All Saints' Church of England School, Weymouth 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?

• Urgently address shortcomings in safeguarding by ensuring that:
  • vulnerable pupils, especially those on part-time timetables, are closely monitored and kept safe
  • pupils are safe from poor behaviour
  • the single central record is complete and up to date.
• Improve leadership and management by:
  • securing long-term leadership capacity within the school
  • ensuring that leaders have an accurate and reliable evaluation of the school’s strengths and weaknesses
  • improving governance so that senior leaders are held to account and supported appropriately
  • improving the leadership of teaching so that there are clear expectations of teachers and they are held to account for the quality of their teaching
  • raising expectations of middle leadership so that middle leaders can improve the quality of teaching in their subjects
  • ensuring that assessment systems and practice are fit for purpose.
• Improve teaching, learning and assessment and hence outcomes by:
  • raising expectations of what pupils can achieve
  • ensuring that assessment is reliable and gives teachers a good understanding of what pupils know, understand and can do
  • ensuring that teachers match planned teaching activities to the needs of pupils, particularly pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities and the most able pupils
  • raising standards of literacy across all subjects
  • ensuring that pupils know how to improve their work.
• Improve personal development, behaviour and welfare by:
  • improving behaviour around the school site
  • eliminating low-level disruption in lessons
  • raising attendance to at least match the national average
  • reducing persistent absence, particularly of pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities and disadvantaged pupils, so it is in line with the national average.

Inspection judgements

Effectiveness of leadership and management Inadequate

• The inaction of leaders and governors since the last inspection has allowed the school to deteriorate rapidly. As a result of their inertia, standards of teaching, behaviour and safety have all declined significantly.
• Senior leaders do not have an accurate view of the school. This is because they do not monitor the school with sufficient rigour. Across many aspects of the school’s work, leaders have not developed a culture where the findings from monitoring are acted on. For example, pupils’ performance, attendance and behaviour are rarely analysed in sufficient depth and, when they are, there is no follow-up and so no improvement.
• Senior leaders have allowed an excuse culture to take hold in the school. Leaders and teachers are too ready to blame external factors for the poor progress of pupils in the school. This mindset is reinforcing teachers’ low expectations of what pupils can achieve.
• The capacity of leaders to improve the school without external support is very low. The small senior team are fully occupied in managing the school on a day-by-day basis. They do not demonstrate the capacity to steer the urgent strategic developments required at the school.
• The leadership of teaching is weak. It has been given a low priority within the school. Leaders who have responsibility for the quality of teaching do not have the time or resources to be effective. As a result, whole-school policies to improve teaching, learning and assessment are not developed or implemented with sufficient determination.
• Leaders have organised training opportunities for teachers to improve their skills. However, new strategies are not implemented with any consistency across the school. The most able pupils, for example, describe how the effectiveness with which their needs are met varies from teacher to teacher and subject to subject.
• The support for newly qualified teachers (NQTs) is poor. These inexperienced colleagues have not been given the quality of advice they need to settle in and thrive in their chosen careers. Several have struggled as a consequence. School leaders should not seek to appoint further NQTs.
• School leaders and governors do not manage the performance of teachers effectively. Many teachers have not been given the opportunity to review their performance with leaders and set targets for improvement. They are not properly challenged or supported in their efforts to raise standards. The results are that teachers are not clear what is expected of them and weak teaching goes unchecked.
• The leadership of assessment is weak. The whole-school approach to assessing pupils and providing information on their progress is not effective. This is because there is a lack of clarity across the school about the purpose and use of the assessment system. In some cases, the targets set for pupils are too low. This is a key cause of underachievement. The reliability of the system is further undermined because teachers’ assessments of pupils’ work are inaccurate. Leaders are aware of the limitations of their system and are currently revising it.
• Most middle leaders are not ensuring that their subject areas perform well. They lack direction and guidance from senior leaders and so the impact of their leadership lacks consistency. Middle leaders are not held to account effectively by senior leaders and they, in turn, do not hold their teams to account. As a consequence, ineffective teaching is not overcome and so pupils underachieve.
• Leaders do not use the pupil premium grant effectively. After the last inspection, an external review of how the grant is used was undertaken and a report written containing many good recommendations. The report has been completely ignored. As a result, disadvantaged pupils are not given the additional support they need to overcome the barriers they face. They are continuing to underachieve.
• School leaders cannot account for the funding the school receives to support those Year 7 pupils who need to catch up when they come into secondary school. It is therefore impossible to identify any impact of this funding.
• The leadership of special educational needs is not ensuring that this group of pupils prospers. Leaders do not support teachers to meet the needs of these pupils. Nor do they ensure that teaching assistants are deployed to maximum effect. Leadership of this area has recently been strengthened but it is too soon to be able to judge any impact.
• Leaders have ensured that the curriculum is broad but it is not meeting the academic or personal needs of most pupils. Leaders do not evaluate its effectiveness. Consequently, they are unable to evaluate the impact of setting arrangements or key stage 4 options on pupils’ outcomes. Furthermore, leaders have not ensured that the curriculum gives enough opportunities for pupils to improve the quality of their writing as they progress through the school.
• Leaders have not ensured that the personal, social and health education (PSHE) programme actively promotes British values. Consequently, many pupils have only a vague understanding of British values and are not fully equipped to thrive in a modern multicultural society.
• The good range of after-school sports and arts-based clubs, alongside opportunities such as the Duke of Edinburgh’s award scheme, are valued by pupils.
• The leadership of careers education is good. Leaders have put in place a strong and coherent programme for pupils. This allows them to develop their ideas about the next steps in their education and training in a timely and sensible fashion. Comparing their impact against national benchmarks and studying examples of good practice has allowed leaders to evaluate their work effectively and improve the provision as a result.
• The local authority brokered some support from an experienced school leader last year. The diocese has recently intervened further to strengthen leadership at the school by drafting in leaders from another school. This has stabilised leadership, but it is too early to judge any impact on improving the quality of teaching, learning and assessment.

Governance of the school

• The governing body has failed to hold school leaders to account. It did not insist that leaders confront the issues highlighted in the 2017 inspection. It has not tackled the shortcomings evident in the outcomes of the 2017 GCSE results.
• It has not challenged leaders’ overgenerous self-evaluation and, as a result, pupils continue to endure weak teaching and experience disruption in their lessons.
• Governors have not monitored spending with sufficient rigour. This has resulted in the ineffective use of the pupil premium and of Year 7 catch-up grants.
• They have failed to ensure that the leadership structure is fit for purpose. Leaders are unable to carry out all the tasks they are allotted. This has led to essential tasks being left undone.
• Governors have not ensured that pupils are kept safe, nor have they monitored the school’s safeguarding record-keeping effectively.
• The governing body has very recently been replaced by an IEB. This group will oversee the school until new arrangements for governance are in place. The local authority and diocese have worked together to ensure that the IEB is appropriately experienced and skilled.

Safeguarding

• The arrangements for safeguarding are not effective.
• Around a quarter of parents who responded to Ofsted’s online questionnaire, Parent View, are concerned about the safety of their children. Some pupils also report unsafe behaviour from other pupils at breaks and lunchtimes. This has not been tackled effectively by school leaders.
• Leaders have put a number of pupils with emotional or physical health needs on part-time timetables. However, they cannot always be sure where these pupils are because their records are incomplete. They therefore cannot guarantee pupils’ safety.
• School leaders and governors have failed to ensure that the school’s records of employment checks on teachers are complete and up to date.
• Teachers and other staff are aware of their responsibilities should a pupil disclose to them that they feel unsafe. Pupils know whom to approach for support should they have a concern. They also report that they are briefed about keeping themselves safe, through assemblies and PSHE lessons.

Quality of teaching, learning and assessment Inadequate

• Pupils do not make the progress they are capable of, because teachers’ expectations of them are typically too low. Leaders and teachers have not revised the curriculum sufficiently in response to the changes made in 2014 to the national curriculum. Neither have they adapted the curriculum to reflect the higher academic standards of pupils arriving from primary schools. As a result, pupils make less progress than they do in other schools.
• Teachers often struggle to target work accurately to meet pupils’ needs because the quality of assessment is not precise enough. Teachers regularly do not pinpoint pupils’ misunderstandings. This prevents them from setting work that tackles errors and would allow pupils to move on. The problem is compounded by assessments that are sometimes overgenerous and results in pupils settling for outcomes that are less than they are capable of.
• Pupils make less progress than they should because, in many subjects, they do not know how to improve their work. In the absence of effective whole-school leadership, individual teachers across a range of subjects provide feedback to pupils about their work in a variety of ways. Pupils are confused about their success, the progress they are making and how to reach their targets.
• The most able pupils are not challenged to think deeply about problems or to express complex ideas with sufficient depth. There is, however, in contrast with most other subjects, a marked difference in the quality of their response in history and religious education, where they are encouraged to think hard.
• Pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities in the mainstream school are not well taught. Too often, they cannot access the work they are set, because it has not been adapted by the teacher to address their needs. In some cases, teachers do not have the skills to adapt the work as necessary because they have not been supported well enough by leaders and the special educational needs department. Teaching assistants are well trained and skilled. However, they are not always deployed effectively and so are not as effective as they might be.
• Pupils who attend the specialist unit for those pupils who have specific learning difficulties are well taught. Teachers and teaching assistants understand their needs and ensure that work is well tailored so that they can make progress.
• Pupils are not taught to write effectively. There is a whole-school literacy policy, which focuses on spelling, punctuation and grammar. However, it is widely ignored in most subjects. As a consequence, pupils make the same spelling and punctuation mistakes repeatedly.
• There are examples of effective teaching in some subjects across the school. Individual teachers work hard to develop pupils’ knowledge and understanding. However, this is undermined by a lack of consistency and a lack of support from leaders. The amount of progress that pupils make is too dependent on exactly which teachers happen to teach them.

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 ensured that vulnerable pupils who have particular emotional and mental health needs are supported sufficiently. The plans for each child are focused on the short term. Long-term plans for returning those pupils who are on part-time timetables to full-time education are, at best, hazy. Leaders are not always able to account for the whereabouts of these pupils and so cannot with certainty ensure that their safety or that their needs are met.
• A significant number of pupils show little self-confidence and have little pride in their achievements or those of their school. What is considered an acceptable standard of presentation varies from subject to subject and teacher to teacher. Pupils regularly do not act on teachers’ feedback and so their work fails to improve.
• Most pupils treat each other well and are respectful of others. However, there have been some instances of racially-based abuse. Pupils report that instances of homophobia and transphobia are rare and dealt with well by teachers and pupils.
• Pupils are taught to keep themselves safe through a structured programme of assemblies and PSHE opportunities. They understand how to keep themselves safe online.
• A small number of pupils attend an alternative provider for part of the week. The school and the provider work together to ensure that the personal development needs of these pupils are met and they are able to thrive.

Behaviour

• The behaviour of pupils is inadequate.
• A sizeable proportion of parents do not trust leaders to keep pupils safe. They express much higher than usual levels of unease about poor behaviour and bullying. Inspectors found that many of their concerns are justified.
• A small group of pupils are unruly and badly behaved around the school site. Their poor behaviour has not been successfully addressed by teachers and leaders. Nonetheless, the great majority of pupils behave well. They are respectful in their dealings with adults and they treat each other with good humour. They try not to let the behaviour of the minority affect them.
• Leaders have failed to address the behaviour of a small number of pupils who bully vulnerable pupils. Pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities have been the victim of harassment by other pupils. Pupils who have SEN report that this is now improving. However, they are not yet confident that the issue is completely solved.
• Pupils’ behaviour in lessons depends on the quality of teaching they are receiving. When teaching is weaker and does not meet their needs, pupils tend to become disengaged and switch off. Some begin to disrupt the learning of others. However, when the teacher captures pupils’ imagination, they respond enthusiastically and are eager to show what they can do.
• Attendance is significantly lower than in other schools and it is not improving. Too many pupils are away regularly. Pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities and disadvantaged pupils are absent from school far too often. This is having an impact on their progress when they return to school.

Outcomes for pupils Inadequate

• In 2017, pupils made slower progress than in nine out of ten schools. This was a continuation of a declining trend. Progress is not significantly better for pupils in the school now. In every year group, pupils are achieving less well than in other schools. This is because leaders do not insist on appropriately high expectations and teachers are setting work that does not challenge pupils to achieve all that they are capable of.
• Pupils do not make good progress in English or in mathematics. In 2017, they made less progress than in 2016. Outcomes in science are particularly poor. Pupils made less progress from their starting points than in 95% of schools last year.
• Standards of literacy are lower than they are in most schools. Pupils’ ability to write an extended answer to a question, explaining their thinking in detail, is relatively weak. This is because they are not given the opportunities to practise this skill across a range of subjects.
• Pupils’ attainment, which was broadly in line with the national average in 2016, has slipped and is now below that in other schools. The proportion of pupils who gain good GCSEs in English and mathematics has failed to keep pace with the improvements in national results.
• Pupils in key stage 3 are not building on their knowledge and understanding from their primary schools sufficiently. In some subjects they are repeating work they have covered in Year 6. Consequently, pupils soon fall behind their peers in other schools.
• All groups of pupils across the ability range in key stage 4 are underachieving from their starting points in most subjects. Those who joined the school with below-average starting points fail to catch up. The most able are allowed to settle for less than their ability would suggest is appropriate. There is not one group of pupils who achieve all that they should.
• Pupils make slower progress than in other schools in virtually all subjects. The exceptions are history and geography. Here, pupils achieve in line with their peers in other schools. This is the result of teaching which expects more of them.
• Pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities do not make good progress. They tend to be absent too often and when they are there, teachers set work that does not help them to improve.
• Disadvantaged pupils make substantially less progress than their peers. Although a ‘pupil premium champion’ endeavours to support individual pupils, there is no school-wide plan to support this group. As a result, they do not receive the additional support that they need in classes and they fall further behind when they are away.

School details

Unique reference number Local authority Inspection number 113896 Dorset 10052589 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 Secondary comprehensive School category Age range of pupils Gender of pupils Voluntary aided 11 to 16 Mixed Number of pupils on the school roll 864 Appropriate authority Interim executive board Chair Headteacher Telephone number Website Email address Harry Turner Kevin Broadway 01305 783391 www.allsaints.dorset.sch.uk office@allsaints.dorset.sch.uk Date of previous inspection 21–22 February 2017

Information about this school

• The school is an average-sized secondary school.
• The governing body has recently been replaced by an interim executive board. The diocese and local authority have worked together to broker leadership support from another school.
• The school fell below the floor standard for outcomes in 2017. This is the government’s minimum expectation of pupil attainment and progress by the end of key stage 4.
• The school uses Dorset Skills Centre alternative provision. Twenty-five pupils use this provision at any one time, most attend part time.
• The proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals at any time in the last six years is in line with the national average.
• The proportion of pupils who speak English as an additional language is below average.
• The proportion of pupils with an education, health and care plan is average.
• The school includes a provision for pupils with specific learning difficulties catering for pupils with dyslexia. There are currently 25 pupils attending the provision.

Information about this inspection

• This inspection took place as a result of a series of complaints that led Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector to have concerns about behaviour, standards and leadership and management at the school.
• Inspectors observed learning across the range of subjects and age groups, and scrutinised a wide range of pupils’ written work. Some of the observations were conducted jointly with senior leaders.
• Inspectors looked at a range of documentation, including development plans, analysis of pupils’ progress, attendance and behaviour data, safeguarding documents and the school’s review of its own performance.
• Meetings were held with the chair of the IEB, the executive headteacher, the acting headteacher, senior and middle leaders, newly qualified teachers and groups of pupils. An inspector spoke with a senior officer of the local authority. An inspector spoke with the representative of an alternative provider.
• Inspectors took account of 67 responses to the online questionnaire, Parent View.

Inspection team

Andrew Lovett, lead inspector Kathy Maddocks David Simons Carol Hannaford

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