not yet sharp enough.

Safeguarding

• The arrangements for safeguarding are effective.
• All statutory policies are in place and leaders diligently check that staff have read and understood them. Inspectors’ discussions with staff and governors confirmed that adults involved with the school know how to keep pupils safe and what to do if they have any concerns.
• The headteacher liaises well with external agencies about any concerns for pupils’ welfare. She ensures that staff are actively involved in multi-agency meetings about more vulnerable pupils. This means that pupils’ individual needs are met effectively.
• Pupils are taught how to stay safe, including when online. Pupils, staff and the vast majority of parents say that pupils feel safe in school.
• Leaders are always looking to improve their processes to ensure that their practice helps keep pupils safe. Nothing is left to chance and staff and governors are routinely quizzed to check they fully understand their role. This enables the school to have a secure culture of safeguarding.

Quality of teaching, learning and assessment Requires improvement

• The quality of teaching, learning and assessment across the school is inconsistent. Teaching at the end of key stage 1 and the beginning of key stage 2 does not meet pupils’ needs closely enough. The work is sometimes too easy or too difficult for pupils, and so does not help them to move on with their learning.
• In some classes, staff have a secure understanding of pupils’ needs and they match work carefully to pupils’ prior learning and abilities. As a result, teachers challenge pupils well and support the most able pupils to work beyond age-related expectations.
• Some teachers do not take enough account of what the school’s curriculum says pupils should be learning. This means that, in some classes, pupils do not make appropriate progress or cover the range of learning expected in that year.
• Adults teach phonics very well. They have excellent knowledge of how to teach early reading. As a result, pupils who did not achieve the expected standard in reading when in the Reception Year are beginning to catch up with their peers in Year 1. Pupils use their phonics knowledge readily when trying to read unknown words, and say that they enjoy reading. Reading is a strength across the school.

• Where teaching is less effective, staff do not build on the writing skills pupils have already gained. Consequently, pupils’ progress stalls and so outcomes in writing are weaker. Evidence from the most able pupils’ books shows that their progress in writing is more secure. However, pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities do not make the same rate of progress as their peers due to inconsistent support given by adults.
• Staff teach writing well in the lower year groups. Pupils develop the skills to produce work that is appropriate for their age and ability. Some teachers ensure that pupils have opportunities to improve their writing in subjects such as religious education, science and personal, social, health and economic education. However, this is inconsistent across classes.
• Mathematics is mostly taught well throughout the school. Teachers’ subject knowledge is solid and they challenge pupils appropriately, particularly the most able pupils. However, pupils’ books show that the whole mathematics curriculum is not consistently well taught. For example, some teaching allows pupils limited access to reasoning and problem-solving.

Personal development, behaviour and welfare Good

Personal development and welfare

• The school’s work to promote pupils’ personal development and welfare is good.
• Leaders use the school’s Christian principles and beliefs to promote fundamental British values and prepare pupils well for life in modern Britain. Governors are working hard with staff to re-establish the school’s motto of ‘care, create, challenge’.
• Staff forge positive relationships with pupils through activities such as the school council, sports competitions and school trips. Pupils and staff report that they are proud to be members of the school.
• Pupils are very caring towards each other and say that they feel like a ‘community’. The older pupils are very aware of how to look after and support the younger ones in the school.
• Some parents believe that the school does not deal effectively with bullying, although pupils themselves said that any ‘mean’ behaviour from peers is managed well by staff.

Behaviour

• The behaviour of pupils is good.
• Pupils are very well behaved around the school, including at break and lunchtimes. They are polite to adults and each other, holding doors open and thanking others for their support.
• Leaders identify quickly pupils who miss too much school and work closely with parents to improve pupils’ attendance. As a result, attendance is very high compared to the national average.
• Pupils are punctual when returning to their lessons after breaktimes, and their attitude towards learning is very positive. Disruption in lessons is rare as most pupils are keen to learn. Their enthusiasm for learning is demonstrated by the care pupils take when completing work. Occasionally, pupils lack focus in lessons when they are not challenged sufficiently or are unsure about what is expected of them.

Outcomes for pupils Requires improvement

• Over the last two years, pupils’ outcomes in key stage 2 have not been consistently good enough. Although outcomes are strong in reading, and are also positive for some pupils in mathematics, they have been too weak in writing.
• Published key stage 2 information shows that pupils attained well in reading and mathematics in 2016 and 2017. However, pupils’ attainment in writing was much lower in these two years, despite improvements in 2017, putting the school in the bottom 20% of all schools.
• Throughout the school, weaker practice in teaching means that pupils’ progress in writing is not consistently strong. However, some of the most able key stage 2 pupils make good progress with their writing, achieving greater depth in their work.
• Pupils generally attain better in key stage 1 than in key stage 2. However, their progress across a wide range of subjects in key stage 1 is not consistently strong.
• Despite some individual success stories, disadvantaged pupils and those who have SEN and/or disabilities do not make consistently strong progress, especially in writing and mathematics.
• The proportion of pupils meeting the expected standard in the Year 1 phonics screening check was much higher than the national average.
• As a result of strong leadership in the early years, Reception Year children have made a very good start to their educational career. However, due to the fluctuating outcomes across the school, older pupils are not always well prepared for the next stage in their education.

Early years provision Good

• Early years provision is good because of the strong teaching and leadership in place since September 2017. School leaders responded well to a dip in children’s outcomes at the end of the previous academic year. The early years leader has a clear vision and drives this through the provision. Significant improvements made this year have ensured that the vast majority of children are making rapid progress since their entry into the school.
• Partnership working with parents is very strong. Leaders create an informative and purposeful experience for parents’ evenings and these are very well attended. Parents especially like the new system that allows them to see how their children are progressing, although there is still more work to do to enable parents to make a full contribution.
• Children’s behaviour at the start of their Reception Year can be challenging. Staff quickly build positive relationships that successfully help children to settle into routines and learn good work habits. Children are very well prepared for the start of Year 1.
• The early years leader proactively sought training support from the local authority to help build a strong team of early years staff. This has prepared teaching assistants well to teach phonics. Effective teaching of children, including those who are disadvantaged, develops their early reading skills well.
• Adults’ skilful questioning encourages children to develop their language. Staff also create a supportive atmosphere for improving children’s personal development.
• Leaders have designed a purposeful outside area where children are encouraged to learn, explore and play together. Staff lead activities well to support turn-taking, such as building a wall of bricks in pairs.
• The strong culture of safeguarding throughout the school is evident in the early years too. Leaders have ensured that staff have had appropriate training and that there are no breaches of welfare requirements.

School details

Unique reference number 123090 Local authority Oxfordshire Inspection number 10040707 This inspection of the school was carried out under section 5 of the Education Act 2005. Type of school Primary School category Voluntary controlled Age range of pupils 4 to 11 Gender of pupils Mixed Number of pupils on the school roll 179 Appropriate authority The governing body Chair Andy Bird Headteacher Hilary Stevens Telephone number 01295 750 210 Website www.cropredyprimaryschool.org.uk/ Email address Office.3000@cropredy.oxon.sch.uk Date of previous inspection 5–6 February 2014

Information about this school

• The headteacher has been in post since before the last inspection but the school’s other two senior leaders have only been in place since September 2016.
• In 2016, some members of the governing body resigned from their positions and were replaced by an IEB formed by the diocese and the local authority. In September 2017, a new governing body took responsibility from the IEB for the governance of the school.
• The school is smaller than the average-sized primary school.
• Nearly all pupils are from White British backgrounds.
• A below-average proportion of pupils are known to be eligible for the pupil premium.
• The proportion of pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities is below average. However, the proportion of pupils with an education, health and care plan is average.
• The school continues to receive external support, both from the diocese and from a school improvement leader brokered by the local authority.
• The on-site after-school club is now managed by the governing body and was considered as part of this inspection. However, the on-site pre-school is not managed by the governing body and so is not included in this report.
• The school did not meet the government’s floor standards (the minimum standards expected for pupils’ progress and attainment) in 2016.

Information about this inspection

• All classes in the school were visited jointly with a key stage leader.
• Inspectors met with parents, a group of pupils, members of staff, school leaders and governors. Telephone calls were held with the school’s local authority adviser and a diocesan representative.
• Inspectors spoke with pupils during their lessons, and at playtimes and lunchtimes.
• Inspectors listened to pupils read and checked a wide range of pupils’ work across all year groups and subject areas.
• A wide range of school documentation was scrutinised, including information on pupils’ progress, school plans for improvement, minutes of meetings of the governing body and information relating to safeguarding.
• Inspectors took account of 81 responses to the online questionnaire, Parent View, including 74 free-text comments. The 23 responses to the staff survey were also considered.

Inspection team

Stuart Cateridge, lead inspector Ofsted Inspector Graham Marshall Ofsted Inspector