The Jane Lane School, A College for Cognition & Learning 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?

• Immediately address safeguarding concerns by:
  • improving the monitoring and support given to pupils with low levels of attendance, involving wider external agencies as required
  • working with the local authority to ensure that any pupils who should be admitted to the school are supported to do so
  • urgently reviewing the support given to pupils on reduced timetables so that they can return to full-time learning as soon as possible
  • auditing the health needs of all pupils and establishing, where necessary, risk assessments that fully set out how staff should respond to any potential symptoms or risks
  • renewing physical intervention training for staff within locally agreed timescales
  • ensuring that records of any physical intervention are completed in full by staff
  • making sure that concerns raised about pupils are fully addressed and recorded by the school’s designated safeguarding leads.
• Improve leadership and management by making sure that:
  • the serious concerns relating to safeguarding are immediately addressed with the support of the local authority
  • senior leaders fully evaluate the effectiveness of the school and use this information to prioritise the actions required to secure improvement
  • governors work with the local authority to build greater capacity in leadership and halt the decline in safety and standards
  • governors ensure that senior leaders are provided with a much greater level of challenge and support, and that leaders’ actions are carefully monitored for impact
  • the school’s website fully meets the requirements set by the department for education
  • the whole workforce has higher expectations of pupils, take pride in their school and adopt a more united approach
  • the overall standard of the school environment is enhanced so that it is clean, appealing and inviting for pupils to learn in
  • teachers receive regular feedback about their practice and are provided with a comprehensive menu of training that addresses the school’s key priorities
  • staff work together to review the impact that the curriculum has on pupils’ learning.
• Improve teaching and learning, and thereby outcomes for pupils, by making sure that:
  • teachers have higher expectations of what pupils can achieve
  • new assessment systems are fully embedded and understood by teachers
  • information about what pupils can do, and what they need to get better at, is used effectively to plan for learning
  • teachers’ planning in the wider curriculum builds pupils’ knowledge and skills progressively over time
  • the priorities identified in pupils’ education, health and care plans are used to inform day-to-day teaching.
• Improve pupils’ personal development, behaviour and welfare by:
  • taking greater account of the government’s careers guidance and establishing a clearer strategy for future development
  • embedding the improved systems for tracking and monitoring pupils’ behaviour
  • more closely meeting the needs of pupils learning in the school’s ‘bases’.
• Improve provision in the sixth form by:
  • evaluating what is and isn’t effective
  • establishing clearer strategic direction and leadership
  • ensuring programmes of study build on learners’ prior skills and offer a higher level of challenge
  • promoting learners’ independence skills and offering a much stronger level of careers education. A review of governance is recommended in order to assess how this aspect of leadership and management may be improved. A review of pupil premium funding is recommended in order to assess how this aspect of leadership and management may be improved.

Inspection judgements

Effectiveness of leadership and management Inadequate

• Safeguarding is ineffective at this school. Leaders and governors have not ensured that basic systems are fit for purpose. There has been a period of considerable instability in staffing over the last year and currently there are a significant number of temporary staff. There are many weaknesses across the school, which makes it difficult for leaders to know where to start improvement work.
• Leaders and governors have not conducted any meaningful evaluation of the school’s overall effectiveness. They do not have an overarching strategy for identifying weaknesses and taking appropriate actions to put things right. Leaders have devised an action plan, but this is incomplete and does not address the key issues that have been identified at this inspection.
• In recent months, a set of core values has been agreed by staff. This action supports the development of a clearer approach to establishing the school’s direction and expectations. However, staff are not able to clearly articulate the priorities of the school. Staff lack direction because they have not been well led and are not united. Some shared serious concerns about aspects of leadership, governance and safety. Conversely, many staff identified strengths of the school and expressed how much they enjoy coming to work. The strengths they identify relate to the quality of the relationships that many staff have with pupils.
• The local authority and governors have not worked together to establish a programme of support for the school. Governors state that they have made repeated requests for advice and support. The local authority has provided insufficient challenge and support historically. In recent months, the local authority has commissioned a review of the school’s effectiveness, and officers have communicated the concerns identified by the review to the chair of governors.
• Leaders are beginning to address weaknesses, but much of their work is very new. Despite the tenacity and hard work of some individuals, there is much more to do. Given the level of change required at the school, leaders and governors do not have the capacity to bring about the improvements required without additional support.
• The curriculum is poorly organised. There is no clear intent. Learning is not linked across different subjects and there is no established pathway for pupils to build up their knowledge and skills over time. Inspectors were presented with teachers’ plans that did not match to the overviews of the curriculum held centrally by leaders. Some aspects of curriculum design are dominated by the activities that pupils will undertake rather than focusing on the skills and knowledge they will acquire.
• Though a more formal programme of staff training has been adopted in recent weeks, over time, staff have not been supported with meaningful opportunities to develop their practice. Similarly, inspectors found no evidence of any staff appraisals.
• The rational for the use of pupil premium funding, based on the barriers experienced by disadvantaged pupils, is set out on the school’s website by school leaders. However, it is difficult to establish the full impact of the school’s work as some outcomes are based on out-dated assessment systems. Governors have not fully scrutinised the impact of this funding or satisfied themselves that expenditure is addressing the barriers to learning experienced by disadvantaged pupils.
• The primary PE and sport premium funding has not been spent appropriately. It has not been used to support pupils’ physical development for two years. It is unclear how pupils currently on roll are benefiting from this annual income.
• The poor condition of many public areas, including areas designated for learning, demonstrates a lack of pride in the school environment. Inspectors found discarded resources, damaged and stained furniture and some poor levels of basic cleanliness.
• The school does promote fundamental British values, and the personal, social, health and education (PSHE) curriculum is well thought out. As a result, pupils have an opportunity to learn about important events and about their community.
• Newly qualified teachers (NQTs) may not be appointed.

Governance of the school

• Governors have failed to address a range of issues, including weaknesses in the quality of teaching, learning and assessment, the curriculum and outcomes for pupils. Above all, they have not adequately held senior leaders to account or satisfied themselves that pupils are safe.
• Governors were unaware of some of the concerns identified relating to the overall standard of education. They are unclear about the impact that teaching and the quality of the curriculum has on learning. Minutes of meetings of the governing body record very little scrutiny or challenge. Inspectors were not presented with any evidence of how governors manage the performance of the headteacher. Oversight of the impact of leadership is weak.
• The school’s website does not meet statutory requirements. This shortcoming has been identified in previous reports, but insufficient action has been taken to address it. The following items remain outstanding: there is no named contact; there is insufficient information about the curriculum; the effect of the PE and sport premium is unknown as it has not been allocated; and there is no information about governors’ duties in other schools.
• Governors are determined to improve their practice and bring about improvement in the school.

Safeguarding

• The arrangements for safeguarding are not effective.
• Several pupils with poor attendance have not received the necessary support or referrals to external agencies. It is difficult to fully ascertain how the school records and monitors the absence of some pupils. There are examples of some pupils being absent from school for several weeks, with limited information about how this has been followed up on a day-to-day basis.
• During the inspection, the local authority stated that there are pupils with Jane Lane named as their school on their education, health and care plan but they are not attending. This matter is being investigated by leaders and the local authority.
• A number of pupils are on reduced timetables and are not receiving their entitlement to a full-time education. Inspectors were not presented with any evidence to show how this situation is monitored or what actions the school, and any other relevant agencies, are taking to ensure that pupils return to full-time learning.
• Several pupils throughout the school have complex health needs. These health needs are set out in ‘pupil passports’, which are displayed in classrooms. In several instances, leaders were unaware of pupils’ acute health needs despite these being set out and displayed in classrooms. The school has not established any risk assessments to help staff identify and respond appropriately to any potential symptoms of concern. This places pupils at risk.
• Records of physical intervention are incomplete. Several entries in the school’s records do not make it clear if a pupil’s family had been contacted following an incident despite this being the school’s policy. Staff training relating to the use of physical intervention recently lapsed. The training was not completed within locally agreed timescales. Staff have now received updated training.
• The system and process for recording and storing child protection concerns is not fit for purpose. Not all concerns have been appropriately filed. It is very difficult to ascertain the needs of a pupil quickly. The actions taken by leaders in response to several concerns raised about pupils are not adequate.
• Leaders accept that an immediate audit of safeguarding is required. Important actions were taken during the inspection to address the most serious concerns. However, given the lack of capacity in leadership, the local authority must make sure that support is provided to the school to address these issues urgently.

Quality of teaching, learning and assessment Inadequate

• Lesson plans are born from a poorly designed curriculum. Not enough thought and care is given to what will be taught and how pupils’ needs are to be met. As a result, many pupils are not challenged in lessons.
• It is not clear how pupils’ prior learning is used to inform teachers’ plans. Many pupils complete similar activities even though their needs vary considerably. Some of the school’s most vulnerable learners are taught almost exclusively by temporary staff. Though these staff demonstrate some strengths, particularly in terms of managing pupils’ behaviour, the planning of learning in some ‘base’ sessions lacks the detail required to ensure pupils’ complex needs are met.
• Pupils often complete activities that are dominated by work sheets. Learning is not adapted sufficiently to ensure that pupils’ needs, particularly those prioritised in their education, health and care plans, are addressed. This is particularly the case in English and mathematics lessons.
• Some pupils finish activities quickly and are then able to make their own choices about what they do next. While there is value in the choice and independence that this strategy offers, pupils are not routinely stretched in their learning. Inspectors observed pupils finishing work very quickly, particularly in mathematics. Teachers lack confidence in how to take learning to the next level. Activities are often too easy and, as a result, pupils’ progress is weak.
• Staff use different assessment systems across the school. Work is underway to introduce a new system but, currently, very old national curriculum levels are used in some instances to make judgements about pupils’ progress. This is at odds with the changes that have taken place at a national level and demonstrates the fragility of the wider curriculum. There has been limited response to important reviews and recommendations that have been made at a national level for special needs settings.
• Assessment information is not used intelligently by teachers or leaders to determine what works well or what needs to improve further in the school.

Personal development, behaviour and welfare Inadequate

Personal development and welfare

• The school’s work to promote pupils’ personal development and welfare is inadequate.
• Pupils’ safety is undermined by a range of weaknesses in safeguarding. The PSHE curriculum is an emerging strength of the school and helps pupils to know how to keep themselves safe in the community. However, in contrast, many of the school’s safeguarding procedures are weak and place pupils at risk.
• Some pupils who learn in the school’s ‘bases’ find it difficult to engage. The curriculum is particularly weak in this aspect of the school’s provision. As a result, pupils are not engaged or motivated to learn, and their progress is weak.
• Careers education, impartial advice and guidance is not prioritised by the school. Leaders have not undertaken adequate work to respond to the advice set out in the government’s latest careers guidance. This lack of strategic action inhibits the prospects and independence of pupils.

Behaviour

• The behaviour of pupils requires improvement.
• Staff and pupils enjoy positive relationships. Pupils appear happy in school. On the whole, pupils listen attentively to their teachers and follow instructions well.
• The behaviour policy is out of date and suggests a confusing number of systems that are not reflected in practice. Nevertheless, inspectors observed some staff intervening effectively to address incidents of poor behaviour during the inspection. Pupils generally talk confidently and positively about their experiences at school.
• Leaders have now begun to analyse information about behaviour in more detail. They have used this analysis to begin formulating actions that respond to some identified trends. These actions are too recent to fully evaluate impact at this stage.
• The behaviour of pupils in the school’s ‘bases’ is not as good as that found in the rest of the school. This is because teachers’ plans are not taking sufficient account of pupils’ needs.
• Leaders keep records of any physical intervention and analyse these to consider any trends. However, records are incomplete.
• The overall management of admissions and attendance is a concern. Leaders have not routinely ensured that they are confident about where all pupils are and why they may not be attending school. Though levels of attendance have improved slightly in recent years, they remain below national figures. Rates of persistent absence are high compared to national figures; too many pupils miss days from school.

Outcomes for pupils Inadequate

• Leaders are unable to present a clear picture of the progress that pupils currently on roll are making. Old assessment systems, still in use by some teachers, are not fit for purpose.
• Despite several pupils achieving a qualification in GCSE English in 2017, none were entered for this examination in 2018. Inspectors scrutinised pupils’ progress in work books and ‘learning journeys’ in a range of subjects. Pupils’ development of basic skills and progress over time is weak.
• Pupils currently on roll are making weak progress. The most able pupils are not challenged. They complete some activities quickly and with ease. Similarly, activities are not well planned or adapted for pupils with more complex needs. As a result, pupils’ needs are not met and progress is weak.
• The quality of teaching, learning and assessment is not ensuring that pupils make sufficient progress from their different starting points.
• The curriculum is poorly organised and does not allow pupils to acquire knowledge and skills progressively in a range of subjects.
• Day-to-day teaching does not take account of the intended core outcomes identified in pupils’ education, health and care plans. As a result, it is difficult to ascertain what progress pupils make towards developing key skills.
• Teachers’ expectations of what pupils can achieve are not high enough. As a result, pupils are not making the progress that they are capable of.

16 to 19 study programmes Inadequate

• There is no strategic leadership of the school’s sixth form. There is a lack of direction and purpose. Leaders and governors are unclear about the strengths and weaknesses of this aspect of the school. There is no reference to the sixth form in the school’s current improvement plan.
• The quality of teaching in the sixth form is similar to that found elsewhere in the school. The curriculum is weak, and teachers do not offer students adequate challenge.
• It is unclear how students build on their prior learning in English and mathematics to further develop their skills. Teachers do not routinely use what they know about students to plan the next steps in learning.
• The overall organisation of programmes of study and courses is weak. Students have very little choice over the subjects they study. This does not encourage or develop students’ independence skills and does not allow them to build on their strengths.
• The proportion of students in sustained destinations has dropped in recent years. The inspection team requested more recent data from the school, but this was not known.
• With the exception of visits from an external careers adviser, planning for careers education and work experience is weak. The school has not capitalised on government advice or available self-evaluation tool kits to help them understand how careers guidance can be developed.
• Students respond positively to staff and appear to enjoy their studies.

School details

Unique reference number Local authority Inspection number 104271 Walsall 10025415 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 Special School category Age range of pupils Gender of pupils Gender of pupils in 16 to 19 study programmes Number of pupils on the school roll Of which, number on roll in 16 to 19 study programmes Maintained 7 to 19 Mixed Mixed 143 13 Appropriate authority The governing body Chair Headteacher Mr Neil Skeldon Mr Tony Milovsorov Telephone number 01922 721 161 Website Email address www.jane-lane.walsall.sch.uk postbox@jane-lane.walsall.sch.uk Date of previous inspection 5 March 2014

Information about this school

• Inspectors were aware during this inspection that serious allegations of a child protection nature were being investigated by the appropriate authorities. While Ofsted does not have the power to investigate allegations of this kind, actions taken by the school in response to the allegations were considered alongside the other evidence available at the time of the inspection to inform inspectors’ judgements.
• A new deputy headteacher was appointed in September 2018.
• The school is smaller than the average-sized school.
• The school caters for pupils with a range of special educational needs and/or disabilities, including autistic spectrum disorder and/or moderate learning difficulties. Some pupils have complex needs.
• The school has established four bases across the school for pupils with more complex needs.
• All pupils have an education, health and care plan.
• Most pupils are of White British heritage.
• The proportions of pupils from minority ethnic groups and those who speak English as an additional language are both below the national average.
• Over 60% of pupils are eligible for pupil premium funding. A small number of pupils are looked after.
• The school does not use any alternative provision.

Information about this inspection

• Inspectors conducted observations of learning in all key stages. The majority of observations were conducted jointly with leaders.
• Inspectors held meetings with members of the governing body, including the vice-chair of governors and chair of governors.
• The lead inspector scrutinised the following responses from surveys: there were no responses from pupils; 20 responses to the staff survey; five free-text responses; and insufficient responses on Ofsted’s online questionnaire, Parent View, to generate a report.
• Inspectors reviewed learning in pupils’ folders and books. Inspectors spoke to pupils at different times during the school day.
• An inspector heard pupils from different key stages read.
• Meetings were held with senior leaders, a leader with responsibility for pupils’ behaviour and welfare, and two groups of staff on the second day of the inspection.
• Inspectors scrutinised a wide range of policies and procedures, including those relating to safeguarding.

Inspection team

Jonathan Keay, lead inspector Elizabeth Ellis-Martin Robert Roalfe

Her Majesty’s Inspector Ofsted Inspector Ofsted Inspector