Steiner Academy Bristol 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?

• Secure the safety and welfare of pupils across the school by ensuring that:
  • all staff receive support in effective behaviour management and clear guidance and training in the use of physical intervention
  • leaders set clear and suitable expectations for safeguarding that staff consistently follow
  • staff take timely and appropriate action when they have concerns about a child’s safety and welfare
  • staff take appropriate steps to minimise risk of harm to pupils, including ensuring that they are supervised effectively at all times.
• Improve leadership and management by ensuring that:
  • leaders and governors have an accurate understanding of the school’s effectiveness and use this to secure suitable improvements
  • governors hold senior leaders to account effectively
  • middle leaders demonstrate a positive impact on pupils’ progress and attainment
  • leaders at all levels tackle underperformance so that teaching is effective and pupils achieve well
  • leaders deploy the pupil premium funding effectively so that all disadvantaged pupils benefit from it and secure good outcomes
  • the curriculum enables pupils to achieve well across all subjects, learn how to keep safe and have a secure understanding of British values
  • effective provision is in place to support the learning needs of pupils with SEND
  • secondary pupils access high-quality, impartial careers guidance.
• Improve the quality of teaching and learning and pupils’ outcomes, including in the kindergarten, by ensuring that:
  • teachers make effective use of information about pupils’ learning to provide activities that support their different needs
  • teachers check pupils’ learning during lessons and thereby adjust their teaching so that pupils receive effective challenge and support
  • teaching is sufficiently challenging for all pupils
  • teachers significantly raise their expectations of pupils’ achievement, presentation and attitudes to learning
  • pupils use spelling, punctuation and grammar accurately in their writing
  • there are high-quality opportunities for pupils to develop their reasoning and problem-solving skills in mathematics.
• Improve pupils’ personal development, behaviour and welfare by:
  • eliminating low-level disruption
  • reducing bullying incidents so that they are rare. An external review of governance should be undertaken to assess how this aspect of leadership and governance may be improved.

Inspection judgements

Effectiveness of leadership and management Inadequate

• Over time, leaders and governors have failed to ensure that pupils receive an acceptable standard of education. While the principal, in post for one year, has brought about some necessary changes, the impact of this work is not evident. Leaders at all levels have an over-generous view of the school’s effectiveness and are not demonstrating the capacity to secure improvements.
• Safeguarding is not effective. There is no shared understanding of how to keep pupils safe. Staff are not following the school’s safeguarding policies and procedures. This places pupils at risk of harm.
• Leaders have not ensured that teaching is effective. They have not made sufficiently rigorous checks on the quality of teaching, learning and assessment. This means that some weaknesses in teaching have not been identified or addressed. As a result, pupils’ achievement is inadequate.
• Pupils with SEND do not achieve well. The recently appointed special educational needs coordinator (SENCo) has put in place systems to ensure that pupils with SEND receive appropriate pastoral support. However, there is insufficient provision in place to address these pupils’ learning needs. It is not clear what is expected of class teachers to enable pupils with SEND to take important next steps.
• Leaders’ use of the pupil premium is ineffective over time. Disadvantaged pupils in some year groups do not benefit from the pupil premium. As a result, disadvantaged pupils underachieve considerably.
• Leaders have not ensured that the school curriculum is taught well so that it builds pupils’ knowledge in sufficient depth over time. In some cases, pupils in younger classes undertake tasks that are more challenging than those set for older pupils. Consequently, pupils make inadequate progress across the range of subjects.
• Middle leaders are relatively new to post and cannot demonstrate their impact on improving pupils’ progress and attainment. They have, however, identified some relevant areas for improvement.
• Leaders have not ensured that secondary pupils receive effective careers guidance in a timely, impartial manner. While there are plans in place for pupils in class 10, this is far too late. Pupils are ill-equipped for the next stage of their education.
• Leaders are using Year 7 (class 6) catch-up funding to improve pupils’ attainment in mathematics. While the use of funding is precise, its impact heavily depends on the quality of teaching, learning and assessment being strong, which it is not. Therefore, the impact of this funding is reduced.
• Staff and parents are positive about the school. Since the previous inspection, parents have demonstrated a much more positive view of the school. Staff are overwhelmingly positive about the school and believe the school is improving under the principal’s guidance.
• Leaders’ use of the sports premium funding is effective in improving sporting participation and improving the quality of physical education for primary pupils.
• Inspectors recommend that the school should not seek to appoint newly qualified teachers.

Governance of the school

• The governing body has not overseen or checked the impact of leaders’ work well enough. Consequently, pupils do not receive a safe and effective education.
• Governors have an inaccurate understanding of the school’s effectiveness. They have not received detailed or accurate information about the school’s performance.
• Governors’ actions to ensure that some weaknesses in the school have been addressed have been too slow. For example, governors have only recently commissioned the review of the school’s use of the pupil premium that was recommended at the last inspection. As a result, these vulnerable pupils have continued to underachieve.

Safeguarding

• Leaders have not ensured that all staff have undertaken up-to-date training in the safe use of physical intervention techniques. As a result, there have been instances of staff making an inappropriate physical intervention with limited understanding of safe techniques or the possibility of injuring a child. These interventions are not always recorded. Records that do exist are of poor quality and do not capture the necessary details.
• Staff are not vigilant to potential risks to pupils. They do not always follow the school’s appropriate risk assessments and put effective safety measures in place. Consequently, pupils are at unnecessary risk of harm.
• Leaders do not routinely ensure that when concerns arise about a pupil’s welfare these are shared with external agencies. They do not share information quickly enough or include all important details. Leaders do not routinely follow up on concerns in a timely manner.
• The school’s recruitment procedures are sound. Leaders ensure that newly appointed staff have undertaken the necessary checks to ensure that they are suitable to work with children. Staff record this information on the school’s single central record and in individual staff files. Staff files are well organised and contain copies of all required documents.

Quality of teaching, learning and assessment Inadequate

• Teaching does not meet the various, wide-ranging needs of pupils. While teachers have access to detailed information about pupils’ prior knowledge and understanding, they do not use this information to promote pupils’ progress. Teachers expect all pupils to complete the same learning. As a result, work is poorly matched to pupils’ needs, and their progress is poor.
• Teachers do not pay close enough attention to how well pupils progress in their learning during lessons. While some pupils find the work too easy and complete it in a short time, others struggle without the teacher noticing or adjusting their teaching. This limits the progress that pupils make.
• Teachers have low expectations of all pupils and do not set them challenging work. Pupils commonly find the work too easy, swiftly complete the activities they are given and take little pride in their work. This stops pupils from reaching or exceeding the standards expected for their age.
• Teachers’ subject knowledge is too variable. Many do not provide an appropriate sequence of tasks to develop pupils’ knowledge and understanding. As a result, teaching over time is not building pupils’ learning effectively.
• Teachers are not meeting the needs of pupils with SEND. They have not considered how to help pupils take their next steps in learning and provide suitable activities.
• Teaching does not develop pupils’ writing effectively over time. Across the school, pupils’ work is peppered with errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Pupils of all ages are not meeting the standards expected for their age in writing.
• Teachers do not ensure that pupils have opportunities to develop their reasoning and problem-solving abilities in mathematics. Even though pupils practise their number understanding, this work is well below expectations for their age.
• The teaching of English across classes 6 to 10 (Years 7 to 11) is showing early signs of improvement. New staff understand the requirements for success in this subject. As a result, these pupils are starting to make better progress.

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 not safe.
• Pupils have a poor understanding of how to keep safe online. Pupils are unclear about what to do if they feel vulnerable when using the internet. They said that they would like help with this.
• Leaders have introduced a new system to ensure that incidents of bullying are identified and recorded more accurately. This has resulted in a rising number of bullying incidents being recorded since May 2018. Younger pupils raised some concerns with inspectors about bullying. They say that some other pupils sometimes call them names or tease them when they do not understand something.
• Pupils’ understanding of fundamental British values is underdeveloped. Despite British values forming part of the school curriculum, pupils are not clear about these values.
• Pupils are ill-equipped for life after school. Careers advice is limited to pupils in class 10 (Year 11), and the information they receive is not impartial.

Behaviour

• The behaviour of pupils requires improvement.
• Over time, pupils’ absence has decreased. Historically, pupils’ absence and persistent absence have been very high. However, leaders’ work to reduce them has resulted in rates of absence being closer to national averages. As a result, pupils attend school more regularly.
• In some classes, low-level disruption is common. Some pupils disengage from learning and disrupt others. This impacts on pupils’ learning.
• Pupils are positive about the school and say that they feel valued as individuals, particularly those pupils who are new to the school. Pupils say that they feel they belong at school, regardless of ethnic background or religious beliefs.

Outcomes for pupils Inadequate

• Pupils are underachieving considerably across the school. The principal acknowledges that most pupils are working below the expectations for their age. Pupils have significant gaps in their knowledge and understanding across the curriculum, which seriously hinders their progress.
• In 2018, published data at the end of key stage 2 (class 5) indicates that the proportions of pupils assessed as working at the expected standard for their age or at the higher standard are well below average. In addition, pupils’ progress across key stage 2 (classes 2 to 5) is insufficient. Pupils who were assessed at the end of key stage 1 made well-below-average progress from their starting points.
• The school assesses pupils against the Steiner curriculum in each year group. Teachers’ assessments across the school indicate that too many pupils do not achieve in line with their capabilities.
• Work across a range of subjects and year groups confirms that too many pupils are not achieving as well as they should. Work shows that weaknesses in mathematics and writing are evident for too many pupils across the school, including in key stage 4. Pupils are not clear about what they need to do to improve in these subjects.
• Disadvantaged pupils’ achievement is well below that of their peers. Too many disadvantaged pupils are working below the expectations for their age, and in most classes, none are working at a higher standard. This is because strategies to support these pupils have not been effective.
• Pupils in key stage 4 are underachieving in some subjects. Too few pupils are achieving well enough in English literature, English language and mathematics.
• Pupils with SEND make poor academic progress. Support for these pupils and teaching does not meet their individual needs.
• In mathematics, pupils are working well below the expected standards for their ages. The curriculum does not support good achievement in mathematics.
• Across the school, pupils do not achieve well in writing. Teaching has not supported pupils to address common errors and misconceptions.

Early years provision Inadequate

• Safeguarding in the kindergarten is not effective. Staff do not supervise children well enough. There are occasions when adults do not know where children are or what they are doing. On these occasions, adults cannot assure themselves that children are safe or behaving appropriately.
• Children are needlessly put at risk of harm. Physical intervention is used unnecessarily by some staff. This puts children at a heightened risk of harm.
• The new leader has started to improve the way that staff assess children’s learning and development. However, this work is too variable across the setting and there is more to do to improve the quality of teaching. Children’s outcomes are poor. As a result, by the end of the first year of Kindergarten (Reception Year), too few children are meeting the expectations for their age.
• Teaching does not meet children’s different needs well enough. Activities do not challenge children, especially the most able. For example, teachers have recorded that some children are able to complete some complex calculations, such as mentally adding two-digit numbers. However, teachers have not provided activities that build on what these children already know.

School details

Unique reference number 141108 Local authority Bristol City of Inspection number 10085234 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 All-through School category Academy free school Age range of pupils 4 to 16 Gender of pupils Mixed Number of pupils on the school roll 377 Appropriate authority Board of trustees Chair Mark Ellis-Jones Principal Joss Hayes Telephone number 0117 9659150 Website www.steineracademybristol.org.uk Email address info@steineracademybristol.org.uk Date of previous inspection 17–18 May 2017

Information about this school

• The school was previously inspected by Ofsted in May 2017.
• The school has made attempts to merge the Steiner curriculum with the national curriculum.
• The school assesses children against the early years framework; however, it is exempt from submitting this information. Similarly, the school is exempt from assessing pupils against the end of key stage 1 national tests.
• The proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals is higher than the national average.
• The proportion of pupils with SEND is higher than the national average.

Information about this inspection

• This inspection took place without notice to the school. It was conducted under section 8 of the Education Act 2005 and was deemed a section 5 inspection during the first day.
• Inspectors held meetings with the principal, senior leaders and middle leaders.
• The lead inspector met with three representatives from the school’s governing body.
• Inspectors observed teaching and learning in each class. On some occasions, school leaders joined inspectors. Inspectors scrutinised a range of pupils’ workbooks from across the school.
• Inspectors met with pupils to gain their views of the school’s work.
• Inspectors took account of the views of 224 parents who responded to Ofsted’s online survey, Parent View. Inspectors also met with parents to gather their views.
• Inspectors considered 32 questionnaires returned by members of staff.
• Inspectors met with the school’s designated safeguarding leaders. Inspectors reviewed safeguarding documentation and the school’s single central register. In addition, inspectors reviewed the school’s safeguarding policies, procedures and culture.

Inspection team

Nathan Kemp, lead inspector Her Majesty’s Inspector Caroline Dulon Her Majesty’s Inspector Stephen Lee Her Majesty’s Inspector Emmy Tomsett Her Majesty’s Inspector