Hanham Woods Academy 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 improve the quality of teaching and raise pupils’ achievement by:
  • making sure that teachers have the highest expectations of pupils
  • improving the accuracy of assessment of pupils’ work and ensuring that pupils understand clearly how well they are achieving in relation to challenging targets
  • giving pupils clear explanations of what they are to learn and how they will achieve success
  • providing well-planned work for pupils, particularly boys and the most able pupils, which challenges them academically and helps them make better progress.
• Improve pupils’ personal development, behaviour and welfare by:
  • insisting that all teachers apply the school’s behaviour policy in a robust and consistent way
  • making sure, through the strengthening of teaching, that all pupils take pride in their work and are motivated to succeed
  • continuing to work with pupils, parents and other agencies to raise pupils’ attendance to at least the national average.
• Improve leadership and management by:
  • rapidly establishing better communication between the school and parents
  • improving the effectiveness of senior leaders’ actions to develop pupils’ literacy skills across the school
  • developing the precision of middle leaders’ evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of their departments based on accurate assessment information
  • ensuring that middle leaders use training opportunities in other schools within the trust to improve their leadership skills and so achieve rapid improvement in teaching in their subject areas
  • making sure that additional funding for disadvantaged pupils is used effectively to help these pupils make rapid progress.

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. An external review of governance 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

• Senior leaders are failing to provide pupils with an acceptable standard of education. They have not done enough to improve the quality of teaching, learning and assessment. As a result, pupils’ academic achievement has been held back for too long.
• Senior leaders have not done enough to create a culture where pupils and staff have high aspirations. Senior leaders’ efforts to improve pupils’ behaviour have not been effective. Disruption in classrooms continues because staff are inconsistent in their approach to discipline. Communication between the school and parents is weak. Many parents are frustrated by the lack of information they receive from the school.
• Senior leaders have not used pupil premium funding well. They have not developed strategies that are effective in raising the achievement of disadvantaged pupils. Consequently, these pupils, including the most able disadvantaged pupils, continue to underachieve considerably when compared to pupils with the same starting points nationally.
• Until very recently, senior leaders have not evaluated effectively the use of extra funding for Year 7 pupils who have fallen behind in English and/or mathematics. Senior leaders are currently reviewing the help that is provided for these pupils. Leadership of efforts to promote pupils’ literacy skills across the school has not yet resulted in the consistent approach necessary to help pupils overcome their previously weak skills.
• Middle leadership in key departments, including English, mathematics, science, humanities and modern foreign languages, has been ineffective. Middle leaders monitor the work of their teams, but they have not secured the necessary improvements and so pupils’ outcomes remain inadequate.
• Assessment of pupils’ work has been inaccurate for several years and so senior leaders and governors have not had a clear understanding of pupils’ progress. Teachers’ predictions about the likely attainment of pupils were far too generous. This meant that senior leaders were not able to target guidance to meet the needs of individual pupils and help them improve. New systems have been introduced recently to moderate assessments against those of other schools. However, this assessment information is not well used because many pupils do not know their current level of attainment or what is expected of them.
• Senior leaders have introduced a new structure for managing the performance of staff. Staff at all levels are now more accountable for their work because responsibilities are better defined. Professional development opportunities, such as specialist coaching from colleagues at other schools, are closely linked to new plans for improvement. It is too early to assess the impact of these plans.
• Additional funding for pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities is used well. This area of the school’s work has improved because extra help for pupils is being targeted effectively. The leadership of the specialist resource centre for pupils who have autistic spectrum disorders is effective in meeting these pupils’ needs.
• The key stage 3 curriculum has been through a gradual process of change since the school opened. From September 2017, the curriculum in Years 7 and 8 is aligned with other schools in the trust. The key stage 4 curriculum offers a good range of GCSE-level courses which are appropriate for the needs of pupils. Pupils have access to extra-curricular clubs, including many sporting activities. A suitable programme of careers, personal, social and health education provides a range of opportunities for pupils to think carefully about life in modern Britain. As a result, pupils have a good understanding of democracy, tolerance and the rule of law. For example, key stage 3 pupils spoke confidently, and with genuine passion, about the rights of minority groups.
• Pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development is supported well by the curriculum and through assemblies. The tutorial programme is less effective because, typically, tutors do not use the time wisely.
• The principal has worked hard and with determination to secure a committed team of senior leaders. The great majority of these senior leaders took up their posts just a few weeks before the inspection. Their plans for improving the school have not yet demonstrated any significant effect on improving pupils’ progress.
• The trust’s support has led directly to improvements in the safeguarding arrangements at the school, including improvements to the security of the site. Advice from the trust helped the school through a period of financial uncertainty, and has ensured a balanced budget for this year.
• Such successes have not been replicated in improving the quality of education. In the three years since the school joined the trust, its leaders have been unable to effect the improvement required to develop the quality of teaching and too many pupils continue to underachieve.
• It is recommended that newly qualified teachers should not be appointed.

Governance of the school

• The trust has not secured improvement in pupils’ achievement or behaviour since the school opened three years ago. The trust underestimated the challenges faced by the school. Inaccurate assessment data has meant that development priorities have not been identified urgently enough.
• The academy council, the body which oversees the work of the school at a local level, has not ensured that pupil premium funding and Year 7 catch up funding have been well spent. Councillors have relied too heavily on senior leaders’ flawed analysis of its impact.
• Councillors have fulfilled their statutory duties for safeguarding. They have managed the finances of the school well, particularly at a time of insecurity and turbulence in staffing. Extra funding for pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities has been overseen effectively.
• A new chair of the academy council was appointed in the last few weeks. He has the necessary experience but has not had time to make a demonstrable difference in the school.

Safeguarding

• The arrangements for safeguarding are effective.

• The principal and senior leaders have ensured that safeguarding is a priority at the school. A detailed audit process, instigated by the trust, has resulted in up-to-date policies and procedures being in place. These are followed by staff when they have concerns. Senior leaders make timely referrals to outside agencies when necessary. They carry out appropriate checks to make sure that all staff are suitable to work with children.
• Pupils say they feel safe and well cared for at school. They have a good understanding of risk, including radicalisation. They are taught how to stay safe, including when using the internet. Although many parents have concerns about behaviour at the school, the large majority of parents who responded to the online survey, Parent View, said that their child is safe and well looked after at school.
• The principal has ensured that all staff are kept aware of their safeguarding responsibilities; consequently, there is a culture of vigilance that runs throughout the school.

Quality of teaching, learning and assessment Inadequate

• Teaching does not lead to pupils making good enough progress. Historically poor teaching has left many pupils with gaps in their knowledge and understanding. These gaps are not being addressed quickly enough.
• Many teachers’ expectations are not high enough. Teaching is often poorly planned to meet the varying abilities and needs of pupils. As a result, much teaching lacks challenge and so fails to engage pupils. This leads to slow progress, particularly for boys and disadvantaged pupils.
• Teachers’ assessments of pupils’ work were inaccurate last year. This led to overgenerous predictions about the outcomes pupils would attain. Teachers do not create enough opportunities to check on pupils’ learning. Pupils’ misconceptions are allowed to persist because teachers do not pick up on them quickly enough.
• Work in many pupils’ books is incomplete and untidy, and shows little care. When pupils have been absent, they are not motivated to catch up on the work they have missed. This is representative of the low standards that many pupils and teachers have accepted over time.
• Teachers do not explain well enough to pupils what they are required to do. Many pupils are unclear about the structure of their learning as a result, and unsure of what to do to succeed.
• In some subjects, a series of temporary teachers have been used. This has been very frustrating for pupils and parents. Teachers’ skills in behaviour management are often poor in these lessons. As a result, pupils’ progress has been held back. Leaders are working to stabilise staffing and to support those staff who are new to the school.
• The teaching of science, mathematics and history is not good enough. Work is set at too low a level of demand to help pupils match the progress of other pupils nationally. Teaching in physical education, art and health and social care is of a much higher quality. Pupils are engaged and motivated by interesting work. Consequently, they enjoy these subjects and achieve well.
• Teaching in English is improving. Pupils are now being asked to think more deeply about their work. However, weaker literacy skills, in particular spelling, punctuation and grammar, too often go unnoticed across other subject areas.
• Teaching assistants’ support of pupils with additional needs is improving. Many pupils, including pupils who have an autistic spectrum disorder, now benefit from specialist extra help. These pupils’ progress from their starting points is accelerating quickly.

Personal development, behaviour and welfare Inadequate

Personal development and welfare

• The school’s work to promote pupils’ personal development and welfare is inadequate because too many pupils display negative attitudes to learning. Many pupils are not committed to their work and, consequently, they make slower progress than they are capable of.

• Pupils in both key stage 3 and key stage 4 expressed little pride in their learning or their school. Around the school site, there is evidence of litter and some damage to buildings.
• Although pupils are dissatisfied with many aspects of school life, they recognise that the school keeps them safe and secure. Pupils are taught how to protect themselves from potential risks and so they have an age-appropriate understanding of safety matters, for example how to stay safe when using the internet. Pupils are aware of the risks of radicalisation and extremism.
• Pupils understand the different forms that bullying can take. Many pupils are confident that when it does occur, senior leaders respond quickly to deal with it.
• Pupils value the programme of personal, social and health education that senior leaders have introduced. Pupils are able to discuss a range of issues confidently and with sensitivity. Pupils are aware of the importance of maintaining good physical and mental health. They describe accurately the steps they can take to stay healthy. For example, many pupils take up opportunities to engage in sporting activities at the school.
• The school provides pupils with a good range of timely information about the possible careers they might follow. Consequently, pupils are well informed about different employment or training opportunities.

Behaviour

• The behaviour of pupils is inadequate because a significant minority of pupils show a lack of self-discipline. Pupils report that lessons are often disrupted by poor behaviour, especially where lessons are taken by temporary staff.

• A significant proportion of parents feel that the school does not make sure pupils are well behaved. Many staff agree. Some pupils show a lack of respect for each other and for their teachers. This leads to regular incidents of poor behaviour at break and at lunchtime. Changes to the school’s behaviour management procedures were introduced very recently. As such, there has been no time to evaluate the effectiveness of these revised procedures.
• Pupils’ attendance is below the national average but improving slowly. Current Year 10 pupils’ attendance, in particular, is well below average. Although there has been a reduction in the number of pupils who are persistently absent from school, too many disadvantaged pupils still do not attend regularly.
• Last year the proportion of pupils excluded from school was above average. This has stabilised and fewer pupils are now being excluded. The effect of the school’s new behaviour management process on the number of pupils who are excluded is yet to be seen.
• Pupils who are educated in alternative provision off-site behave appropriately. Communication between these providers and the school is good.

Outcomes for pupils Inadequate

• Outcomes are inadequate because pupils do not make sufficient progress from their starting points. In 2016, GCSE results were well below the government’s floor standard. Unvalidated GCSE results in 2017 show that standards have not improved and are still considerably lower than could reasonably be expected. Pupils, particularly boys, continue to make very weak progress in all major subject areas. Consequently, even though Year 11 pupils joined the school with average attainment, their attainment at GCSE was well below average by the time they left.
• Pupils’ progress in GCSE English and in GCSE mathematics was very weak in 2016. Teachers’ assessments of pupils’ attainment were inaccurate last year. Predictions about pupils’ likely results were overly optimistic. Actual GCSE results in English and mathematics showed no improvement in pupils’ progress in 2017. In both subjects, teachers’ expectations are too low. Pupils do not make rapid progress because they are not challenged sufficiently. In science, modern languages, geography and history pupils’ attainment at GCSE was below average last year.
• Key stage 4 pupils currently in the school show some improvement in English. However, pupils’ work indicates that large gaps in knowledge and skills still hamper their progress across a range of subjects. Key stage 3 pupils’ work also showed they are not making sufficient progress. Weak literacy skills, which are not being addressed quickly enough, prevent many pupils from learning effectively.
• Disadvantaged pupils achieved significantly less well in 2016 and 2017 than other pupils nationally with the same starting points. Although teachers are now identifying barriers to individual pupils’ learning, poor planning means that their needs are not being met. Consequently, disadvantaged pupils’ progress remains slow.
• Pupils receive sound advice about their next steps when they leave the school through a well-organised careers education programme. However, because pupils’ attainment across a range of eight GCSE subjects is poor, their choices when they leave school are not as wide as they should be. This is particularly true of disadvantaged pupils.
• The most able pupils, including the most able disadvantaged pupils, considerably underachieved in 2016 and 2017. The level of challenge for the most able pupils currently in the school has risen in English. However, in science and mathematics these pupils are still not making sufficient progress because teachers’ poor planning is not providing suitably demanding work.
• Pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities are helped to achieve well from their different starting points. The school ensures that effective assistance is in place for these pupils. Pupils who attend the autistic spectrum disorder resource base are supported well in their learning. These pupils are successfully integrated into the life of the school.
• Pupils with low levels of attainment are supported well by teachers and teaching assistants. Consequently, they are beginning to develop their confidence and make better progress than previously.
• A small number of pupils attend off-site provision at Pathways Learning Centre, St Matthias Park or CLF Engage. Senior leaders from the trust make regular visits to these centres and ensure that pupils are safe, well cared for and progressing well.

School details

Unique reference number 141042 Local authority South Gloucestershire Inspection number 10033113 This inspection of the school was carried out under section 5 of the Education Act 2005. Type of school Secondary Comprehensive School category Age range of pupils Gender of pupils Academy sponsor-led 11 to 16 Mixed Number of pupils on the school roll 862 Appropriate authority Cabot Learning Federation board of directors Chair of board of directors Professor Jane Harrington Chair of academy council Jon Gould Principal Telephone number Website Email address Stephen Kneller 0117 440 8900 www.hanhamwoods.academy s.kneller@hanhamwoods.academy Date of previous inspection Not previously inspected

Information about this school

• The school opened in September 2014. It is sponsored by the Cabot Learning Federation multi-academy trust.

• The principal was appointed in April 2016 and the vice principal joined the school in September 2016. Most of the other senior leaders joined the school in September 2017.
• The school is an average-sized secondary school. The proportion of pupils who are supported through pupil premium funding is below average.
• The proportion of pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities is average. However, the proportion of pupils who have an education, health and care plan is above average. The school runs a specialist resource base for pupils who have an autistic spectrum disorder.
• A small number of pupils attend off-site alternative provision at Pathways Learning Centre, St Matthias Park or CLF Engage.
• The school does not meet the government’s current floor standards, which are the minimum expectations for pupils’ attainment and progress by the end of Year 11.
• The school does not meet requirements on the publication of information about its use of pupil premium funding or funding for Year 7 pupils who have fallen behind in English and/or mathematics and need to catch up.
• The school does not comply with Department for Education guidance on what academies should publish about the use of extra funding for particular groups of pupils.

Information about this inspection

• Inspectors held meetings with the principal, senior leaders, middle leaders, the chair of the academy council and one other councillor. The lead inspector met with the chair of the trust, the chief executive officer, the executive director of education and the executive principal.
• Inspectors observed learning across a wide range of subjects and age groups and scrutinised samples of pupils’ written work. Many of these observations and activities were carried out jointly with senior leaders.
• Inspectors looked at a range of documentation including the school’s review of its own performance, minutes of governors’ meetings, development plans, safeguarding documents, attendance and behaviour logs and analysis of pupils’ progress.
• Meetings were held with several different pupil groups from key stages 3 and 4. Inspectors spoke with pupils informally in lessons, at breaktime and at lunchtime.
• Inspectors took account of 164 responses to the online questionnaire, Parent View. The lead inspector held a telephone conversation with one parent. Inspectors took account of 72 responses to the online staff questionnaire.

Inspection team

Paul Williams, lead inspector Carol Hannaford Shelagh Pritchard Steve Colledge

Her Majesty’s Inspector Ofsted Inspector Ofsted Inspector Ofsted Inspector