Christ The King Catholic School, Amesbury Ofsted Report

coming to school.

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 effectiveness of leadership and management by:
  • securing leadership capacity in the school so that leadership is not reliant on external support
  • securing an effective safeguarding culture
  • ensuring that middle leaders receive the training and support they need to meet the requirements of their roles
  • establishing clear systems to check the progress of all groups of pupils so that the measurement of pupils’ achievement is accurate
  • ensuring that leaders’ checks on teaching are robust and that teachers act on leaders’ advice so that pupils who have previously underachieved catch up quickly
  • improving the provision for disadvantaged pupils and pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities, so that these pupils make consistently good progress
  • insisting that teacher assessment is accurate
  • ensuring that curriculum requirements are met, in English, mathematics and across a wide range of subjects
  • ensuring that leaders and governors track pupils’ behaviour so that it improves and becomes good.
• Improve the quality of teaching, learning and assessment by ensuring that:
  • teachers have consistently high expectations of what pupils can achieve and challenge middle-attaining and the most able pupils sufficiently
  • teachers plan work that meets pupils’ needs in English so that pupils use and apply their reading and writing skills well and make good progress
  • teachers plan work that enables pupils to use and apply their mathematical skills to reason and solve problems proficiently for their age
  • teaching in the early years is consistently good, assessment is accurate and provision inside and outside is consistently good.
• Improve the quality of personal development and welfare urgently by ensuring that:
  • teaching motivates and interests pupils, so that pupils’ passivity is minimised and pupils consistently apply their best effort to their learning
  • learning time is used to its full extent across the day
  • safeguarding systems minimise pupils’ risk of harm and support the most vulnerable pupils to achieve consistently well. An external review of the school’s use of 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

• Over time, leadership at the school has been ineffective. Endemic weaknesses remain unresolved. Low expectations of teaching and pupils’ progress and achievement are too freely accepted. The school is failing to provide an acceptable standard of education for its pupils.
• Weak strategic leadership at the school has resulted in widespread failings. Significant staff changes, problems with staff recruitment and changes to middle leadership have led to poor adherence to school policy. However, this does not fully explain the reasons for the school’s decline. Senior leadership has not a secured an effective safeguarding culture neither has it dealt with weak teaching or pupils’ underachievement well enough. The capacity to bring about further improvement is poor.
• Senior leaders do not work strategically to improve pupils’ progress and achievement. Leaders have not ensured that assessment systems are fit for purpose. Despite considerable support from the local authority, an accurate whole school system to track the performance of individual pupils and groups is not yet in place. Currently, leaders are implementing basic systems. This is helping them to gain a more accurate picture of the extent of pupils’ underachievement. However, this has not been in place long enough for them to use this information to remedy gaps in pupils’ learning.
• Leaders do not check the quality of teaching, learning and assessment adequately. Leaders do not provide staff with the guidance and support they need to improve their teaching. As a result, teachers have gaps in their skills and subject knowledge. This restricts the progress that pupils make.
• Middle and senior leaders do not receive the training and support they need to carry out their roles successfully. Leaders’ development is too dependent on external support. Middle leaders are beginning to check pupils’ achievement in their subjects and phases through book scrutiny. They also undertake some lesson monitoring. However, senior leaders do not have full oversight of this work. As a result, middle leaders have limited impact on the quality of teaching, learning and assessment overall.
• Senior leaders do not analyse records concerning pupils’ behaviour adequately. Leaders are unaware whether the regularity of occasions when pupils demonstrate challenging behaviour or persistent disruption are reducing or increasing over time.
• Leaders do not check the impact of the wider curriculum. The curriculum is too narrow. Teaching does not deepen pupils’ understanding or require pupils to use and apply their English and mathematical skills across a wide range of subjects.
• Leaders do not evaluate the impact of the sports premium funding. They allocated a large proportion of funding for the last academic year to training their staff. No evaluation of the impact of this work exists. No plan is in place for this academic year. An additional sports coach enables pupils to benefit from specialist teaching. However, leaders do not have oversight of this work.
• Leaders’ analysis of the impact of pupil premium funding is not fit for purpose. This makes it difficult for governors to hold leaders to account for how they spend it. Leaders’ actions are not enabling disadvantaged pupils who have previously underachieved in reading, writing and mathematics to catch up quickly enough.
• The leadership for pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities is weak. Current support from the consultant headteacher, in the last few weeks, is ensuring the establishment of systems to measure pupils’ progress and identify actions for improvement. However, much of this work remains at the planning stage. As a result, it is too early to see any impact on raising pupils’ academic achievement.
• Across this academic year, the local authority and diocese have provided a comprehensive package of advice and support. However, school leaders have not coordinated or managed this support well enough, nor have leaders responded to the advice provided swiftly enough. As a result, leaders’ impact on raising pupils’ achievement remains too limited.
• A significant majority of respondents to Ofsted’s online questionnaire, Parent View, raised concerns about leadership and management, the quality of teaching and the progress that their children make. Less than one third of respondents would recommend the school to another parent. Conversely, a small number of parents spoken to during the inspection were very satisfied with the school.
• The consultant headteacher, who has been in post for three weeks, is tenacious in his work. He is making swift inroads to develop school-wide strategies and improve some teaching. Already, more staff are following his guidance. Early signs suggest that actions are beginning to ensure a greater consistency of approaches across the school. However, it is too early to see the impact of his work on improving pupils’ outcomes.

Governance of the school

• Governors have not been successful in halting the decline in the school’s performance. However, in recent months, changes to the leadership of the governing body are bringing about improvements to the way that governors work.
• Minutes of governors’ meetings show that, over time, governors have asked challenging questions of school leaders. However, until recently governors did not follow matters up with sufficient rigour when leaders did not provide them with vital information. This made it difficult for governors to hold leaders to account for their failures in raising pupils’ achievement successfully.
• The current leadership of the governing body insists that school leaders receive clear guidance about what governors expect, when they expect it, and how they will measure impact. Despite this, governors still find it difficult to gain the information they need. They are working in close partnership with the local authority and diocese to remedy the inherent weaknesses and widespread underachievement at the school. For example, the recent action to appoint the consultant headteacher to bolster the leadership in the school is already having a positive impact at the school.

Safeguarding

• The arrangements for safeguarding are not effective. Leaders have not ensured that vetting checks to ensure staff’s suitability to work with children have been completed in line with legislation for all staff. The school has been slow to respond to the actions from the local authority annual safeguarding audit.
• Newly appointed staff receive a safeguarding induction. Staff training has taken place in line with requirements. However, some staff are unsure of how to apply their training to their daily work. Leaders do not ensure that staff’s understanding of training is checked.
• Designated safeguarding leaders (DSLs) have not consistently followed guidance set out in the school’s safeguarding policy. Staff know that if they have a concern about a child, they must quickly inform one of the DSLs and fill in a concern form. Most staff know who the DSLs are. However, staff do not receive feedback on the actions that DSLs take.
• Safeguarding records are disorganised. Until recently, staff did not know how to escalate their concerns when this was needed to prevent children being at risk of harm. On occasions, staff have wrongly been left to resolve issues themselves. The consultant headteacher is modelling effective practice and some improvements are beginning to be evident.
• Pupils talk with confidence about how to keep safe in and out of school. They understand the risks of the internet and sharing information.

Quality of teaching, learning and assessment Inadequate

• Teaching is inadequate. Teaching does not meet the needs of pupils well enough. Leaders’ actions have not brought about necessary improvements or ensured that teaching meets national curriculum requirements. As a result, pupils have considerable gaps in their knowledge, understanding and skills. This restricts the progress that pupils make towards attaining the standards expected for their age.
• Assessment has been inaccurate in the past. Poor assessment practices persist in the majority of classes and year groups. Consequently, teachers do not plan work that is matched to pupils’ needs. All too often, tasks are too easy or do not motivate and interest pupils. This goes unchecked by leaders and so pupils’ underachievement continues.
• Teachers’ expectations are too low. Teaching does not challenge middle-attaining or the most able pupils. Low-attaining pupils do not receive sufficient exposure to work appropriate for their age. Too many teaching sessions finish earlier than necessary; transitions between lessons are overly long. Learning time is not used to its full extent across the school. This is wrongly accepted as the norm.
• The teaching of mathematics does not encompass all aspects of the curriculum. It does not challenge pupils to deepen their conceptual understanding of mathematics. Pupils’ ability to reason and solve problems is therefore not sufficiently developed. The teaching of calculation is improving pupils’ fluency in number gradually. However, middle-attaining and the most able pupils have to do work that is too easy, or repeat learning they have already achieved, before they receive tasks that provide them challenge.
• The teaching of English is poorly planned. The teaching of phonics and early reading is not strong enough over time. There are considerable differences in the quality of teaching phonics across key stage 1. Pupils in the same year group do not have equitable provision because teaching quality varies considerably across classes.
• Teaching does not require pupils to write with the depth, accuracy and detail expected for their age. Over time, the teaching of spelling, punctuation and grammar has been too limited in some year groups. Teaching does not routinely pick up pupils’ weaknesses in these areas. In upper key stage 2, teaching is not making amends for pupils’ prior underachievement. Pupils are not catching up quickly enough towards the standards expected for their age.
• The impact of additional adults is too variable. Adult support does not assist pupils to gain independence in their learning or help pupils develop their skills and knowledge. At times, teachers do not deploy other adults well enough to support learning activities on offer. This limits the impact of additional adults’ work on accelerating pupils’ learning.
• Teaching for pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities is not closely matched to pupils’ learning needs. Consequently, pupils do not gain full access to the curriculum in some classes. Leaders’ actions are not remedying weaknesses in provision quickly enough. Planned interventions to support these pupils are not monitored closely enough. As a result, teaching does not enable this group of pupils to make the progress of which they are capable.
• Increasingly, pupils in the resource base receive teaching that meets their needs. Teachers’ assessments are usually accurate. However, on occasions teachers’ low expectations persist and older pupils are not sufficiently challenged.

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 applied safeguarding guidance stringently; staff have not followed policies. Records for pupils who are at risk of harm are disorganised and do not meet requirements.
• Weak management and analysis of the school’s system to track pupils’ behaviour limits pupils’ personal development and well-being. When pupils receive sanctions because they do not meet the criteria set out in the school’s behaviour policy, staff make a record in the school’s ‘lost playtime file’. However, leaders do not analyse these records over time. Leaders do not explore the reasons for pupils presenting challenging behaviour or being persistently disruptive adequately.
• Pupils do not have full confidence that when they raise concerns these are resolved quickly. Pupils say that when bullying happens staff listen and deal with it but incidences of bullying sometimes reoccur.
• The curriculum does not encourage pupils well enough to show determination in their learning and make sufficient progress in their work. As a result, pupils are not well prepared for their next stage of education.
• Pupils generally play well together at lunchtimes. Pupils from the additional resource base are included in all social times outside successfully. Year 6 buddies support other pupils at breaktimes and lunchtimes well.
• Breakfast club is a positive start to the day for pupils. Pupils enjoy attending and benefit from a healthy breakfast so they are ready to learn.
• Pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities receive caring support to meet their emotional needs. However, pupils’ learning and progress is not checked robustly. As a result, these pupils are not well prepared for their next steps because their academic progress is too inconsistent.
• Pupils who attend the resource base benefit from positive care and emotional support. Increasingly these pupils’ personal needs are met.

Behaviour

• The behaviour of pupils requires improvement. At times, lower-attaining pupils stop work when additional adults leave a work-group. Pupils resume learning when the adult returns, but learning time is too often lost in between.
• Some pupils are too passive. Most pupils work through tasks set for them but do not apply their best effort. All too often, work is not demanding enough for the middle-attaining and the most able pupils. Teachers do not notice quickly enough when pupils stop concentrating on what they are supposed to do. Consequently, this limits pupils’ progress over time.
• Pupils’ attendance is broadly in line with national averages. There is no significant difference in the attendance rates of different groups of pupils. However, until recently persistent absenteeism has gone unchecked. In the last few weeks, school leaders have started to monitor persistent absence more closely. Consequently, they have accurately identified those pupils who have previously been poor attenders to school. The rates at which pupils are excluded from the school are low. Pupils agree that there is an inclusive culture in the school.

Outcomes for pupils Inadequate

• Pupils’ progress and achievement have declined significantly since the last full inspection. Leaders’ actions have not stemmed this decline. As a result, pupils’ underachievement is prevalent across the school. Current teaching is not enabling pupils who have previously underachieved to catch up. Pupils whose previous attainment was average and the most able pupils do not make the progress that they should.
• Leaders’ assessment systems are not fit for purpose. Despite training from the local authority, teachers’ assessments are too often inaccurate.
• The proportion of pupils who reach the standards expected of them in reading, spelling, punctuation and grammar and in mathematics at the end of key stage 2 has been consistently too low. Pupils’ rates of progress are among some of the lowest seen nationally. Pupils’ outcomes in writing declined considerably in 2017.
• At key stage 1, published outcomes showed some improvement in 2017. However, pupils’ rates of achievement in reading, writing and mathematics remain lower than those found nationally. The progress of current pupils is also too variable. Pupils do not receive adequate exposure to challenging tasks in English, mathematics and across a wide range of subjects. The curriculum restricts the progress that pupils make.
• Across the last three years, the proportion of pupils who meet the required standard in the phonics screening check has declined. It is below the national average. This year, leaders’ tracking of pupils’ progress is strengthening and this is helping them to target additional support effectively on those who need it. However, the current teaching of phonics is not good enough. Pupils do not use and apply their phonics and spelling skills well enough. As a result, current pupils do not make the progress of which they are capable.
• The proportion of children who reach a good level of development, the standard that is expected at the end of early years, has been consistently below the national average for the last three years. While there is gradual improvement towards the national average, current children are making insufficient progress over time from their different starting points.
• The progress of pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities is too inconsistent over time. This is because teaching is not closely matched to pupils’ needs. Sometimes pupils cannot access learning because they are not given the resources to support them or because the tasks that teachers set are too difficult.
• Emotional and social support for pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities is successful. This includes planning on an individual basis to provide social skills programmes, play therapy, mentoring and extended transition visits to secondary school for vulnerable pupils in Year 6 to prepare them for the start of Year 7.
• Pupils who attend the resource base make uneven progress. In recent weeks work on offer is more closely matched to pupils’ needs. However, there are occasions where teachers’ expectations are not high enough and some pupils are not sufficiently challenged.
• Disadvantaged pupils do not make the progress that they should. Weak teaching and poor oversight of the progress of this group means that there is a wide difference between disadvantaged pupils’ current achievement and the standards that are expected nationally.

Early years provision Inadequate

• Leadership of the early years is weak. Until very recently, leaders have not held teachers and adults to account for the quality of education provided. Learning time is not used to its full extent. Transitions to and from lessons are too long. Leaders did not pick this up until very recently. As a result, learning time is wasted and children do not receive the teaching they need to make good progress.
• Until recently, leaders’ analysis and assessment of children’s knowledge and skills when they entered the early years has not been fit for purpose. This has made it difficult to ensure that children get the support they need. Inaccuracies in the assessment when children join has also restricted leaders’ ability to measure both individual children’s progress and the progress of groups of children over time.
• Teaching does not build on what children know, can do and understand. Teacher-led sessions are focused and children usually listen well. However, children do not get the direction and structure they need to learn well. When children are exploring and working with greater independence, teachers allow too many to wander from task to task. Staff do not support children well enough so that they remain interested and sustain concentration. They do not make sufficiently pertinent assessments of children’s learning to establish the child’s next steps.
• Poor assessment practices restrict children’s progress. Until very recently, teachers’ assessments have focused on what children are doing rather than what they are learning. Teachers have received training on how to plan experiences that fill gaps in children’s knowledge and understanding. However, it is too soon see the impact of this work.
• The teaching of phonics is not good enough. Children are quick to recall the sounds they are taught. However, they are not able to apply their knowledge to forming letters well enough. For example, when children are asked to write letter shapes in the air, teachers do not pick up when children make mistakes. Teachers do not model writing accurately. As a result, children copy misspelled words and practise and learn incorrect phonics and spelling. Children do not make sufficient progress from their starting points. The quality of their letter and number formation remain too weak for children who entered the school with skills and knowledge expected for their age.
• The outdoor area is not used well. Children are supported through adult-led activities and achieve the tasks set for them. However, when children are experimenting with resources or attempting to cooperate and undertake tasks independently, they are less successful. Some children do not use the equipment on offer appropriately, or they run around the area or clamber over equipment. Support and direction by adults does not sufficiently help children make the most of what is on offer. As a result, adults do not foster children’s personal and social skills well enough.
• Very recently, the inside environment has been rearranged to form a range of learning areas. Children are increasingly confident in exploring these areas. They show a keenness to follow instructions and have good relationships with adults and their peers.
• Staff training is having a positive impact on staff’s subject knowledge. However, it is not yet having the impact on improving teaching and raising children’s progress and achievement.
• Staff do not support children with limited speaking skills sufficiently for them to catch up quickly enough.

School details

Unique reference number Local authority Inspection number 126423 Wiltshire 10045146 This inspection of the school was carried out under section 5 of the Education Act 2005. 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 236 Appropriate authority The governing body Chair Headteacher Miranda Thomas Jerome McCormack Telephone number 01980 622039 Website Email address www.christtheking.wilts.sch.uk admin@christtheking.wilts.sch.uk Date of previous inspection 4–5 June 2014

Information about this school

• There have been considerable staff changes since the last inspection, including in the resource base.
• Since 29 January 2018 there has been a consultant headteacher deployed full time. The substantive headteacher was absent for part of the inspection due to ill health.
• This is an average-sized primary school.
• The proportion of pupils known to be eligible for support from the pupil premium is below the national average.
• The proportion of pupils who receive special educational needs support and those who have a statement of special educational needs or an education, health and care plan is above the national average.
• The school has a communication and interaction resource base. This is a specialist provision for 18 primary-aged children with speech, language and communication needs.
• The school does not meet 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. The school is deemed to be a ‘coasting school’. This means that over time the school has not performed well and pupils over time do not achieve their potential.

Information about this inspection

• Inspectors observed pupils’ learning in visits to lessons across the school, including the resource base, and reviewed pupils’ work in books. The inspection team worked in close partnership with leaders to review pupils’ progress and provision over time.
• Inspectors talked with groups of pupils to seek their views about the school. Inspectors also listened to the views of many pupils during lessons, breaktimes and lunchtimes. Inspectors listened to pupils read from Year 2 and Year 5.
• Inspectors held meetings with the substantive headteacher, the consultant headteacher, the deputy headteacher and middle leaders in the school. Inspectors met with representatives of the governing body and the local authority. A telephone conversation was held with the director of education for the Catholic Diocese of Clifton.
• Inspectors scrutinised a number of school documents, including: the school’s action plans; the school’s view of its own performance; pupils’ performance information; governors’ minutes; records relating to behaviour; checks on teaching and learning; pupils’ attendance information and a range of safeguarding records.
• Inspectors observed pupils’ behaviour in lessons, at lunchtimes and breaktimes and around the school.
• Inspectors held a meeting with the lead teacher from the school’s additional resource base.
• Inspectors considered 48 responses to the online survey, Parent View, as well as 24 free-text responses from parents. Inspectors also talked to parents during the inspection to seek their views of the school and the education that their children receive. Inspectors met with a range of staff to gather their views and considered 13 responses from the online staff questionnaire.
• An inspector visited breakfast club.

Inspection team

Julie Carrington, lead inspector Andrew Brown Kathy Maddocks

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