Green Oak CofE Primary School and Nursery 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?

• Increase the impact of leadership and management by:
  • improving the accuracy of assessment so that it provides reliable information about the impact of teaching on pupils’ progress in all year groups
  • ensuring that new systems for checking the quality of teaching are implemented in full quickly and rigorously
  • ensuring the curriculum covers a wider range of subjects and that it prepares pupils better for life in modern Britain
  • checking the impact of the pupil premium grant on disadvantaged pupils’ progress so that interventions that are not working can be changed in good time
  • ensuring that subject leaders monitor closely the progress pupils make in their subjects.
• Accelerate pupils’ progress across the school by:
  • ensuring that teachers address clearly the skills, knowledge and understanding that pupils need to reach age-related expectations, particularly in English and mathematics
  • ensuring that teachers’ planning takes account of the needs of all pupils, including the most able, disadvantaged pupils and pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities
  • ensuring that teachers’ assessment of pupils’ learning is accurate.
• Improve the rates of attendance of all pupils, in particular disadvantaged pupils and those who have special needs and/or disabilities so that they at least match national averages.
• Improve pupils’ behaviour by eliminating low-level disruption in lessons and boisterous behaviour in open and outside areas. An external review of the school’s use of the pupil premium should be undertaken in order to assess how this aspect of leadership and management may be improved. Inspectors strongly recommend that the school should not seek to appoint newly qualified teachers until further notice.

Inspection judgements

Effectiveness of leadership and management Inadequate

• Since the previous inspection, leaders and governors have not done enough to ensure that all pupils, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds and those who have special educational needs and/or disabilities, make sufficient progress in their learning. Consequently, outcomes for pupils have been well below national averages, and the school has failed to meet the minimum standards set by the government, for the last two years.
• The school has been through a turbulent period, with a very high turnover of leaders and teachers. Leaders continue to find the recruitment of high-quality teaching staff challenging, and there are still unfilled vacancies for class teachers. As a result, teaching has failed to meet pupils’ needs. Until very recently, teachers have not been held to account rigorously enough for the progress their pupils make.
• The new headteacher and interim deputy headteacher, who have been in post since September 2016, have brought greater stability and a renewed sense of purpose to the school. They are ambitious for pupils’ achievement and know what needs to be done to improve standards. However, in the autumn term they spent much of their time improving safeguarding and behaviour management arrangements that were not fit for purpose. In addition, they supported the many temporary or inexperienced teachers in the school. As a result, robust systems for evaluating the school’s work are either not yet in place or have been too recently implemented to have had a measurable impact.
• Leaders do not have an accurate view of how well pupils are doing in their learning. Although the new headteacher has initiated half-termly reviews of progress, the information teachers provide is not yet reliable enough. This is because teachers have not had the opportunity to compare their judgements about pupils’ progress with those of other teachers within or beyond the school.
• Over time, leaders have been too slow to ensure that the curriculum adequately prepares pupils for their next steps and for life in modern Britain. Curriculum planning is in the early stages of development. While teachers follow agreed plans for English and mathematics, the teaching of other subjects, including personal, social and health education, is not coordinated well enough.
• While British values are addressed in assemblies, these values are not sufficiently well promoted in other areas of the curriculum. There are few extra-curricular clubs for pupils to attend. However, provision for music is improving: all pupils in key stage 2 access one-to-one music tuition.
• The leadership of English, mathematics and special educational needs has not been effective enough to halt the decline in standards since the previous inspection. More recently, newly appointed leaders in these areas have begun to provide more support for teachers. However, they have not yet carried out any systematic monitoring of teaching and learning. Consequently, progress in English and mathematics for pupils currently in the school, including those who have special educational needs and/or disabilities, is not rapid enough to enable them to catch up with their peers nationally.
• Leaders do not make effective use of the pupil premium, and they do not check rigorously enough whether the expenditure is having the desired effect on outcomes for disadvantaged pupils. The exception to this is the reading recovery programme for pupils in Year 1, where leaders make good use of assessment information to check the impact of this successful intervention.
• Leaders do not make good use of the sport premium. While each class has a weekly physical education (PE) session, there has been no investment in sports clubs, even though pupils and teachers themselves say they would like to see this.
• Leaders have not reversed the high absence rates of many pupils, in particular disadvantaged pupils and those who have special educational needs and/or disabilities. Leaders work well with the educational welfare officer, and have put in place a range of tried and tested approaches designed to promote regular attendance. However, absence rates remain very high and show little sign of improvement.
• Leaders are committed to pupils’ social, spiritual, moral and cultural development and promote the distinctive Christian ethos of the school well. Leaders have formed good links with local churches. For example, a youth worker from a nearby parish delivers weekly assemblies. Bright displays in classrooms and around the school reinforce Christian values and pupils learn about other faiths and religions in their religious education lessons.
• Teachers benefit from a planned programme of weekly training sessions, which is partly delivered by leaders in the school and partly by local authority consultants. However, subject leaders for English and mathematics would like to offer more training to teachers, but have not yet had the opportunity to do so.
• Parents have mixed views about the school. Many believe that their children are settled and happy and are pleased that the school now has a substantive headteacher who communicates well with them. However, a number of parents are concerned about poor behaviour in the school and the high turnover of teachers. Just over half of those parents who responded to the Parent View online questionnaire would recommend the school.
• The school remains highly dependent on external support. While subject leaders and governors value this support, its impact over time has been limited. Evidence for this can be seen in the continuing low standards in the school. At the same time, there is not yet enough internal capacity in the school to make the necessary improvements without support.

Governance of the school

• The recently formed IEB has quickly formed an accurate view of the school’s strengths and weaknesses. However, it is too early to evaluate its impact on standards in the school, which remain too low.
• The IEB is made up of experienced governors from other schools and is chaired by a national leader of governance. At the time of the inspection, the IEB had met only once. However, it is clear that governors have high expectations and a clear understanding of what needs to be done to reverse the decline in standards at the school.
• Since their appointment, governors have acted swiftly to review the school’s health and safety, financial and safeguarding arrangements. They have ensured that these arrangements are now fit for purpose.
• Governors provide robust challenge to the headteacher. They have established a performance management committee to set and review her targets. They have rightly demanded that the headteacher quickly provide them with accurate information about pupils’ current progress.

Safeguarding

• The arrangements for safeguarding are effective.
• The headteacher and interim deputy headteacher worked with the local authority to review the school’s safeguarding systems and processes on their arrival in September 2016. Following this, they put together a safeguarding action plan, which they are rigorously implementing and which the IEB checks at each of their meetings.
• Leaders carry out the required checks on all those who work at the school, either as paid employees, governors or volunteers. The chair of the IEB acts as safeguarding governor and has carried out her own initial audit of safeguarding arrangements in the school.
• The headteacher is the designated safeguarding lead (DSL), and she is supported by three assistant DSLs, so that there is always at least one DSL on-site. All have received appropriate training provided by the local authority.
• There is a programme of safeguarding training under way for staff. All staff have received basic safeguarding training, though at the time of the inspection they had not yet received training on the ‘Prevent’ duty or on child sexual exploitation.
• Staff know what to do if they have concerns about a child and the DSLs are rigorous in following up all referrals made to external agencies, with whom they have good relations.

Quality of teaching, learning and assessment Inadequate

• The quality of teaching is much too variable across the school, and so too many pupils, including disadvantaged pupils, the most able and those who have special educational needs and/or disabilities, do not make enough progress in their learning.
• Teachers’ planning does not take enough account of pupils’ prior attainment. Frequently, the most able pupils are not sufficiently challenged, while those who have special educational needs and/or disabilities fall further behind because the work is not matched well enough to their needs.
• Teachers do not use questioning effectively enough to probe pupils’ understanding or provide opportunities for them to explain their reasoning in detail. Too often, teachers’ questions focus on factual recall and simple procedural matters. As a result, pupils, particularly the most able, are not consistently stretched or challenged to do better.
• Teachers’ assessment of pupils’ progress is not accurate. Consequently, over time, teachers fail to address pupils’ misconceptions or to correct misunderstandings.
• Target setting is not well developed. As a result, expectations of what pupils can achieve, particularly in reading, writing and mathematics are too low. This means that the most able pupils in particular are not given the opportunity to fulfil their potential.
• Pupils’ skills in reading and writing are well below those expected of their peers nationally. While leaders and teachers have begun to raise the profile of reading and give pupils more practice in reading comprehension, pupils’ writing still contains too many errors. The leaders responsible for English are aware of this and have plans to provide more guidance for teachers in spelling, grammar and punctuation.
• Where qualified teachers teach phonics, pupils make good progress in their reading skills. Teachers skilfully tailor the material to meet the needs of mixed-age groups. However, where phonics is taught by unqualified teachers, pupils make slower progress, because the curriculum content is not well adapted to their needs.
• Mathematics teaching in key stage 1 is effective, and pupils, including disadvantaged pupils, make progress similar to that of their peers nationally. However, teaching in the lower end of key stage 2 does not build on these gains in a sufficiently systematic way. In particular, pupils do not get enough practice in developing their mathematical reasoning. As a result, by the time pupils reach Year 6 they have fallen too far behind in their mathematical skills, knowledge and understanding.
• Relationships between pupils and teachers are generally positive, and most pupils behave well, particularly when the work they are asked to do meets their needs. When activities are less challenging, pupils do not pay enough attention to their work. This limits their progress and that of those around them.

Personal development, behaviour and welfare Inadequate

Personal development and welfare

• The school’s work to promote pupils’ personal development and welfare requires improvement.
• The poor behaviour of some pupils and the high turnover of staff has had a negative impact on pupils’ personal development.
• There are few extra-curricular clubs for pupils to enjoy. However, pupils enjoy the school’s garden and animal pen. They also benefit from a range of educational trips. For example, pupils spoke with excitement about a recent visit to KidZania.
• Most pupils wear their uniforms with pride and speak warmly of their school and of the support they receive from their teachers. They enjoy showing visitors around and talking about their work.
• Most pupils treat each other and adults with respect. For example, the whole school listened attentively to a youth worker from a nearby parish who delivered a weekly assembly to them.
• Pupils feel safe in school and know who to talk to if they have any concerns. Teachers talk to pupils about ways they can stay safe, including online. Pupils report that bullying sometimes happens, particularly in the playground or on the field, but they say that teachers deal with it well. Leaders’ records confirm that all incidents are followed up and resolved.
• Adults challenge any derogatory or spiteful language. Leaders keep careful records which show that such incidents are rare.
• Older pupils have the opportunity to take on leadership responsibilities, for example as play leaders or assembly monitors. They enjoy these roles and carry them out diligently.
• Pupils have the opportunity to learn about other faiths and religions in their religious education lessons. Leaders and teachers regularly reinforce the six Christian values that lie at the heart of the school’s mission.
• Teachers and other adults are committed to the welfare of the pupils in their care. For example, the adults who serve the pupils at lunchtime talk to them with genuine warmth and concern for their well-being.

Behaviour

• The behaviour of pupils is inadequate.
• Leaders have not done enough since the previous inspection to secure consistently good behaviour. Fixed-term exclusions have been well above national averages for the last two years. Disadvantaged pupils and those who have special educational needs and/or disabilities are far more likely to be excluded than other pupils.
• A significant minority of pupils, mostly boys, disrupt others’ learning and are over-boisterous in open areas and in the playground. However, in lessons, especially those which engage their interest, most pupils behave well and show respect for their teachers and for each other.
• On her arrival, the new headteacher quickly put in place new arrangements for the management of pupils’ behaviour that are well understood by staff and pupils. Rates of exclusion remained high during the autumn term of 2016, though have recently showed signs of slowing down. This suggests that the new strategy is beginning to bear fruit.
• Rates of absence from school have been much too high for the last two years and since September 2016. Too many pupils simply do not attend regularly enough, and so they do not make sufficient progress in their learning. The proportion of pupils who are persistently absent also remains high, particularly for disadvantaged pupils and those who have special educational needs and/or disabilities.

Outcomes for pupils Inadequate

• By the time they leave the school, pupils’ achievement is well below that of their peers nationally. Published outcomes for 2015 show that pupils’ progress at the end of key stage 2 was well below the national average in reading and mathematics and below average for writing. Provisional outcomes for 2016 show that pupils’ progress was well below the national average in reading, writing and mathematics.
• In 2016, disadvantaged pupils and those who have special educational needs and/or disabilities made progress well below that of all pupils nationally.
• The school did not meet the government’s floor standards in 2015, and provisional results for 2016 show that no pupils in the school achieved national expectations in reading, writing and mathematics. In both 2015 and 2016, the attainment of disadvantaged pupils was well below that of all pupils nationally.
• At key stage 1, pupils’ attainment in mathematics was in line with the national average, including for disadvantaged pupils. However, attainment in reading and writing was below average, including for disadvantaged pupils.
• In phonics, the proportion of pupils reaching the expected standard rose sharply between 2015 and 2016, but this figure remains well below the national average. Pupils currently in the school are making stronger progress in phonics when they are taught by qualified teachers.
• Pupils currently in the school are not making rapid enough progress across most year groups and subjects. Pupils are making the fastest gains in their learning in key stage 1. However, rates of progress since September suggest that pupils in both key stage 1 and key stage 2 will not achieve in line with national expectations by the end of the year.
• Pupil premium funding is not used to good effect. Disadvantaged pupils are making similarly slow progress to that of their peers, which is insufficient to enable them to catch up.
• Pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities are making particularly poor progress and the difference between their progress and that of all other pupils is widening.
• The most able pupils in the school do not reach their potential because the work they are asked to do is not stretching enough. Because of this, the most able pupils do not have the opportunity to deepen their understanding or demonstrate high-level skills.
• Pupils take pride in their work, which is usually well presented. However, the progress seen in their books is highly variable. In English, too many pupils struggle with the technical aspects of writing, in particular sentence punctuation and spelling. In mathematics, pupils do not have enough opportunities to use mathematical reasoning.
• Leaders have rightly recognised that poor levels of literacy are holding back pupils in the school. As a result, there have been efforts this year to encourage a love of reading by introducing a daily reading challenge. Older pupils in particular have responded enthusiastically to this initiative. One Year 5 pupil told inspectors, ‘Reading is awesome!’ In general, pupils read with understanding, but with varying degrees of fluency. Pupils are not always able to use their phonics knowledge to help them read unfamiliar words.

Early years provision Requires improvement

• The recently appointed leader for the early years has an accurate view of the strengths and weaknesses in the Nursery and Reception classes. She has developed a clear action plan for further development of the provision. She is vigilant in relation to all safeguarding matters and takes her responsibilities for keeping children safe seriously, as do all staff who work in the setting.
• In 2015, the proportion of children achieving a good level of development was above the national average, though this figure fell to below the national average in 2016. The early years leader has conducted a thorough review of the most recent outcomes. She has adjusted the curriculum in the light of this review to address areas of weakness identified, in particular boys’ reading and writing. Consequently, the revised curriculum has a strong focus on literacy and storytelling.
• The early years leader has also established effective systems for checking the progress children make. She has taken particular care to ensure that assessments on entry to the Nursery, between the Nursery and Reception classes and prior to joining Year 1 are accurate.
• Teaching in Reception is stronger than in the Nursery class. In Reception, children have a range of exciting activities to choose from and adults support them well. Children are motivated to learn through activities that are well matched to their needs and that enable them to practise their early mathematics and reading skills.
• In Nursery, children arrive with skills and abilities, particularly in communication and language, well below those typical for their age. Staff in the Nursery attend well to children’s social and emotional needs and have created a nurturing environment for them. Staff take the opportunity to reinforce early learning skills while children are engaged in activities such as eating their snacks. However, by the time children reach the Reception class, their skills are still below those typical for their age.
• Children’s progress in their reading, writing and mathematics skills requires improvement overall. While the curriculum in Reception is well planned, this is not so evident in Nursery. Therefore, children make less rapid progress in Nursery than they do in Reception.
• Disadvantaged children and the most able children make strong progress, particularly in Reception. This is because leaders and teachers ensure that activities match these children’s abilities and interests. However, children who have special educational needs and/or disabilities do not make the progress they should because the teaching is not well enough adapted to their needs. Boys continue to make less progress than girls.
• Children say they feel safe in the early years foundation stage and know who to talk to if they have a problem. They feel well looked after by their teachers and the other adults who work with them. They particularly enjoy the forest school.
• The early years teachers have established good links with parents, who express satisfaction with the provision for their children.
• The classrooms, particularly in Reception, are bright and nurturing places to be. The early years leader is aware that the quality of provision in the outside areas is not yet of the same standard.

School details

Unique reference number Local authority Inspection number 125185 Surrey 10024714 This inspection was carried out under section 8 of the Education Act 2005. The inspection was also deemed a section 5 inspection under the same Act. Type of school Primary School category Age range of pupils Gender of pupils Voluntary aided 3 to 11 Mixed Number of pupils on the school roll 152 Appropriate authority Interim executive board Chair Headteacher Telephone number Website Email address Yvonne McLeod Miriam Morris 01483 422924 www.greenoakschool.org.uk head@green-oak.surrey.sch.uk Date of previous inspection 14–15 June 2012

Information about this school

• The school does not meet requirements on the publication of information about pupil premium and the primary sport and PE premium on its website.
• Green Oak Primary School and Nursery is a voluntary aided Church of England school within the Diocese of Guildford.
• It is smaller than the average primary school.
• The proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals is much higher than that found nationally.
• The proportion of pupils from minority ethnic groups is below the national average, as is the proportion of pupils whose first language is not English.
• The proportion of pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities is about one third higher than the national average.
• An associate headteacher provides additional leadership capacity, while local authority funded consultants meet regularly with subject leaders for English and mathematics to support them in their work. The local authority also funds a school improvement and inclusion partner who provides support and challenge to the headteacher, as well as a senior consultant who carries out half-termly reviews of progress. The headteacher of a local teaching school provides coaching for teachers.
• The school runs a breakfast club.
• The school did not meet the government’s floor standards, which set the minimum standards for attainment and progress in 2016.

Information about this inspection

• Inspectors observed learning in every class. Around half of the visits to lessons were carried out jointly with senior leaders.
• Meetings were held with senior and middle leaders and with other staff.
• The lead inspector met with members of the interim executive board, two representatives from the local authority and a representative from the Anglican Diocese of Guildford.
• Interviews were held with groups of pupils in early years, key stage 1 and key stage 2.
• A wide range of documentation was reviewed, including the school’s self-evaluation report, the single central register, the school’s website and published performance information.
• Inspectors considered 27 responses to the online Parent View questionnaire. These included 16 written responses. The lead inspector also spoke to parents informally at the school gate.
• Survey responses from 24 pupils and 19 members of staff were considered.

Inspection team

Gary Holden, lead inspector Lynn Martin James Munt

Her Majesty’s Inspector Ofsted Inspector Ofsted Inspector