Winsham 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?

• Improve the quality of teaching and learning in reading, writing and mathematics, especially in key stage 1, by ensuring that teachers:
  • use assessment information effectively to build on pupils’ existing skills, knowledge and understanding
  • raise expectations of what the pupils can achieve, including the most able
  • set work that is well matched to the different needs of the pupils in order to bring about strong progress
  • check pupils’ learning and respond to their different needs and abilities, including those of the most able, disadvantaged pupils and those who have special educational needs and/or disabilities.
• Improve the effectiveness of leadership and management by ensuring that:
  • governors understand their roles and responsibilities and take effective action to hold leaders to account
  • governors use available information to secure the necessary improvements in teaching and learning
  • subject leaders contribute to school improvement and the wider professional development of staff
  • accurate self-evaluation checks the impact of leaders’ work and is used to identify the right priorities for improvement, including in the early years
  • leaders take full account of pupils’ different starting points to raise achievement across the school.
• Improve the behaviour and welfare of pupils, by:
  • checking and evaluating the impact of the strategy to reduce exclusions
  • ensuring that pupils who have persistently high rates of absence are well supported and challenged to attend and achieve well. An external review of governance and of the school’s use of the pupil premium should be undertaken in order to assess how these aspects of leadership and management may be improved.

Inspection judgements

Effectiveness of leadership and management Inadequate

• Leaders and managers do not check the impact of their work effectively. Their evaluations of teaching and pupils’ outcomes are overly generous. As a result, the school has declined because leaders have failed to recognise weaknesses and intervene in a timely or effective manner.
• The capacity of leaders is significantly impaired by an ineffective governing body. As a result, senior leaders’ skills and talents have not been nurtured and leaders do not plan effectively to meet urgent priorities for school improvement.
• The weak capacity of leadership, including governance, has been detrimental to the work and effectiveness of the headteacher. For example, serious behavioural issues have previously consumed large amounts of her time and energy. In the meantime, other important aspects of the school have suffered.
• Leaders do not prioritise actions to improve the school. Their plans and actions lack precision and clarity about, for example, appropriate milestones and measures to show improvement is taking place. Consequently, leaders are not taking the right actions to secure the necessary improvements.
• Subject leaders’ skills are underdeveloped. There is insufficient professional development to enable subject leaders to undertake their roles effectively. As a result, subject leaders do not contribute effectively to wider school improvement.
• Lines of accountability are not clear. This leads to confusion and a lack of clarity among leaders in holding others to account. One example is identifying or monitoring pupils who have persistently high absence.
• Leaders, including governors, do not have high academic expectations for the pupils. Their systems and processes are too slow to identify pupils who are falling behind. Furthermore, leaders do not take enough account of pupils’ prior attainment and they set undemanding targets in reading, writing and mathematics. As a result, many pupils make slow progress and fall below the standards they are capable of reaching.
• The additional pupil premium funding is spent on a range of activities. However, leaders have not evaluated its effectiveness, especially in raising achievement of those supported by this funding. As a result, not enough is being done to remove barriers and accelerate progress over time for the very few disadvantaged pupils.
• The use of additional funding for pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities is weak. Higher needs funding supports pupils who have complex needs well. However, there is a gap in the support for other pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities. For example, targets in their individual plans are not followed up by teachers in their ongoing work.
• Leaders ensure that the curriculum includes the full range of subjects and an appropriate range of experiences for the pupils. For example, pupils in key stage 2 are learning about the earth’s orbit and what makes the seasons around the world. This provides pupils with opportunities to apply skills across the curriculum and in different contexts.
• Leaders plan pupils’ social, moral, spiritual and cultural development through a variety of activities. For example, assemblies focus on themes such as ‘thankfulness’ and consider this in the light of different world faiths. A range of inclusive clubs, such as rugby, art and drawing, also include pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities.
• The physical education and sport premium is spent effectively. A significant proportion of the funds contribute towards employing an outside agency, who deliver a holistic approach to sports, healthy eating and well-being across the school.
• Parents typically endorse the school and are proud of the links the school has in the community. There are generally positive relations with parents, reflected in the number of volunteer helpers who hear pupils read.
• The local authority has recently found a new chair of the governing body to work in the school and has been active through adviser visits. Local authority advisers have also been instrumental in brokering a local leader in education (LLE) to support leaders and governors. However, this has come too late to prevent significant decline since the previous inspection.
• Newly qualified teachers may not be appointed to work in the school.

Governance of the school

• Since the previous inspection, governors have been ineffective in checking the work of the school. Their evaluations have been inaccurate and based on inaccurate first-hand information and monitoring visits. Consequently, for too long they have had a false impression of the effectiveness of their own work and the work of other leaders. This has led to a decline in the quality of education and care that the pupils receive.
• The following weaknesses have contributed to the ineffectiveness of governance:
  • Recent changes and a number of vacancies in the governing body lead to continuing inconsistencies in the governance of the school.
  • Governors do not have the skills, knowledge and understanding to effectively challenge the headteacher or hold senior leaders to account. This has been a significant factor in the school’s decline.
  • Governors do not have a strong understanding of their roles and responsibilities. As a result, they have failed to hold leaders firmly to account or work effectively with the headteacher to identify the right priorities to improve the school.
  • The weaknesses of the governing body have meant that the headteacher has been undertaking too many other functions in running the school, which has led to her being distracted from her core business.
  • For too long, the governors’ management of their own business has been poor and ineffective. Their expectations of pupils have been too low and they have not focused well enough on the critical areas for improvement. Governors are now receiving support from county finance officers to help them manage their budget.
• The appointments of a new chair of the governing body, vice-chair and clerk since September 2017 are starting to bring about the very earliest signs of improvement. In particular, the chair of the governing body has already taken action to amend the structure of the governing body and stipulate key training for governors, including in safeguarding.
• The new chair of the governing body demonstrates a strong understanding of the needs of the school. Governors’ minutes show, for example, that there are to be revised targets for pupils to raise aspirations of their achievement in reading, writing and mathematics.

Safeguarding

• The arrangements for safeguarding are effective.
• Leaders have a clear focus and attention on safeguarding principles and practice. This is seen, for example, in the pre-employment vetting checks and processes for the new staff appointed in September 2017.
• Leaders complete the necessary audits and checks for safeguarding. They respond quickly to any omissions or improvement points that these raise. An example is the, implementation of a strict on-site technology policy and the removal of all visitors’ mobile phones. Staff show a good understanding of the rationale for safeguarding steps and measures.
• Training ensures that all adults in the school are vigilant and aware of safeguarding arrangements. Senior leaders typically work well with other agencies and follow their advice to keep children safe.
• Leaders interact and communicate effectively with parents. Overall, this helps to create a positive culture for safeguarding. However, the high number of exclusions which can affect vulnerable pupils is an area of weakness in the school’s work.
• Staff have a clear understanding of what to do to escalate or refer any concerns. They know how to use the school’s concerns system and who to go to, including in the event of whistle-blowing.
• The culture of the school is one that encourages pupils to be proactive in taking care of themselves and others. Pupils recognise the risks associated with certain activities, including online working, and know how to reduce these.

Quality of teaching, learning and assessment Inadequate

• Teachers do not use assessment information effectively to build the next steps in pupils’ learning precisely enough. As a result, pupils make slow progress from their different starting points in reading, writing and mathematics, especially in key stage 1.
• Teachers do not adapt the work for different pupils quickly enough to deepen their skills, knowledge and understanding. For example, in the teaching of mathematics pupils repeatedly practise skills without being able to use and apply them in a variety of contexts and situations. This means pupils, especially the most able pupils, have limited opportunities to test and manipulate their mathematical reasoning and understanding.
• The expectations that teachers and leaders have of pupils are too low. Teachers assess progress at regular intervals but often fail to identify when pupils’ learning slows. Leaders and teachers are not effective in checking or evaluating how well pupils are catching up. Consequently, pupils do not make the quicker progress of which they are capable.
• Teachers’ and teaching assistants’ weak subject knowledge, especially in key stage 1, limits the progress of pupils. Pupils do not gain comprehensive skills, knowledge or understanding to apply in their reading and writing.
• The structure and organisation of the learning, particularly in writing, restricts pupils from being able to make good progress. For example, overly repetitive planning to draft particular elements of writing prevents pupils from actually writing at greater length and depth. Consequently, pupils do not gain the fluency and mastery required to reach the higher standards.
• Teachers’ planning and provision for pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities is not good enough for too many of the pupils. There is often a mismatch between targets on pupils’ individual plans and work in books. Pupils do not build quickly enough on prior learning or have work matched precisely enough to their particular learning needs. However, the support for pupils who have complex needs is effective in enabling them to take part in lessons and teaching is inclusive.
• In most cases, teaching assistants interact well with the pupils. They provide useful support in some lessons, especially in key stage 2 and in the early years. The most effective support is often targeted to those pupils who have additionally high needs. However, teaching assistant support in key stage 1 is weak, particularly in phonics (letters and the sounds they represent). Here, staff subject knowledge is not strong enough to identify, target and improve pupils’ early phonics skills for reading and writing.
• Classrooms are interesting, vibrant and colourful learning environments. Pupils have access to different materials and resources to help them learn, including counting aids and apparatus in mathematics. This supports pupils in navigating aspects of their own learning.
• Teachers and other adults have positive relationships with the pupils. This supports pupils to feel confident and reassured in their learning.

Personal development, behaviour and welfare Inadequate

Personal development and welfare

• The school’s work to promote pupils’ personal development and welfare is inadequate.
• Pupils lack interest and motivation when the teaching does not hold their attention. In both classes, pupils’ focus drifts and they are not securely building the resilience and skills needed to work at length and depth. This is especially so for the most able pupils.
• The quality of presentation and handwriting in pupils’ workbooks is often weak. This goes unchallenged by the class teacher. As a result, pupils do not consistently take enough pride in their work or attempt to do their best.
• Pupils say that they feel safe and trust school staff. They know how to stay safe in a variety of situations, for example when working online or undertaking fire evacuation drills.

Behaviour

• The behaviour of pupils is inadequate.
• Overall attendance is just below the national average. Leaders do not intervene successfully to reduce the persistent absence of individual pupils. Consequently, the majority of these pupils then have greater difficulties in making good progress or reaching the standards of which they are capable.
• A disproportionately high number of exclusions affects vulnerable pupils and those who have special educational needs and/or disabilities. School leaders, including governors, have not evaluated the effectiveness of this strategy well enough. Consequently, some vulnerable pupils are excluded multiple times and often with repeated patterns of behaviour.
• Pupils recognise how the previous recurrence of unacceptable behaviour (at play and in lessons) has affected their learning and enjoyment over time. In the current academic year this has started to settle. Typically, pupils now conduct themselves well around the school, including at play and lunchtimes. There is a growing sense of an orderly environment where pupils mix and play well together.

Outcomes for pupils Inadequate

• The very small cohorts in the school make national comparisons in any single year unreliable and redundant. However, taking into account all factors, including the high proportion of pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities, the current attainment of pupils across the school in reading, writing and mathematics is unacceptably low.
• From their different starting points, too few pupils over time and currently in the school are reaching the standards of which they are capable. This includes the very few who are most able, who speak English as an additional language or are disadvantaged.
• The quality of work and standards across the curriculum, including science, are low. For example, pupils’ written explanations and recording in key stage 2 science work lack perception and depth, especially for the older or most able pupils.
• Too few pupils are identified early enough as being most-able or talented in reading, writing and mathematics. As a consequence, pupils who otherwise may be able to reach the higher standards across the school, including in the early years foundation stage, are not well supported to fulfil their potential.
• Too few pupils who have lower starting points catch up with their peers. This is also true when pupils start to fall behind. Leaders do not evaluate the impact of interventions and therefore cannot tell whether these are having a rapid impact on pupils’ learning and their outcomes.
• Leaders’ and teachers’ tracking fails to take enough account of the amount of progress that pupils are making over time. The school’s target-setting process lacks rigour and ambition. This assumes ‘average’ progress, which is not rapid enough for many pupils. As a result, progress over time does not improve or enable pupils to make the gains needed.
• Pupils’ writing skills are underdeveloped, especially in terms of their ability to apply basic spelling, punctuation and grammar. Pupils do not gain sufficient word-building skills and typically still struggle with common and age-appropriate spellings.
• In mathematics, pupils in key stage 1 do not grasp key counting skills quickly enough. This is seen in repeated work in their books over time. In key stage 2, pupils are not always given enough high-quality opportunities to apply their skills in a range of situations. As a result, their fluency and understanding of key mathematical concepts are limited.
• Pupils’ reading skills across the school are poor. Reading records and assessments show limited detail about how early reading skills are broken down and built well by teachers. As a result, pupils lack fluency as they progress through the school to meet standards of which they are capable.
• Results in the phonics screening check in Year 1 and Year 2 are improving. However, pupils’ application of phonics to support their reading and especially their writing is weak.
• Pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities make inconsistent progress. The strong focus on supporting pupils’ emotional and social well-being is not reflected in their academic outcomes. Pupils are not challenged or supported consistently to meet targets in their individual plans.

Early years provision Inadequate

• Leaders and teachers in the early years foundation stage do not effectively evaluate and review provision to inform their work and priorities. Leaders are unclear about the next steps for improvement, which strongly reduces capacity to improve.
• Professional development and training in the early years is not linked to clear and discernible improvement priorities. As a result, the quality of teaching, learning and assessment is not well targeted to improve.
• The use of assessment information in the early years is weak. Teaching fails to target the precise needs of children early enough or to challenge and support them to make rapid progress. For example, children stall in their mathematical understanding and development by repeating basic concepts (number bonds to 10) and are not being taught more complicated skills, knowledge and understanding soon enough. As a result, too few exceed the early learning goals to show rapid learning.
• Most children start school from the on-site pre-school and are working well within what is typical for their age. However, leaders have been too slow to recognise the potential of the children at the earliest starting points.
• Links with the pre-school are especially strong. There are opportunities for the children to integrate and be involved throughout the year leading up to their start in the Reception Year. This provides an especially useful support for parents and children.
• The early years environment promotes activity and provides children with practical experiences. This is particularly beneficial for their physical development.
• Safeguarding in the early years foundation stage is effective.

School details

Unique reference number Local authority Inspection number 123668 Somerset 10036982 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 Maintained 4 to 11 Mixed Number of pupils on the school roll 40 Appropriate authority The governing body Chair Headteacher Telephone number Website Email address Heather Burnett Sarah Stringer 01460 30377 slp5.somerset.org.uk/webs/win sham office@winsham.somerset.sch.uk Date of previous inspection 3–4 October 2013

Information about this school

• The school meets requirements on the publication of specified information on its website.
• Due to cohort size, the school is not compared to the government’s floor standards.
• The school is part of the Willow Schools Co-operative Trust, which consists of three schools.
• The school is currently receiving support from a local leader in education (LLE).
• Winsham Primary School is much smaller than the average primary school. It consists of two classes, one covering the early years and key stage 1 and the other is a key stage 2 class.
• The proportion of pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities is above the national average.
• The proportion of pupils supported by the pupil premium grant is below the national average.
• There is an on-site pre-school that is not run by the governing body.

Information about this inspection

• The inspector visited both classes and was accompanied by the headteacher through the majority of inspection activities.
• The inspector held meetings with leaders to evaluate their work. These included: the headteacher; the special educational needs coordinator; and the chair and one other member of the governing body. The inspector also spoke with an adviser from Somerset local authority. In addition, he met with the LLE supporting the school.
• The inspector scrutinised a number of documents, including information relating to governors’ visits, assessment information, the school’s self-evaluation, teaching and learning monitoring reports, anonymised performance management records and the school development plan.
• The inspector also carried out one observation of part of a physical education lesson.
• The inspector undertook extensive scrutiny of pupils’ books on both days of the inspection with the headteacher. This was to evaluate the quality of work and check the accuracy of assessment information, including for disadvantaged pupils, those who have special educational needs and/or disabilities, as well as those who speak English as an additional language.
• The inspector spoke to children through various activities during the inspection and listened to pupils in Years 1, 4 and 5 read.
• The inspector observed pupils at playtime and lunchtime.
• The 22 responses to Ofsted’s online survey, Parent View, were taken into account. The inspector met with some parents on the first day of the inspection. In addition, the inspector took into account other views communicated to Ofsted. There were six responses to the staff survey.

Inspection team

Stewart Gale, lead inspector

Her Majesty’s Inspector