Kings College Guildford 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 self-evaluation so that it focuses rigorously on the impact of the school’s work on pupils’ progress in all year groups
  • ensuring that improvement plans have clear targets and success criteria that can be measured at certain points in the year so that governors and leaders can monitor progress more accurately
  • holding teachers to account for pupils’ achievement in all key stages
  • ensuring that governors use a wider range of information on which to challenge leaders on outcomes for pupils in all year groups
  • ensuring that oversight provided by the sponsoring trust is sharply focused on outcomes, in particular in English and science and for disadvantaged pupils, those who have special educational needs and/or disabilities and boys.
• Urgently improve outcomes for disadvantaged pupils, those who have special educational needs and/or disabilities and boys by:
  • ensuring that work in lessons is appropriately challenging for them
  • making regular and accurate checks on how well they are doing
  • monitoring the impact of the pupil premium grant on disadvantaged pupils’ progress and attainment regularly, rigorously and against other pupils nationally
  • ensuring that their attendance rates at least match national averages for all pupils.
• Improve outcomes in English and science so that rates of achievement at least match national averages by ensuring that teaching:
  • creates a culture that actively promotes a love of reading
  • improves pupils’ progress in key stage 3, so that they are well prepared for their GCSE courses.
• Improve behaviour by:
  • eliminating low-level disruption in lessons
  • ensuring that pupils conduct themselves well in corridors and playgrounds, and that they do not use homophobic or derogatory language. 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. An external review of governance 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

• Leaders have not been successful in tackling serious and wide-ranging weaknesses at the school. They have an overly optimistic view of the impact their work has had over time. Therefore, leaders’ expectations about what pupils should achieve are too low and limit their chances of success.
• Leaders have not done enough to ensure that there is a calm and orderly environment in lessons and around the school. Too many pupils disrupt their own and others’ learning in lessons and behave poorly at break and lunchtimes.
• Leaders’ evaluations of the quality of teaching are inaccurate. They do not take enough account of how well pupils are doing over time when judging the quality of teaching, learning and assessment. For example, leaders judge teaching to be good overall, despite the fact that published and provisional outcomes for key stage 4 show attainment and progress to be below average for all pupils and well below average for disadvantaged pupils, particularly in English and science.
• Leaders do not hold teachers to account rigorously enough for the progress their pupils make, particularly in key stage 3. At the time of the inspection, close to the end of the autumn term, teachers had not yet agreed targets for the current year with their line managers.
• Leaders do not have a secure approach to assessing pupils’ progress between Years 7 and 10. Information provided to inspectors about pupils’ progress during key stage 3 contained errors, which undermined its reliability. Teachers and leaders therefore do not know precisely what pupils have achieved and what they need to do next. Teaching has not had the necessary impact on pupils’ progress over time.
• Leaders have recently introduced a new system for assessment, which shows promise. However, teachers and pupils do not yet fully understand it and there is evidence that the assessment of pupils’ current progress is overgenerous, particularly in science and across key stage 3. Assessment information is now collected each half term and subject leaders are required to analyse outcomes and write action plans. However, plans based on assessment of pupils’ progress in the first half term lack the necessary sharpness, and so do not provide a sound basis for improvement.
• While leaders have broadly chosen the right priorities for improvement, the targets they have set are too vague and the timescales are too generous. Crucially, the current plan does not include enough information to help governors identify the impact of actions taken.
• Leaders do not rigorously check the impact of additional funding provided by the government to accelerate the progress of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds and those pupils in Year 7 who need to catch up. For example, leaders had not checked the actual GCSE scores of a group of Year 11 pupils for whom individual tuition had been provided the previous year.
• Leaders have put in place opportunities to promote British values and pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development through personal, social and health education (PSHE) lessons, in assemblies and through the curriculum. For example, pupils in key stage 3 have recently been learning about democracy, and pupils across the school have taken part in a mock ‘Brexit’ referendum. Pupils value the weekly enrichment lessons which provide access to a variety of extra-curricular activities within the school day. However, leaders have not done enough to ensure that the curriculum meets the requirements of The Equality Act 2010, in particular the needs of those who have protected characteristics.

Governance of the school

• Governors do not have a clear enough picture of standards and progress in the school and have accepted the information provided by leaders too readily. Governors acknowledge that to date their focus has been on key stage 4 and that they have not asked leaders to provide information about pupils’ progress in key stage 3. Their assessment of how well pupils are doing and of the quality of teaching is inaccurate because previously they have not challenged leaders on the impact of teaching on pupils’ outcomes rigorously enough.
• Governors have recently begun to challenge leaders more robustly. They were disappointed in both 2015 and 2016 that GCSE outcomes did not match leaders’ predictions. As a result, this year they have challenged leaders to bring in more stringent mock examinations, improve assessment and develop a whole-school approach to writing. These initiatives are now in place, but it is too early to judge their impact.
• Challenge from the trust is ineffective. Monitoring visits have not been incisive enough, and so have provided a weak basis on which to hold leaders to account. As a result, pupils have continued to achieve below national expectations and their behaviour remains poor. The trust is able to provide a range of support, including in staffing and in professional development for teachers. There are signs that some of this support shows promise, but to date it has not had sufficient impact on pupils’ outcomes. Governors and trustees have a strong vision for the place of the school in its local community and they have made efforts to talk to parents and others in the community about their aspirations for the school. However, their work overall has not yet had the necessary impact on outcomes for the pupils they serve.

Safeguarding

• The arrangements for safeguarding are effective. The vice principal is the designated safeguarding lead (DSL). Appointed in 2015, she has tackled previous weaknesses in provision with energy. She is well supported by a team of seven senior and middle leaders who have all completed relevant safeguarding training.
• The DSL has quickly put in place robust systems and procedures for ensuring that pupils are safe in school. Prompt action is taken to follow up child protection concerns, and records are kept systematically.
• Arrangements for the appointment of staff are compliant with requirements. Rigorous checks are made on the suitability of all who work or volunteer in the school. Three leaders and one member of the governing body have completed safer recruitment training.
• Staff receive regular training and updates on safeguarding.
• A nominated governor has oversight of safeguarding and meets regularly with the DSL and carries out checks on the single central register.
• Governors review the safeguarding policy annually and ensure that it is compliant with any new regulations or guidance.

Quality of teaching, learning and assessment Inadequate

• Not enough teaching ensures that pupils make the necessary progress in their learning. Expectations are too low. There is too much emphasis on pupils acquiring adequate grades in their GCSE examinations, rather than reaching the best standard they can throughout the school.
• Pupils are not required to work hard enough in lessons. As a result, their work often lacks depth and so they do not make enough progress over time. Tasks set are often undemanding and do not stretch the most able, or help those who need to catch up, to develop the skills they need.
• Pupils, particularly boys, do not take enough pride in their work. Handwriting and presentation are often poor and there are many examples of unfinished work in pupils’ books.
• Pupils are often unclear about their targets or about what they need to do to improve. They do not understand the new assessment system.
• Teaching does not have sufficient impact on the achievement of disadvantaged pupils. Although leaders have prioritised the progress of this group of pupils, teachers report that they have not had specific training on meeting their needs. Questioning often focuses on recall of facts rather than on the development of conceptual skills.
• The impact of teaching assistants on pupils’ progress is variable. In some lessons visited, they provided high-quality support to pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities. In others, however, teaching assistants did not provide pupils with enough support and so pupils did not receive the help they needed.
• Teaching in English over time has been ineffective in enabling pupils to make secure progress. The recently appointed subject leader for English is acting with energy to raise standards. For example, he has rightly led a review of literacy in the department and across the school, and brought forward plans for a whole-school approach to writing. However, there is not yet enough evidence that the underachievement of previous years has been reversed. Pupils’ progress in English lessons and over time is still variable.
• While standards have risen in mathematics recently, pupils do not have enough opportunities to use and develop their knowledge and understanding. Pupils’ work shows that their skills of mathematical reasoning are underdeveloped. However, there was some evidence of pupils, including those who speak English as an additional language, making strong progress in mathematics.
• There are early signs that effective teaching is leading to more rapid progress in other subjects. In history, for example, pupils, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds, are given challenging work to do and so achieve well. In English, inspectors saw that some pupils approached their work with genuine scholarship, while in art pupils were thoroughly engrossed in their work.
• In science, however, pupils do not make enough progress because teaching over time has not secured their understanding of scientific concepts, and so standards remain low.
• Several pupils said that many of their lessons are marred by poor behaviour, and inspectors saw evidence of low-level disruption in some lessons.

Personal development, behaviour and welfare Inadequate

Personal development and welfare

• The school’s work to promote pupils’ personal development and welfare is inadequate.
• Pupils are taught how to keep themselves safe, including online and from radicalisation, through a planned PSHE programme. However, the impact of this programme is undermined by poor behaviour, including some low-level disruption in lessons and over-boisterous conduct in corridors and outside areas.
• Too many pupils lack respect for those who are different from themselves, and teachers have not successfully tackled pupils’ use of homophobic and derogatory language.
• The provision and care for pupils who have physical disabilities is a strength of the school. Because of the care and attention they receive from dedicated staff, they make progress in their learning.
• Pupils report that they feel safe in school and that they know who they can talk to if they have a problem.
• Pupils in Year 11 appreciate the extra revision sessions that teachers put on for them at the end of each day. They say that this has given them more confidence as they approach their GCSE examinations.
• Pupils in all year groups benefit from and enjoy the weekly enrichment lessons that allow them to ‘try something new’.
• Pupils receive effective careers advice and guidance. The new careers leader has implemented one-to-one interviews for all pupils in key stage 4 to help them plan their next steps. Work with younger pupils focuses on raising their aspirations. For example, Year 9 pupils who recently took part in a four-day visit to the University of Surrey valued the opportunity to consider their future options.

Behaviour

• The behaviour of pupils is inadequate.
• Around the school, between lessons, at break and at lunchtime, behaviour is poor. Too many pupils engage in pushing and shoving and use bad language, including language of a homophobic nature, which is not always challenged by staff. As a result, leaders are not doing enough to secure the rights of people who have protected characteristics under The Equality Act 2010. Inspectors also found evidence that pupils were smoking in toilets and in parts of the playground. Pupils confirmed that this happens regularly.
• Attendance is close to the national average overall but remains stubbornly low for pupils in receipt of free school meals and those who have special educational needs and/or disabilities. While leaders have introduced new approaches to tracking attendance, as yet there is little sign of improvement in the attendance of these pupils.
• In lessons, pupils are engaged in their work and behave well when the learning meets their needs and is challenging. However, when they are given work that is too easy or that fails to capture their interest, pupils resort to low-level disruption and off-task behaviour, including calling out. In addition, inspectors found evidence of pupils truanting from lessons during the day.
• Pupils report that behaviour in lessons is highly variable and that ‘it depends which teachers you get’.
• Pupils, particularly in Years 10 and 11, report that bullying is frequent and teachers do not deal with it effectively. One pupil said, ‘It takes teachers too long to sort it out.’
• Leaders have identified the improvement of behaviour as a priority. They have put in place new systems to track behaviour and to ensure more consistent use of rewards and sanctions. Pupils confirm that they like and understand the new rewards system. As a result, the number of behaviour incidents has fallen compared with previous years, but remains high. For example, in a recent three-day period, over 100 behaviour incidents were recorded.
• Fixed-term exclusions, while reducing over time, remain high, in particular for disadvantaged pupils and those who have special educational needs and/or disabilities. This means that they miss too many lessons and so fail to make the progress they need to.

Outcomes for pupils Inadequate

• Pupils do not achieve as well as they need to by the time they leave the school. Examination results have been poor and significantly weaker than is typical nationally. Too often, pupils have made poor progress from their starting points, particularly those who are disadvantaged or who have special educational needs and/or disabilities.
• The school did not meet the government’s floor standards in 2015. Provisional outcomes for 2016 suggest that the proportion of pupils achieving the new government benchmark was below the national average. While this represents a small improvement on the previous year, too many pupils who should have made strong progress from their starting points have not done so. Therefore, pupils have not been prepared well enough for the next stage of their education.
• Disadvantaged pupils did not make the progress they should have done or reach the standards expected in 2015. Only a very small proportion of disadvantaged pupils attained the government benchmark of five good GCSE passes including English and mathematics, and their progress was significantly below national expectations.
• Provisional results for 2016 suggest that outcomes for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds remain in the bottom ten per cent nationally, so the differences between the progress of these pupils and other pupils nationally are not diminishing quickly enough.
• Pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities do not achieve well enough over time. For example, in 2016, this group of pupils fell into the bottom ten per cent nationally in the new government benchmark for progress from starting points.
• Pupils performed better in mathematics in 2016 than they did in 2015 as a result of changes to leadership and staffing in the department. Overall progress in mathematics, therefore, was broadly average, including for pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities. However, for disadvantaged pupils, outcomes were below average in both 2015 and 2016.
• Pupils currently in the school are not making the accelerated progress they need to. This is particularly the case for disadvantaged pupils, boys and pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities. In many cases, their work is poorly presented and unfinished, and their responses in lessons lack depth and understanding. As a result, there is little sign that the differences in achievement between these pupils and other pupils nationally are diminishing quickly enough.
• Pupils are not given enough encouragement to read widely and often, and there is not a culture of reading in the school. For example, the library is closed to pupils at break and lunchtime. Leaders are beginning to address pupils’ low literacy levels through a whole-school approach to writing, but it is too early to assess the impact of this initiative.
• There are early signs that outcomes are improving in some subjects, including for disadvantaged pupils and those who have special educational needs and/or disabilities, for example in history and modern foreign languages.
• A small number of pupils attend alternative provision for part of the week. This includes Wey Valley College, a nearby pupil referral unit, where pupils receive specialist support for their attendance and behaviour.

16 to 19 study programmes

• The 16 to 19 study programmes are inadequate.

Inadequate

• Leaders have failed to secure a high-quality curriculum for the sixth form, and students have not achieved well. This is because teaching in the sixth form does not provide the challenge necessary for students to make strong progress. As a result, currently and over time, students are not achieving to the level they need to.
• In 2015, the school did not meet the 16 to 19 minimum requirements for academic qualifications. Progress overall and for girls at A level was well below average. For vocational qualifications, progress was broadly average for all pupils and met the 16 to 19 minimum requirements. The progress of a small number of disadvantaged students on both academic and vocational routes was broadly average.
• For the academic year 2015/16, the school ceased providing academic A levels, offering a one-year GCSE course as well as a small number of level 3 vocational programmes. Of the level 3 cohort, just under half met their target grade and nearly all entered further education, higher education or work. Retention rates, which had been historically low, also improved for this small group of students.
• Leaders have created a nurturing and supportive environment that caters well for the emotional development of a small cohort of students. For the current year, the school offers a one-year GCSE programme aimed at students who leaders believe are not yet ready for further education or work. Twelve students are following GCSE courses in English, mathematics, science or child development and the Certificate of Personal Effectiveness. In addition, they undertake work experience, carry out community work and act as mentors to younger pupils. However, this limited offer does not adequately meet the needs of these students and does not prepare them well enough for their next steps.
• Students say that they enjoy the subjects they are studying. Their attendance and behaviour are good and they receive well-planned and relevant careers advice. However, students indicated that their PSHE programme had not yet covered how to keep healthy or how to keep safe, including from radicalisation.

School details

Unique reference number Local authority Inspection number 141200 Surrey 10025984 This inspection of the school was carried out under section 5 of the Education Act 2005. Type of school Secondary School category Age range of pupils Gender of pupils Gender of pupils in 16 to 19 study programmes Number of pupils on the school roll Of which, number on roll in 16 to 19 study programmes Academy sponsor-led 11 to 18 Mixed Mixed 358 12 Appropriate authority The governing body Chair Principal Telephone number Website Email address Anna Wright Alastair McKenzie 01483 458956 www.kingscollegeguildford.com/ a.mckenzie@kingscollegeguildford.com Date of previous inspection Not previously inspected

Information about this school

• Kings College is a small, mixed secondary school. It became an academy in September 2014 and is sponsored by the Guildford Education Partnership.
• The proportion of pupils who are eligible for free school meals and who have special educational needs and/or disabilities is much higher than the national average.
• The school has a dedicated centre for a small number of pupils who have physical disabilities. Pupils in the centre are fully integrated into mainstream lessons.
• A very small number of pupils attend alternative provision with a range of local providers for part of the week, including Wey Valley College, where they receive specialist support.
• The school complies with Department for Education guidance on what academies should publish, though information about the pupil premium grant was out of date at the time of the inspection.
• The school meets requirements on the publication of specified information on its website.
• The school did not meet the government’s floor standards for what pupils are expected to achieve in 2015. At the time of the inspection, 2016 outcomes had not yet been validated.

Information about this inspection

• Inspectors visited 31 lessons to observe learning, talk to pupils and look at their work across all key stages. Nineteen of these visits were carried out jointly with school leaders.
• Inspectors also met with senior leaders, middle leaders and a range of other staff. They also spoke to pupils from key stage 3, key stage 4 and the sixth form.
• The lead inspector met with the chair and two other members of the governing body and with representatives of the Guildford Education Partnership. An inspector also spoke to a representative of Wey Valley College.
• Inspectors worked alongside two senior leaders to look at a sample of pupils’ work.
• Inspectors considered the views of parents by analysing 31 responses to Ofsted’s online questionnaire, Parent View, including 31 free text responses. Inspectors also took into account 23 responses to the staff survey.
• Inspectors reviewed a range of other documents, including leaders’ self-evaluation and improvement plan, the school’s website, the schools central record of recruitment checks, child protection records, leaders’ analyses of attendance and behaviour, minutes of the governing body and notes of external visits carried out by the trust and the local authority.
• Inspectors also reviewed safeguarding procedures at the school.
• Inspectors were made aware during this inspection of a criminal investigation concerning a former employee of the school that had resulted in a criminal conviction. While Ofsted does not have the power to investigate incidents of this kind, actions taken by the school in response to this incident were considered alongside the other evidence available at the time of the inspection to inform inspectors’ judgements.

Inspection team

Gary Holden, lead inspector Matthew Haynes Susan Derrick

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