North Cadbury Church of England Primary School 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?

• Rapidly improve the quality of leadership and management by: setting clear priorities for improvement which leaders and governors frequently check and evaluate for impact strengthening governance swiftly so governors carry out their roles and responsibilities to improve the quality of education pupils receive effectively implementing a robust, structured programme of training and support to equip subject leaders with the skills they need to be highly effective planning a curriculum that develops pupils’ skills so that they make the best possible progress across all subjects securing the leadership in the early years provision in order to provide children with high-quality teaching and learning.
• Rapidly improve the quality of teaching, learning and assessment by ensuring that teachers: assess accurately what pupils know, understand and can do and use this information to plan learning that is matched well to pupils’ needs plan activities at the right level of challenge for pupils, especially for those of average ability, the most able and those pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities help pupils to use and practise their skills in writing and mathematics across a range of subjects question pupils effectively in order to assess, probe and deepen their learning provide pupils with the information they need to improve their learning learn from best practice in other schools.
• Urgently improve pupils’ achievement, especially in key stage 2, by ensuring that: teachers raise their expectations of what pupils are able to achieve, especially in writing and mathematics teaching inspires, excites and challenges pupils to think more deeply about their learning, especially for those of average ability and the most able the subject knowledge of staff in mathematics and English is strong enough to enable their work to be effective. 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 Inadequate

• Significant, prolonged and continuing weaknesses and changes in staffing are having a detrimental impact on the quality of education the school provides for its pupils. As a result, pupils do not make the progress of which they are capable.
• Leaders, including governors, have not taken the rapid action required to deal with the areas identified as needing to improve at the previous inspection. As a result, these weaknesses remain and pupils continue to underachieve in writing and mathematics.
• School leaders, including governors, have not checked the learning and progress of pupils carefully enough. Consequently, they have not taken the necessary steps to ensure that pupils make good progress. This is especially so for pupils in key stage 2, including the most able, pupils of average ability and those who have SEN and/or disabilities. These pupils do not make good progress, most notably in writing and mathematics.
• The school’s current plan for improvement, while accurately identifying the key priorities, is weak. Targets are not aspirational, timescales lack urgency and the plan does not identify precisely who is going to monitor actions and how they will check what is or is not working and why.
• Leaders are not effectively managing the performance of teachers. They fail to hold teachers rigorously to account for the quality of their work or the achievement and progress that pupils make. Too often targets set by leaders lack the aspiration to drive forward improvements quickly.
• Subject leadership is ineffective. This is a result of the instability in staffing since the previous inspection. Consequently, leaders have little impact on raising standards in their subjects or in ensuring that pupils make good progress.
• The curriculum is weak. While it covers a suitably wide range of subjects, it does not contain information about the skills that pupils will learn in each year of each subject. Consequently, pupils do not learn enough across a range of subjects in sufficient depth. Topics such as houses and homes, the Romans and the weather do not always involve pupils applying skills that they have learned in other subject areas, such as mathematics or writing. As a result, pupils are not making the best possible progress across all subjects, including, for example, history and geography.
• The few pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities are not making enough progress given their starting points. Leaders’ checks on their progress are not sufficiently well established. For example, monitoring of the interventions to support these pupils is not sufficient. Therefore, leaders do not know well enough which interventions work for which pupils and why. This means that pupils are not able to catch up quickly enough with their peers.
• The number of disadvantaged pupils is very small. Although their progress is very similar to that of their peers, it is not good enough.
• Parents have mixed views about the school. While some comment about the ’good grounding and values my child gains’, and say that ‘North Cadbury School is a delightful place to be’ and a ’very well-run school’, other parents expressed concerns regarding the progress their children are making. ‘There does not seem to be much in the way of stretch and challenge’ was a typical comment.
• The school should not seek to appoint newly qualified teachers.
• Spiritual, moral, social and cultural education is effective. For example, pupils understand that, while everyone is different, everybody should be treated equally. Pupils demonstrate strong social skills. This was exemplified during the inspection where an older pupil, without being prompted or asked, helped a much younger pupil, quickly reducing the younger pupil’s anxiety.
• The school uses additional sports funding effectively to improve physical education. For example, pupils spoke with enthusiasm about the cycling programme they are currently undertaking. During the inspection, pupils of all ages expressed excitement about how successful the cricket coach was in honing their cricket skills.
• Pupils take part in a wide range of activities, which they enjoy. As a result, a high number regularly attend the activities on offer, such as kickboxing, sewing, ukulele playing, tag rugby and a recorder club.
• The headteacher is committed to providing pupils with an effective standard of education. However, she has not received the necessary support from the wider leadership of the school, including governors, to make the rapid improvements required.

Governance of the school

• Governors do not ensure that leaders provide pupils with an effective quality of education. They have not held leaders robustly to account for the decline in standards since the previous inspection. This means that those areas identified as requiring improvement at that time remain. The lack of strategic direction over time, coupled with significant and continuing staffing problems, has contributed to the school’s decline in performance.
• Governors know that pupils’ progress is not yet good enough. While they demonstrate a commitment and ambition to deal with the problems, the impact of their actions is not yet evident. They do not probe well enough to check that the actions that leaders have taken are having the desired outcomes and are rapidly improving pupils’ achievements, especially for the most able.

Safeguarding

• The arrangements for safeguarding are effective. Staff receive high-quality training on all aspects of safeguarding such as child sexual exploitation, female genital mutilation, radicalisation and extremism. As a result, staff are confident of the actions to take should they have any concerns about a pupil. Staff new to the school receive safeguarding training as part of their induction before starting in their posts. Staff and governors have a good understanding of the need to protect pupils from all possible risks.
• The school site is a safe environment for pupils. External doors and gates are secure, so that the management of people who visit the school is appropriate. This allows pupils to move freely around the school site and feel safe.
• Leaders, including governors, are aware of the importance of recruiting safely. All staff are carefully checked before starting employment to ensure that they are suitable to work with children.
• Pupils who spoke to the inspector are confident that staff do all they can to keep them safe. Pupils are knowledgeable about keeping safe when using electronic devices such as computers and mobile phones. For example, they know the importance of not providing personal information to people they do not know and the need to keep their passwords protected.

Quality of teaching, learning and assessment Inadequate

• The quality of teaching, learning and assessment has not been good enough to ensure that pupils make strong progress across the subjects they study, especially writing and mathematics in key stage 2.
• Teachers do not expect enough of their pupils. This is because they do not check the learning and progress of their pupils accurately. Consequently, the work they plan does not meet the needs of pupils accurately and thus enable them to achieve well. For example, in history, teachers give pupils exactly the same task to complete, irrespective of their ability. This impedes pupils’ progress, especially that of the most able.
• Teachers do not demonstrate a deep understanding of how pupils learn. Learning does not build on what pupils already know, understand and can do. This hampers the quality of work and the progress that pupils make, particularly in writing and mathematics. For example, while pupils practise their tables, they cannot demonstrate a deep understanding of how to use this knowledge in other areas of mathematics.
• Teachers do not follow consistently enough the approach agreed for providing information to pupils about what they need to do to improve their work. Consequently, too many pupils do not know what they need to do to improve their work or to fully understand their next steps in learning. The quality of their work in writing and mathematics is typically weak. In addition, the standard of their handwriting and presentation is not good enough. This results in work of poor quality and contributes to the lack of progress that pupils make in all subjects.
• Teachers and teaching assistants do not sufficiently check pupils’ understanding or probe their thinking through, for example, effective questioning. As a result, pupils’ misconceptions are not quickly rectified and learning is hampered.
• Staff do not always know their subjects well enough. This restricts the quality of the help that they provide to pupils, and so slows pupils’ progress.

Personal development, behaviour and welfare Personal development and welfare

• The school’s work to promote pupils’ personal development and welfare requires improvement.
• Leaders monitor attendance carefully and it is beginning to improve. However, overall attendance remains just below the national average and is not good enough.
• Although pupils know about the benefits of living healthy lifestyles, they do not receive enough encouragement to eat healthily. Pupils told the inspector that they are not always restricted in the number of chocolate bars and crisps they are allowed to eat during the school day.
• Pupils report that they feel safe in school and know that if they have any worries or are upset they can talk to a grown-up. They said, ‘We can approach any member of staff and we know they will help us.’
• Pupils have a good understanding of how to keep safe. For example, they learn how to use the internet safely, and how to look after their personal safety.
• Relationships between staff and pupils are typically strong. However, pupils comment about the frequent changes in staff and the resulting regular need to build trusting relationships when new staff arrive.

Behaviour

• The behaviour of pupils requires improvement. When activities do not excite or challenge them, pupils sometimes become restless. As a result, their learning stalls.
• Pupils do not demonstrate well enough the attributes they need to become effective learners. They do not show sufficient resilience and independence when learning. For example, too often they sit and wait patiently for the teacher to respond to their individual needs. This is because staff have not taught them well enough how to apply their skills confidently without help from adults.
• Pupils clearly understand the differences between right and wrong. For example, they know that bad language is not tolerated at the school.
• Pupils say that any incidents of bullying are extremely rare and when bullying happens, staff deal with it quickly.
• Pupils are well mannered, polite and courteous. They showed this many times during the inspection when, for example, making the inspector feel welcome and holding doors for others to pass through.

Outcomes for pupils Inadequate

• Outcomes are inadequate because pupils, especially in key stage 2, do not make the progress of which they are capable. Pupils’ work in a range of subjects and across age groups shows a pattern of underachievement. As a result, pupils are not well prepared for the next stage of their education.
• In key stage 2, pupils do not make sufficient progress in writing and mathematics. Leaders have failed to deal with this since it was identified at the previous inspection. As a result, pupils are not able to catch up quickly with their peers. Pupils’ outcomes remain in the bottom 20% of pupils nationally in these subjects.
• The picture of poor progress overall is mirrored in the performance of particular groups, especially the most able pupils in key stage 2. This is because leaders do not routinely check the progress these pupils are making.
• Despite small indications of improvement in writing and mathematics currently, too many pupils are not on track to reach the expected levels at key stage 1 or key stage 2. The most able pupils are not on course to achieve greater depth and make the progress of which they are capable. For example, pupils in key stage 2 do not know how to apply their mathematical knowledge to solve complex problems.
• Pupils’ achievement in reading at both key stage 1 and key stage 2 is above the national average. However, results in the phonics screening check for Year 1, while still above the national expectation, have declined. This is because the teaching of phonics is no longer good enough due to the frequent changes in staff. For example, staff do not identify and remedy quickly enough inaccuracies in pupils’ phonic knowledge. Consequently, pupils struggle to segment successfully when tackling new words, and to blend sounds together when writing. Consequently, pupils continue to make these errors and do not make rapid gains in their phonic knowledge to support them in their reading.
• At key stage 1 in 2017, the proportion of pupils achieving at least the expected standard in reading, writing and mathematics was above the national average. Similarly, the proportion of most able pupils achieving greater depth is above the national average in these subjects.

Early years provision Inadequate

• Leadership of the early years provision is inadequate. While the number of children in the provision varies from year to year, too many children do not achieve a good level of development.
• Typically, children arrive in school with skills that are just below those expected of them. In 2016, the proportion of children that subsequently achieved a good level of development was well below the national average. Provisional information for 2017 suggests a slight improvement but that the proportion remains too low. Children’s skills in reading and writing are below those expected nationally. Consequently, children are not well prepared as they enter Year 1.
• Teaching, learning and assessment are weak. Activities do not meet the learning needs of children. For example, children at different stages of development complete the same tasks. As a result, some children find the work too easy while other children find it too hard.
• The tracking system in the early years provision, which is used to check what children can and cannot do, is not sufficiently robust. It does not identify clearly enough whether children are making good progress.
• Behaviour requires improvement. A lack of consistency in staffing within the early years has meant that children are not provided with clear routines. Staff’s expectations of children’s behaviour are not consistently high enough. For example, too often staff do not supervise children well enough, or involve them in sufficiently worthwhile and stimulating learning activities. As a result, the children’s behaviour deteriorates and their progress stalls.
• Effective safeguarding measures are in place. For example, school leaders ensure that staff have received training in paediatric first aid, which minimises risks that children face.
• Children who attend the pre-school enjoy their learning. They play happily together and follow carefully what staff ask them to do. During the inspection they talked confidently with the inspector, were able to explain what they were doing and what they had learned. For example, as part of learning about ladybirds, children carefully painted a ladybird’s body. They were able to tell the adults how many legs they needed to add, clearly demonstrating their growing speaking and listening skills.

School details

Unique reference number Local authority Inspection number 123770 Somerset 10042786 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 Age range of pupils Gender of pupils Voluntary controlled 4 to 11 Mixed Number of pupils on the school roll 86 Appropriate authority The governing body Chair Headteacher Telephone number Website Email address Susan Fone Sandra Kiddle 01963 440420 www.northcadburyprimaryschool.org.uk office@northcadbury.somerset.sch.uk Date of previous inspection 15–16 October 2013

Information about this school

• North Cadbury Church of England Primary School is smaller than the average-sized school.
• The vast majority of pupils come from White British backgrounds.
• Pupils are taught in four classes, predominantly in mixed-age classes.
• Children in the early years provision are taught in one class with Year 1 pupils.
• The governors operate an on-site pre-school which was visited as part of the inspection.
• The school meets the current government floor standards, which is the minimum expectation for pupils’ attainment and progress at the end of Year 6.
• The school is working with a local leader in education allocated by the local authority.
• Governors have made an application to the department for education to become part of a multi-academy trust.

Information about this inspection

• The inspector observed learning in every class. All observations took place with the headteacher. The inspector scrutinised the quality of pupils’ work alongside the headteacher.
• The inspector held meetings with the headteacher, senior teacher, staff and governors.
• The inspector held a meeting with an education adviser from the local authority and the newly appointed local leader in education. She had a telephone conversation with representatives from the Bath and Wells diocese.
• The inspector scrutinised a wide range of documentation during the inspection, including the school’s evaluation of its own performance, school improvement plans and data relating to pupils’ attainment and progress. The inspector also checked the effectiveness of the school’s safeguarding arrangements and attendance information.
• The inspector talked with groups of pupils to seek their views about the school. She gathered the views of other pupils during lessons and lunchtimes.
• The inspector took account of the four responses from staff questionnaires and the 26 responses made to the pupil survey. The inspector also considered 50 responses to Ofsted’s online survey, Parent View and 26 free-text messages. The inspector spoke to parents informally at the start of the day.

Inspection team

Jen Southall, lead inspector

Her Majesty’s Inspector