Kingsbridge Community Primary School Ofsted Report

Full report

What does the school need to do to improve further?

• Improve outcomes to at least the same as in other schools nationally, by: - substantially improving the achievement of disadvantaged pupils in reading, writing and mathematics across the school - raising teachers’ expectations of what pupils, especially the most able, can achieve.
• Improve the impact of leadership and management, including governance, by: - rigorously and accurately monitoring the work of the school in order to remedy the weaknesses in disadvantaged pupils’ achievements across the school - governors having a thorough understanding of their roles and how to hold leaders to account, particularly for the impact of additional funding on outcomes for disadvantaged pupils and pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities.
• Improve the quality of teaching and learning, particularly in lower key stage 2, by: - securing greater consistency in the quality of teaching, learning and assessment across all classes and subjects - ensuring that teachers have an accurate understanding of what pupils already know and can do and adapt tasks to respond to their needs as required - making sure pupils in mathematics are moved on more quickly to tasks which challenge their thinking and deepen their understanding further. 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 should be undertaken in order to assess how this aspect of leadership and management may be improved.

Inspection judgements

Effectiveness of leadership and management Requires improvement

• The school’s self-evaluation is over-generous. Leaders do not consider sharply enough the achievement of different groups of pupils when judging the school’s performance.
• Leaders, including governors, do not ensure that all groups of pupils make as much progress as they should. Although there are recent signs of improvement, too many pupils across the school are not working at the expected standard. This is particularly the case for disadvantaged pupils and the most able, including the most able disadvantaged pupils.
• Although some disadvantaged pupils are starting to show signs of improvement, this is not the case across the school. Governors have not ensured that the pupil premium grant is used effectively, and the rationale behind decisions made for the use of extra funding is not clear.
• The local authority supports leaders well. Advisers have an accurate understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the school and offer appropriate support and challenge. However, leaders do not respond to advice quickly enough and a decline in the quality of teaching, particularly in lower key stage 2, has impacted on pupils’ outcomes.
• The English and mathematics leaders are determined to improve the teaching in their subjects to achieve better outcomes for all pupils. Senior leaders have provided them with effective professional development support through the school’s ‘challenging learning’ programme. This has enabled leaders to support their colleagues in improving teaching. However, it is too early to evaluate if this has had a discernible impact on improving outcomes for all pupils.
• Following a period of frequent changes to staffing, recently appointed leaders responsible for the pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities are beginning to have a positive impact on pupils’ achievement. However, leaders do not accurately know how well pupils are achieving. As a consequence, they do not know how much progress is being made and the level of impact that extra funding is having on pupils’ outcomes.
• The sport premium funding has been used to develop teachers’ expertise in improving the quality of teaching and extra-curricular provision. The school has provided a wider range of opportunities for pupils across the school; for example, karate and improved links with local sporting clubs. However, leaders have not evaluated the impact of the sport premium funding to check whether it is increasing pupils’ participation in sport and improving the quality of teaching in this subject.
• The school provides a broad and balanced curriculum that offers many opportunities for pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. Through the school’s curriculum design, additional curriculum activities are added, such as visits to local areas of historic importance to broaden pupils’ understanding further. For example, pupils in Year 5, who studied the Second World War, spoke passionately about how they live near the area where the Allies practised the D-day landings. Pupils report that they enjoy the curriculum, saying ‘The experience that trips provide helps us to understand the subject better.’
• The headteacher, senior leaders, staff and governors are committed to the school and want the very best for pupils. Many parents who met with inspectors and responded to the Parent View questionnaire recognise this. For example, one parent told an inspector, ‘The headteacher has given my child a new start in life’, following a difficult start in education.
• Staff who completed the online questionnaire are overwhelmingly supportive of leaders. A very large proportion of staff believe that the school is well led and managed and that they are treated fairly and with respect.
• Performance management is robust. Staff are set challenging targets and receive appropriate training. Reviews are frequent during the academic year to ensure that teachers are on track to meet targets or to establish if extra support is required from senior leaders.

Governance of the school

• The governing body has many members who are new to their role. They all want the best for their pupils, but they do not hold leaders to account effectively. For example, minutes of recent governor meetings indicate a lack of understanding of where progress is strongest and weakest within the school.
• Governors do not monitor closely enough the use of extra funding and its impact on outcomes for pupils. As a result, the school’s actions have not had the focus needed to reduce the differences in achievement between disadvantaged pupils, pupils with special educational needs and/or disabilities, and other pupils. Furthermore, governors are not aware of the impact that the sport premium funding has had across the school.
• Governors are also not aware that the school’s website is not compliant with regulations. More needs to be done to ensure that all information is published on the school’s website to meet statutory requirements.
• The governors monitor closely the school’s safeguarding procedures. Safeguarding is on the agenda of every governors’ meeting and the link governor meets the designated senior lead for safeguarding each term to review the school’s work. They attend training regularly and fully understand the risks to pupils.

Safeguarding

• The arrangements for safeguarding are effective.
• All safeguarding arrangements are fit for purpose. Leaders ensure that necessary checks to confirm the suitability of those who wish to work with children are detailed and thorough. The safeguarding governor regularly checks senior leaders’ actions.
• Staff demonstrate a good understanding of the school’s safeguarding policies and procedures because they receive regular training to keep them well informed. Induction processes are rigorous and ensure that all staff are trained to spot any potential signs of pupils at risk. They understand the risks posed to pupils by child sexual exploitation, female genital mutilation and radicalisation.
• Pupils who spoke to inspectors say that they feel safe in school. They are taught effectively about how to stay safe in a range of situations. For example, when they use modern technology, they know how to respond safely to anything suspicious. Furthermore, pupils were confident that, if they had any worries or concerns, they could speak to an adult, and were confident that they would take appropriate action to keep them safe. All parents who responded to Ofsted’s online questionnaire, Parent View, agreed that their child is safe at the school.

Quality of teaching, learning and assessment Requires improvement

• The quality of teaching varies too much throughout key stage 2, particularly in lower key stage 2. Teachers do not reliably use assessment information to plan learning that is well matched to pupils’ knowledge, skills and understanding. Too often, they do not provide pupils, particularly the most able pupils, with work that is sufficiently challenging.
• Teaching of mathematics does not always challenge pupils well enough. For example, pupils reported that they often completed work that they had already covered in previous years. Consequently, pupils do not always have the opportunity to work at greater depth. Work in books confirms that pupils often complete work they have already mastered. As a result, their progress is slow.
• Pupils’ books, across a range of subjects in key stage 2, show that too often teachers do not have high enough expectations of what pupils can achieve from their different starting points. Consequently, pupils’ skills in other subjects are not being developed.
• Teaching in reading across the school is good. From the time they start school, pupils quickly acquire and practise phonic skills. When listening to pupils read, including the most able, it was clear that pupils have the confidence to use their phonic skills to read challenging and unfamiliar words.
• Teaching of writing is of a better standard than that of mathematics, but still lacks challenge for the most able pupils in most year groups. The focused actions taken recently by leaders are improving current standards in some year groups. Pupils’ recent work shows that they enjoy writing and that they have the opportunity to write at length, developing skills across a range of genres.
• Teaching in the early years and key stage 1 is typically good. Books show that pupils have made strong progress from their starting points because teachers know the right level of work to provide and challenge pupils effectively. Staff use every opportunity to deal with any potential misconceptions and pupils respond well to their teachers and teaching assistants. During one session observed, several pupils did not want to leave for their breaktime until they had mastered the challenging work that had been planned for them.
• Relationships between adults and pupils are warm, affirming and based on mutual respect. The atmosphere in nearly all classrooms is purposeful and lively. Teachers are swift to offer praise and encouragement and pupils respond well and are keen to do their best.

Personal development, behaviour and welfare Good

Personal development and welfare

• The school’s work to promote pupils’ personal development and welfare is good.
• The school is a caring environment and equality of opportunity is a real strength. The headteacher and senior leaders are determined that every child should be given the opportunity to achieve their very best.
• Parents who met with inspectors were very positive about the wider emotional support that the school provides. One parent commented, ‘Moving my child during a difficult period to Kingsbridge was the best thing I have ever done.’ This view was typical of parents who met with inspectors and who contributed to Parent View.
• Pupils know how to keep themselves safe online. They told inspectors that they would never give out any personal information online. They know to tell an adult in school or their parents if they are concerned about anything they have seen online.
• Pupils are aware of the school’s core values that leaders promote well through the curriculum. They speak positively about the recent enterprise project where the school provided pupils with opportunities to work alongside other members of the community, such as at the local bank.
• Pupils are taught how to be healthy. They know what foods to eat to have a healthy and balanced diet.

Behaviour

• The behaviour of pupils is good.
• Incident logs show that poor behaviour is rare and there are few recorded incidents. Pupils have positive attitudes to their learning and towards each other. They are fully aware of different types of bullying, including cyber bullying, physical bullying and name calling, and are confident that adults would address any unacceptable behaviour. This view was also reported by pupils who completed the online questionnaire.
• Most parents who responded to Parent View agreed that the school makes sure pupils are well behaved.
• Pupils’ attendance is in line with the national average. The school monitors attendance closely to ensure that disadvantaged pupils attend as regularly as possible. Recent improvements indicate that attendance for disadvantaged pupils is improving rapidly, including for those who are persistently absent.
• Occasionally, pupils in lower key stage 2 lose concentration in lessons when the work set is too easy.

Outcomes for pupils Requires improvement

• Despite standards improving in key stage 1, not enough pupils are making consistently good progress from their different starting points across key stage 2, particularly in writing and mathematics.
• In 2016, the proportion of pupils who left key stage 2 reaching the expected standard in reading and writing was below national averages. Mathematics was broadly in line with the national average. Inspection evidence indicates that current pupils continue to make stronger progress in reading.
• Due to the inconsistencies in the quality of teaching, learning and assessment, the progress of current pupils across key stage 2 continues to remain variable, particularly for the most able pupils and pupils with low starting points.
• In 2016, disadvantaged pupils made less progress in all subjects at the end of key stage 1 and key stage 2 than other pupils nationally. They made better progress in reading than in mathematics and writing. Although significant differences still exist within some year groups, the differences between disadvantaged pupils and other pupils are starting to diminish across the school. However, the rate of improvement is too slow to ensure that differences are diminished with other pupils nationally.
• Expectations for the most able pupils currently in key stage 2, including for the most able disadvantaged pupils, are too low and they are not achieving as well as they could. Activities do not take into consideration what these pupils already know, can do and understand, particularly in mathematics.
• Progress is not strong in mathematics. Although inspectors saw an improving picture in some lessons, work in pupils’ books shows that pupils are not making enough progress over time. This is particularly true for disadvantaged pupils, including the most able disadvantaged pupils. There is too much repetition of tasks that have already been mastered. Consequently, pupils are not achieving as well as they could.
• Reading continues to be a strength of the school because the teaching of reading is more effective than writing and mathematics. The vast majority of pupils achieved the national standards in 2016 and this has been a similar picture for some time. Pupils who read to inspectors said that they read widely and often at school and that the school encourages them to read regularly at home.
• Increased proportions of pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities are making the progress they should because teachers set them tasks that meet their individual needs and teachers’ interventions provide pupils with effective support. As a result, outcomes are close to those of other pupils nationally.
• In key stage 1 and the early years, pupils make good progress. Teachers direct additional support well to ensure that pupils who are falling behind are given the early support needed. Activities are typically well matched and promote a higher level of challenge that pupils are eager to respond to.

Early years provision Good

• A real ‘buzz for learning’ exists in the early years. Relationships between staff, parents and children are extremely good. Children report that they enjoy their time in Reception and are clearly happy and safe. They show an inquisitive nature in their work because of well-organised learning opportunities designed and planned by staff that encourage positive risk taking.
• Leaders recognised the need to improve the environment and have ensured that children have increased opportunities for physical development. For example, during the inspection children were observed actively engaging on the recently installed climbing wall and pulley system, developing fundamental coordination skills.
• The quality of teaching and learning is good. Staff know precisely where each child is in their learning. Phonics is taught effectively, and children are very confident at sounding out letters and writing words. Children are well supported to develop their writing skills in readiness to start Year 1.
• During the inspection, children had prepared a dance sequence in their ‘Kingsbridge Theatre’, performing with confidence and high levels of motivation. Their ‘have a go’ attitude was consistently encouraged by all adults. As a result, children were confident to make mistakes and demonstrate a real enthusiasm for learning.
• Teaching assistants skilfully support children who have special educational needs and/or disabilities to participate effectively. They skilfully repeat words and break down words using pictures to enable the children to develop their understanding of language. This contributes to the children making rapid progress in their language acquisition.
• Parents are very supportive of the provision, and the partnership between home and school is a strength. They say that their children are helped to settle down quickly and that routines are quickly established. Parents told inspectors that they find the school’s approach to providing parents with assessment information ‘invaluable’. Children’s behaviour is consistently good in both classes. They feel safe and systems to ensure that children are safe are well established.
• Children enter the early years with skills and abilities typical for their age. The proportion achieving a good level of development by the end of Reception is above the national average and has been sustained consistently over the last three years. However, the good achievement overall masks the lower progress that disadvantaged children make in reading, writing and mathematics.

School details

Unique reference number 113205 Local authority Devon Inspection number 10025032 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 Community Age range of pupils 4 to 11 Gender of pupils Mixed Number of pupils on the school roll 411 Appropriate authority The governing body Co-chairs Da’Vonnie Wills and John Connor Headteacher Christine Slaughter Telephone number 01548 852009 Website www.kingsbridgeprimary.co.uk Email address admin@kingsbridge-pri.devon.sch.uk Date of previous inspection 19–20 June 2012

Information about this school

• There have been changes in leadership since the previous inspection, with the appointment of a new headteacher, chair and vice-chair of the governing body.
• The school does not meet requirements on the publication of information about the sport premium on its website.
• This school is larger than the average primary school. The early years consists of two Reception classes.
• The majority of pupils are of White British heritage. The proportion of pupils for whom English is an additional language is below average and the proportion of pupils from minority ethnic backgrounds is small.
• The proportion of pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities is average.
• The proportion of pupils known to be eligible for the pupil premium is below average.
• The school meets the government’s current floor standards, which are the minimum expectations for pupils’ attainment and progress in English and mathematics by the end of Year 6.

Information about this inspection

• The inspectors observed learning in lessons and looked at work in a range of books.
• A meeting was held with different groups of pupils to discuss their views about the school and to listen to pupils with a range of abilities read.
• Inspectors held discussions with senior leaders, middle leaders and three governors, including one of the co-chairs of the governing body.
• The lead inspector had a telephone call with a representative from the local authority.
• Inspectors viewed a range of documents, including information on pupils’ achievement, the school’s current assessment information, self-evaluation report, sport premium information and a pupil premium strategy plan. They also looked at the school’s improvement plan, documents relating to safeguarding, and records of behaviour and attendance.
• The inspectors took account of the 78 responses to the online questionnaire, Parent View, 38 responses to the staff questionnaire and 23 responses to the pupil questionnaire.

Inspection team

Matt Middlemore, lead inspector Ofsted Inspector Anthony Epps Ofsted Inspector Sally Olford Ofsted Inspector Deborah Tregellas Ofsted Inspector Matthew Shirley Ofsted Inspector