Harewood College Ofsted Report

Full report

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

What does the school need to do to improve further?

• Improve the effectiveness of leadership and management, including governance, by ensuring that:
  • the trust board and governors hold leaders more stringently to account for outcomes and standards in the school
  • safeguarding concerns are urgently addressed so that pupils feel safe around the school site
  • leaders check the impact of their actions precisely so that actions taken secure more rapid improvements
  • all staff have suitably high expectations of pupils’ conduct and their progress
  • governors fully evaluate the impact that additional funding is having on improving the outcomes and personal development of disadvantaged pupils and those pupils who need to catch up.
• Improve the quality of teaching, learning and assessment by:
  • making sure that teaching staff and adults who support pupils in lessons have the subject knowledge and behaviour management skills they need
  • using effective assessment to plan work that matches the learning needs of all pupils, particularly disadvantaged pupils and the most able
  • identifying pupils’ knowledge and understanding accurately so that gaps in learning are eradicated
  • ensuring that pupils have a clear understanding of how they can improve their work and do so
  • insisting on high expectations of what pupils can achieve.
• Improve pupils’ personal development, behaviour and welfare by:
  • reducing the number of incidents of poor behaviour and the number of pupils who are excluded from school
  • improving the attendance of pupils and reducing the proportion who are persistently absent, particularly disadvantaged pupils and pupils with SEND
  • further developing support for pupils who find behaviour expectations difficult to manage so that they form consistently positive relationships
  • insisting that pupils apply their best effort in their learning and take greater pride in the quality of work they produce. An external review of governance should be undertaken in order to assess how this aspect of leadership and management may be improved. An external review of the school’s use of the pupil premium funding should be undertaken in order to assess how this aspect of leadership and management may be improved.

Inspection judgements

Effectiveness of leadership and management Inadequate

• Trust directors and governors have not been successful in halting the decline in standards over the last three years. There have been three headteachers since the previous inspection in 2015. The trust has, now, deployed the deputy chief executive officer to this post from September 2018. These changes in leadership over recent years, and the continuing instability in staffing, have undoubtedly contributed to the drop in standards. Nonetheless, leaders and governors have had an overgenerous view of the quality of education that the school provides. The lack of robust challenge to reverse the fall in academic outcomes has meant that pupils have not been served well as endemic weaknesses have continued.
• Until recently, leaders have been too slow to bring about the necessary improvements. They have had an optimistic view of pupils’ progress, which is widely out of line with pupils’ final outcomes. Current leaders have a better understanding of the progress pupils are making and moderate the accuracy of assessments with partner schools. There is a more realistic overview of pupils’ progress now. The regular ‘Sparkle’ meetings mean that leaders can establish academic and pastoral priorities more astutely. However, this is newly established and current pupils continue to underachieve.
• Leaders’ plans to improve the work of the school, while detailed, lack clear success criteria, suitable timescales and sharp evaluation of the impact of actions. Therefore, governors are not able to gauge whether leaders remain on track to achieve improvement priorities and whether actions are having the required impact. This has contributed to the decline in standards.
• Leaders have not improved the quality of teaching to an acceptable standard. Leaders appointed in the summer of 2018 have increased capacity. These leaders are developing the teaching strategies and have established more regular monitoring of practice to identify staff’s training needs. However, there is much work to do to ensure that teachers have the necessary skills and have established the right learning climate to implement these approaches successfully.
• Leaders have not ensured that teachers use assessment well enough to improve pupils’ learning. Although there is a clearly defined assessment policy and more recent challenge and support, teachers do not apply these expectations consistently to improve the quality of pupils’ learning.
• Subject leadership has been weak in the past. Newly appointed middle leaders understand the importance of establishing a strategic approach to their areas of responsibility. They acknowledge the scale of the task ahead and recognise that there is a greater clarity in systems and structures. However, the continuing instability in staffing means that they do not have the capacity within their teams to drive forward improvements as quickly as they need. This is particularly the case in science, where staff turnover has been highly detrimental to pupils’ learning.
• Pastoral leaders have been appointed to newly created roles from September 2018. This follows a period of considerable staffing turbulence. These leaders are working hard to establish their roles. The unchecked legacy of poor behaviour and attendance means that they are largely reactive to situations as they arise, rather than developing robust systems to promote better behaviour and attendance.
• The progress that pupils make in key stage 3 does not prepare them sufficiently for GCSE study. Leaders have a clear rationale for the curriculum and are committed to pupils taking a broad range of subjects, including those that contribute to the English Baccalaureate. The entry rate for this suite of subjects has been consistently higher than the national rate for the last three years. However, the quality of teaching means that pupils do not achieve well in this range of subjects by the end of Year 11.
• Leaders have not used additional funding effectively to ensure that disadvantaged pupils make the progress that they should. The impact of actions is not analysed precisely to determine which actions are working and which are not. Therefore, disadvantaged pupils continue to underperform significantly, which has been the case for the last three years.
• Leaders have determined that the development of literacy and numeracy is a priority. There are plans in place but the actions outlined are too generic and the application of strategies too inconsistent to maximise the improvements anticipated.
• The special educational needs coordinator (SENCo) has begun to put in place effective plans for pupils who need additional support. These actions are beginning to show that pupils with SEND have suitable resources available to them and their progress is improving. However, these improvements are limited by weak teaching when pupils return to their regular classes. Teachers do not build sufficiently on the additional support that is in place.
• Pupils who speak English as an additional language develop their skills well in the world languages centre. This supports them to successfully study a wide range of subjects as part of their curriculum.
• The current principal and leadership team are highly committed to the school and to improving links with the community. They recognise the scale of the work that needs to be done urgently and understand that some parents and carers have lost confidence in the school. Their approach is beginning to galvanise staff, who have noticed a palpable and positive change in leaders’ approach. However, these changes have not been made soon enough and have not led to sustained improvements.
• Pupils appreciate the activities and trips organised to widen their experiences. They say that there are a wide range of activities suited to developing their sporting, drama and artistic talent. Many pupils compete at a high level, particularly in activities such as rowing. The library at lunchtime is a bustle of activity, with pupils reading or engaged in chess and card games. These social areas are a positive reflection of the values that the school genuinely seeks to promote.
• The good-quality careers guidance, information and advice support pupils to make informed choices for their future. However, as pupils do not make the progress that they should by the end of Year 11, their options are limited. Many pupils are therefore not well prepared for the next stages of their education or training.
• As a result of this inspection, it is advised that the school should not seek to employ newly qualified teachers.

Governance of the school

• The trust’s strategies have not been effective in supporting the necessary improvement at the school. While leaders have established structures and coherent approaches, alongside externally commissioned reviews, these actions have not been effective in tackling the school’s weaknesses. Crucially, the evaluation of actions taken by leaders has not been incisive or rigorous enough to overcome the school’s deficiencies.
• Governors are loyal and dedicated to the school but do not have a realistic picture of the quality of education it provides. Their visits to the school are not closely aligned to the improvement planning priorities. Governors have underestimated the extent to which improvement is needed. Their ability to establish the quality of what they oversee is not refined enough. This leads to a lack of stringent challenge from governors.
• When school leaders have raised concerns about issues such as attendance, behaviour and progress, trust leaders and governors have not responded quickly enough. The same issues reoccur in governors’ minutes. There is no convincing evidence that there has been an urgency to ensure that actions bring about rapid and sustained improvements.
• Governors have completed the necessary training and understand their statutory responsibilities. However, they have not been meticulous in ensuring that important aspects of the school’s work are securely in place, such as the single central record. Plans are now in place to do this but this is not an established routine.

Safeguarding

• The arrangements for safeguarding are not effective.
• Many pupils do not feel safe around the school site. Pupils and parents express concerns that poor behaviour often goes unchallenged. Pupils say that they are not confident in staff’s ability to deal effectively with incidents of bullying, discriminatory language or boisterous behaviour. They say that they have got used to this and often do not report it because it happens so often. During the inspection, inspectors saw this type of behaviour, as well as some pupils’ complete disregard of staff’s instructions. Rates of internal truancy are too high, which means that staff cannot always be assured of pupils’ safety.
• The new safeguarding leader, appointed in September 2018, has quickly established more structured processes for staff to record concerns. Relevant training is up to date and this includes protecting pupils from radicalisation and extremism. Staff are now better trained and informed of how to report concerns when these arise. However, a small number of support staff have yet to receive their annual training update.
• Leaders make the statutory checks and follow government guidelines to ensure that staff are safe to work with children. The changes made to the single central register ensure that this records all the necessary information.
• Leaders seek advice and work with external agencies to support pupils who are at risk. There are examples of very effective work, where pupils’ well-being has been protected successfully. However, when referrals are made, some of this information lacks detail and can be ambiguous. Leaders are not always persistent enough in following up concerns if they are not satisfied with the speed of response.

Quality of teaching, learning and assessment Inadequate

• Too much teaching is weak. Teachers do not plan activities which are carefully matched to pupils’ needs. Partly, this is due to teachers managing behaviour rather than being able to focus on learning. In addition, teachers lack a secure understanding of how to use the recently introduced strategies to support pupils to develop their knowledge and skills at the appropriate level.
• Too often, learning is disrupted and the atmosphere in classes can be chaotic. Where this is not evident, pupils can be either uninterested or sit back and allow others to provide them with the answers. In either case, pupils do not display the avid learning behaviours and thirst for knowledge that will support them to deepen their understanding and extend their thinking.
• Expectations of pupils are too low. Teachers do not build effectively on what pupils have done before and too often accept work that clearly is not the pupils’ best. Pupils’ work is, therefore, characterised by poor presentation, graffitied books or unfinished tasks, all of which leads to pupils’ learning becoming fragmented.
• Where pupils have lost their books, which is often the case, they are nonchalant about this and do not recognise the implications of lost work. Teachers provide new books for pupils but there is not an established expectation that pupils catch up with the work they have missed. Therefore, the sequence of pupils’ learning is not clear or coherent.
• Poor literacy skills have been identified by leaders as a significant barrier for many pupils. Therefore, leaders are developing a whole-school approach to improving these skills across the curriculum. Where this is applied, teachers highlight errors and pupils rectify misconceptions. However, this practice is sporadic and errors in spelling, punctuation and grammar continue. This limits pupils’ ability to express their ideas fluently and convincingly.
• Leaders have devised a new marking and feedback policy. However, there are wide disparities in how well this policy is implemented. Variations are evident within the same class and in the same subject, as well as across the school. Many pupils have a significant gap to close between their potential and their current attainment. It is not clear how teachers will support pupils to rapidly close these deficits.
• The evaluation of the impact of strategies to support disadvantaged pupils is too generic. Teachers’ planning does not pinpoint the specific barriers to pupils’ learning, highlight what they need to do to improve or identify the skills pertinent to different disciplines to focus on. This means that the most able pupils do not consider more complex content or develop the skills they need to reach the highest standards.
• There are pockets where teaching is stronger. Approaches in some history, geography, mathematics and English teaching show that teachers use assessment well and question pupils effectively. Where this is the case, teachers’ questioning carefully elicits pupils’ understanding and probes their thinking. In these examples, pupils work together productively to bring together important information and communicate their answers eloquently. Leaders are providing opportunities for staff to share this effective practice and this is welcomed by teachers.

Personal development, behaviour and welfare Inadequate

Personal development and welfare

• The school’s work to promote pupils’ personal development and welfare is inadequate.
• Leaders have not created a positive learning climate. Too many pupils display negative attitudes, and this has a significant impact on those pupils who genuinely want to learn. Pupils’ ability to engage in lessons is reliant on whether teachers insist on high expectations or implement effective behaviour management strategies. Pupils can behave well but often choose not to. Where pupils do not have their regular teacher, pupils’ conduct is noticeably poorer.
• Leaders deal with cases of pupils using racist and derogatory language when they are reported. They seek to use restorative approaches, providing support for the victim and perpetrator. However, the number of these occurrences is too high.
• Leaders’ recent planning of the personal development programme is well thought through and extensive. Pupils consider important topics related to their well-being and how to recognise and manage risk, including when online. The use of the time allocated to discuss these issues, however, does vary considerably. Where teachers use this time effectively, pupils can debate sensitive moral issues and consider concepts such as democracy. Where this is not properly managed, pupils are uninterested, dismissive and disrespectful.
• Pupils value the leadership opportunities that the school provides. Where pupils take on these responsibilities, they demonstrate the positive qualities outlined in the school’s ‘Olympic’ values. They readily take on charity events such as challenges to ‘climb Mount Everest’ and ‘row the Channel’. Many pupils are welcoming, opening doors for visitors, and want to initiate meaningful conversation.
• Pupils in every year group value the careers information, advice and guidance they receive. Pupils say that the transition arrangements from primary school into Year 7 were effective. Year 9 pupils say they receive good advice about their GCSE options. Year 11 pupils say that events such as the annual careers fair and work experience have signposted the possibilities available to them for further study or employment.
• The small number of pupils who attend alternative provision benefit from a curriculum tailored to their interests. However, leaders do not check carefully enough whether pupils are making strong progress on the courses they study.

Behaviour

• The behaviour of pupils is inadequate.
• Pupils say that bullying and intimidating behaviour are prevalent. They dislike being shoved in the corridors and some pupils say that they do not like moving around the school site on their own. Pupils say that some pupils do not respect the school environment. Most parents who responded to Parent View rightly highlighted concerns about bullying and behaviour. A significant minority of staff say that behaviour is not dealt with effectively.
• In 2017/18, too many days were lost to fixed-term exclusions. While the number of fixed-term exclusions for this academic year is reducing due to the work of the new pastoral team, wilful refusal or silent indifference still occur too regularly. The rate of permanent exclusions is much higher than the national average.
• The number of pupils recorded as internally truanting or being late to lessons has risen compared to figures presented by leaders from the last academic year. This reflects better tracking by pastoral leaders but is also a reflection that pupils do not value their education or respond to basic expectations.
• Pupils’ attendance continues to be a significant issue and has been lower than the national average for the last three years. In the last academic year, almost a third of pupils were persistently absent, with over 40% of disadvantaged pupils and pupils with SEND not attending school regularly. These rates have had an impact on learning but they also have the potential to put pupils at risk.
• Leaders have improved attendance monitoring procedures recently. Pastoral leaders are working hard to try to engage and challenge parents. For example, over 100 home visits were made in the autumn term to reinforce the expectation that pupils attend school regularly. However, actions to tackle poor attendance are not well established and there is a significant amount of work to do to reverse these patterns.

Outcomes for pupils Inadequate

• Outcomes are inadequate and have been over the last three years. Leaders’ actions to improve this situation have been unsuccessful. A large proportion of pupils underachieve across all areas of the curriculum. This is most pronounced for disadvantaged pupils and the most able pupils. As weaknesses in teaching and behaviour have persisted over time, pupils’ understanding is not consolidated and, therefore, current pupils continue to underachieve. Leaders have devised strategies to overcome a legacy of weaker teaching but are yet to improve the progress that pupils make.
• Pupils arrive at the school with prior attainment below that which is typical nationally. However, from these starting points, pupils do not catch up quickly enough. By the time they leave the school, pupils make significantly weak progress. Leaders are developing strategies to support the development of literacy and numeracy. Additional interventions are beginning to close the gaps that exist but these improvements are not built upon routinely when pupils are in their regular lessons. In books, there are too many repeated errors in spelling and punctuation.
• The most able pupils do not make the progress of which they are capable. Across a range of subjects, there is an absence of work which is sufficiently challenging. This has been the case over the last three years. In 2018, pupils achieved, on average, over a grade lower than their peers nationally by the time they left the school.
• Pupils with SEND do not make the progress that they should. The newly appointed SENCo has a clear idea of how to support pupils and these strategies are shared with classroom teachers. Current pupils are benefiting from improved support and this is having a positive effect on the progress pupils are making.
• The progress that pupils make in mathematics is better than in other areas of the curriculum, including the other core subjects of English and science. The progress made by lower prior-attaining pupils and the most able pupils in mathematics is now in line with national averages.

School details

Unique reference number Local authority Inspection number 138171 Bournemouth 10047865 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 Number of pupils on the school roll Academy converter 11 to 16 Boys 527 Appropriate authority Board of trustees Chair Headteacher Telephone number Website Email address Bernadette Bowler Adam Coshan 01202 309 841 www.avonbournetrust.org/ officemail.harewood@avonbournetrust.org Date of previous inspection February 2015

Information about this school

• Harewood College joined the Avonbourne International Business and Enterprise Trust (AIBET) in June 2012. The trust consists of another secondary school, a primary school and sixth-form provision. Under the scheme of delegation, the trust is responsible for the standards that pupils reach at the school. The board of directors delegates some functions to the local governing body, which is shared with Avonbourne College, which is situated adjacent to the school. Trust officers provide support for the school.
• The school is currently overseen by the deputy chief executive of the AIBET multi-academy trust. He was appointed in September 2018. A new leadership team and pastoral team were appointed from September 2018 and most middle leaders are new to post.
• The school is smaller than the average-sized secondary school. There was a large decrease in the number of pupils between 2017 and 2018.
• The proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals is higher than the national average.
• Most pupils are White British, although the proportion of pupils who speak English as an additional language is higher than the national average.
• The proportion of pupils with SEND is above the national average.
• A small number of pupils use provision at Paragonskills, an apprenticeship training provider.

Information about this inspection

• Inspectors observed learning across a range of subjects and age groups and scrutinised pupils’ written work. Observations were conducted jointly with members of the leadership team.
• Meetings were held with members of the leadership team and representatives from the governing body. In addition, inspectors met with curriculum and pastoral leaders. The lead inspector met with the chair of the board of directors, the chief executive of the multi-academy trust and the school improvement adviser.
• Inspectors met with pupils, including disadvantaged pupils and those with SEND, both formally and informally, to discuss their views about their experience of school.
• Inspectors looked at the school’s documentation, including the evaluation of the school’s effectiveness and priorities for future improvement. Inspectors reviewed progress, behaviour and attendance information relating to current pupils, and governors’ records.
• School policies relating to safeguarding, pupils’ behaviour, the use of additional funding, including the pupil premium, and the curriculum were scrutinised.
• Inspectors considered the 52 responses to Ofsted’s online survey, Parent View, including 40 free-text responses, as well as 53 responses to the staff questionnaire.

Inspection team

Sarah McGinnis, lead inspector Paul Nicholson Gill Hickling Her Majesty’s Inspector Ofsted Inspector Ofsted Inspector