Corpus Christi Catholic Primary 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?

• Increase capacity of leadership and governance in order to:
  • monitor and evaluate teaching more rigorously to ensure that it is rapidly improving
  • hold teachers to account for the progress of different groups of learners, including boys, disadvantaged pupils, those who have SEN and/or disabilities, and most-able pupils
  • ensure that action plans have clear and measurable intended outcomes which indicate who is responsible for taking action and then monitoring and evaluating the plans
  • ensure that teachers’ assessment is consistently accurate
  • secure strong leadership for SEN and the pupil premium
  • develop a curriculum that prepares pupils well for life in modern Britain
  • make sure that governors challenge and support leaders
  • engage more with external partners to provide robust and objective challenge
  • reduce absence and persistent absence further so that these are in line with the national average
  • overhaul the school’s website so that it meets the Department for Education (DfE) requirements for academies.
• Improve outcomes in key stages 1 and 2, especially in reading, and for boys, disadvantaged pupils, those who have SEN and/or disabilities and most-able pupils by:
  • ensuring that teaching is consistently at least good
  • ensuring that teachers’ planning focuses on meeting the needs of these pupils so they can make rapid progress
  • ensuring that additional funding is appropriately targeted and evaluated to ensure that it is leading to rapid improvements in outcomes for pupils
  • providing pupils with the opportunity to develop their phonics skills in key stage 2 in order to acquire a higher standard of reading
  • extending activities for reasoning and problem solving to enable more pupils to work in greater depth in mathematics
  • setting expectations for writing that are high across all subjects.
• Promote pupils’ cultural development so that they have a better understanding of their locality, the UK and wider world by:
  • extending their knowledge and understanding of other faiths and cultures
  • ensuring that their understanding of the wider world is more balanced towards the modern age
  • ensuring that cultural stereotypes are removed and consistently challenged. An external review of governance and an external review 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. I strongly recommend that the school does not appoint newly qualified teachers.

Inspection judgements

Effectiveness of leadership and management Inadequate

• Although leaders were alerted by the local authority about its declining performance, changes have only been put in place very recently to strengthen leadership and management. Additional leaders from other schools in the multi-academy company (MAC) have only been in place a matter of weeks. They recognise the scale of the task ahead. However, they have not been in school long enough to demonstrate that the school has capacity to improve. Most senior and middle leaders are new to their current roles and are reliant on additional support.
• Leaders and managers have not done enough to tackle the decline in outcomes, which were low at the end of key stage 2 in 2017, especially in reading. Current outcomes for pupils in key stages 1 and 2 are not improving quickly enough, including for boys and most-able pupils.
• Leaders have also been unable to diminish the difference between outcomes for disadvantaged pupils and those who have SEN and/or disabilities compared with those of other pupils nationally. Leadership for the pupil premium and SEN is weak. There has been too little evaluation of how these pupils are doing. The impact of additional funding has not been evaluated sufficiently by leaders. Assessment information for current groups of pupils is not shared with all leaders. Consequently, those with responsibilities for monitoring teaching cannot sufficiently challenge teachers about outcomes for these groups of pupils.
• Although current leaders have an accurate view of the weaknesses that still need to be addressed, their evaluation of the effectiveness of the school is overgenerous, including in teaching. As a result, remaining weaknesses in teaching are not being tackled with enough urgency. Monitoring of teaching is underdeveloped. There has been little rigour to date to challenge teaching that is not yet good enough. Feedback to teachers is very limited and gives them little idea of how they can improve their teaching. Not enough has been done to address the inaccurate and overgenerous assessments that still remain, including in part of key stage 1. In joint lesson observations with inspectors, leaders were accurate in identifying strengths and weaknesses in teaching.
• Action plans, such as the school’s ‘nine-month challenge’ are too vague. They contain generic targets such as ‘all groups to achieve in line with national’. There are no measurable targets or milestones, no clear lines of responsibility or specific dates, and no indication of who will monitor or evaluate these plans. Plans for reading do not set out clearly how the percentage of pupils making progress in line with other pupils nationally at the end of key stage 2 will accelerate from 42% to 90% in just one year.
• Leaders are not doing enough to challenge stereotypes. The curriculum is outdated and does not prepare pupils well for life in culturally diverse modern Britain. Pupils study other countries, continents and cultures, for example Australia, Greece and The Americas. They also celebrate Black History Month. However, there are stereotypes in curriculum plans. The published curriculum plans contain numerous spelling mistakes and factual inaccuracies, such as ‘Cairo is the capital of Australia’. In one example, a derogatory and potentially racist term for Native Americans was included in the published plan on ‘The Americas’. Leaders removed all the curriculum plans from the website during the inspection when these examples were pointed out to them by inspectors.
• Those pupils spoken to knew little about different faiths and cultures in Wolverhampton, the UK or the wider world. They were secure in their understanding of the Catholic faith, however. Discussions with pupils revealed gaps in their understanding of British values. Some were well informed and knew about respect, tolerance and democracy, for example, by voting for the school council. Others were unfamiliar with the terms. Pupil representatives from one older year group said that they had only learned about British values the day before.
• All of the parents and carers who responded to Parent View through the free-text service or who spoke to inspectors were positive about the impact of the acting headteacher. They said that relationships with parents had improved. Communication was better and there was now a calmer and more orderly environment in school. A minority of parents said they would not recommend the school to another parent.
• Leaders ensure that the PE and sport premium funding is deployed effectively to promote sporting opportunities throughout the school. This includes swimming, team games and competitions. Through regular monitoring and evaluation of participation, leaders know there has been a significant increase in the uptake of sport.
• All staff who responded to the survey said they were proud to be a member of staff and enjoyed working in the school.
• The school has recently engaged with external support through the local authority, which has very recently delivered a training programme on reading for staff. It is too early to see the impact of this on teaching and outcomes in reading, however.
• Leaders ensure that an ethos of tolerance and respect for others within the school community is a daily feature of life, although pupils have limited knowledge of differences in the wider community. Pupils’ spiritual, moral and social development is promoted well.
• There is leadership capacity in early years where leadership is good and children get off to a good start up to the end of Reception. This does not continue into key stages 1 and 2, where pupils are underperforming.

Governance of the school

• Those with responsibility for governance (the academy committee) have failed to hold leaders to account for the decline in the performance of the school. As the new school improvement board had not yet met at the time of the inspection, there was no opportunity for its members to demonstrate their capacity to improve. Minutes from meetings of the very recently disbanded committee indicate that governors had not:
  • challenged leaders; where they asked leaders questions about provision and outcomes, they accepted answers at face value
  • challenged weak action plans
  • checked how different groups of pupils were doing, including boys, disadvantaged pupils, those who have SEN and/or disabilities, and most-able pupils
  • evaluated the impact of additional funding on outcomes
  • checked or held leaders to account for meeting all their statutory safeguarding responsibilities (although in fact leaders had met these).

Safeguarding

• The arrangements for safeguarding are effective. Leaders ensure that pupils are looked after well and that safeguarding arrangements are rigorous. There is a culture of ensuring that staff are vigilant. Leaders’ stated aim is to have a ‘relentless determination’ to protect children. Any reported incidents are followed up thoroughly and promptly. Records are kept securely and are detailed. Leaders ensure that they are up to date with the latest training and guidance; this is disseminated regularly to all members of staff.

Quality of teaching, learning and assessment Inadequate

• Teaching is inadequate because current and previous pupils in key stages 1 and 2 have not made enough progress in reading, writing and mathematics.
• Although teachers plan for different levels of challenge in lessons, the expectation is that all pupils will start at the same point. This means that most-able pupils do not get enough time to spend on the more challenging work. As a result, they are not making enough progress.
• Support for pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities is too often seen as the responsibility of additional adults or external agencies. Too many of these pupils have made insufficient progress since September 2017. This is evidenced by work in pupils’ books and leaders’ own records of progress in each class. Where records indicate that these pupils have made good progress, leaders have themselves questioned the accuracy of the teacher assessment.
• Teaching of reading for older pupils does not build on the phonics skills they have acquired in early years and key stage 1. It does not give them the decoding skills they need to read more challenging or unfamiliar words. Teaching gives pupils limited experience to extend their writing skills in subjects other than English, for example in science and topic work.
• Pupils are not always clear about how to improve their work. They are not sufficiently challenged about the presentation of their work. Consequently, for too many, the quality of their writing has not measurably improved since September 2017. Feedback is not consistently in line with the school’s policy.
• Expectations for pupils’ literacy are not consistent across subjects other than English. There were too many examples in pupils’ work of them doing similar tasks every week and getting most of the questions wrong, for example, in repeated multiplication tables in mathematics and spelling tests in literacy in key stage 2.
• Incidents of low-level disruption occur when pupils have become restless by the slow pace of the learning or because they do not understand sufficiently what they are meant to be doing. Teachers do not routinely check that pupils understand key vocabulary or concepts that are necessary to develop their learning in lessons.
• Just under a third of the small number of parents responding to Parent View raised well-founded concerns about the quality of the homework set by teachers.
• Phonics is taught well in early years and key stage 1, where responsibility falls mainly to additional adults. They teach the subject skilfully, based on activities which engage pupils’ interest. There are clear routines with carefully matched activities to meet the needs of different learners.
• Relationships between adults and pupils are good. Additional adults make a positive contribution to the learning of the pupils when they are supporting them; however, these pupils find it hard to make progress without support.
• Teaching is good in some year groups where expectations are high and work is well matched to the needs of different learners.

Personal development, behaviour and welfare

Personal development and welfare Requires improvement

• The school’s work to promote pupils’ personal development and welfare requires improvement.
• Pupils are not well prepared to meet the next stage in their education or for life in modern Britain. Their understanding of cultural diversity is largely based on places far away and predominantly a long time ago such as the Romans, Ancient Egyptians, Ancient Greeks and ‘The Wild West’. In discussions, they could not talk about diversity in Wolverhampton, the UK or the wider world. Their knowledge and experience of cultures other than their own are very limited. When some pupils were asked, hardly any could name another religion other than Christianity. Those that did knew very little about that faith.
• Pupils do not take enough care in the presentation of their written work. In too many instances, it is illegible, unfinished or untidy.
• There was no evidence of pupils using derogatory language towards each other.
• Pupils are well prepared for the tenets of the Catholic faith, having studied baptism and a number of stories from the Old and New Testaments. Pupils demonstrate values of respect and tolerance towards each other and towards adults. Relationships are strong. They understand about the importance of democracy, having experienced voting in the school council. They knew the names of leaders in the UK and USA. Some pupils knew that women had not always had the vote.
• Pupils reported that they feel safe in school and that adults look after them well. This was confirmed by all staff who responded to the survey and all of the parents responding to Parent View. Pupils have been taught what to do if they see or experience bullying and almost all said that they knew what to do should an incident arise. They feel safe using the computer following lessons and information provided in assemblies on e-safety.
• Pupils know how to keep themselves healthy through exercise and eating the right kind of food, including fruit and vegetables.
• There are opportunities for pupils to take on leadership roles, such as being young leaders and school council representatives. Older children act as ‘buddies’ to younger ones.
• Almost all parents who responded to Parent View said that their children were happy in school.

Behaviour

• The behaviour of pupils requires improvement.
• The level of absence and persistent absence is still too high, although it is an improving trend. Leaders have concluded that this is unlikely to improve quickly enough to result in attendance being in line with the national average by the end of the year. Consequently, leaders have set targets for attendance that are below the national average. A more in-depth analysis of trends and patterns only started very recently in January 2018.
• Pupils behave well when the tasks they are given are appropriate and are set at the right pace. Where they are not, there are instances of low-level disruption. Pupils reported that there is some silliness in some classes, ‘mostly boys,’ which was confirmed in lesson observations.
• Pupils who spoke to inspectors and parents who responded to Parent View free text said that they did not think the yellow and red card system was an effective deterrent for misbehaviour or fairly applied. Leaders do not keep a formal log of behaviour incidents. As a consequence, it is not possible to see whether the school’s behaviour policy is having an impact on improving behaviour over time overall or for certain individuals.
• Pupils conduct themselves well around the school and at breaktimes. They are polite, well mannered and courteous. Behaviour in most of the lessons seen during the inspection was of a high standard.
• A number of pupils and parents reported that behaviour was chaotic and disorderly at lunchtime, but this was not seen during the inspection. A number of parents said the ethos had improved since the appointment of the acting headteacher. This was confirmed in inspectors’ walks around the school at breaktimes when there was a calm and orderly environment.

Outcomes for pupils Inadequate

• Pupils currently in school have not made enough progress over time in reading, writing and mathematics in key stage 2 from their starting points at the end of Year 2. The school’s own analysis of outcomes this year (from September 2017 up to the school’s most recent internal assessments in December 2017) indicates that pupils have still not made enough progress. School leaders know in which year groups, subjects or pupil groups this is a concern, but to date they have had little effect on improving outcomes, especially for those who need to catch up rapidly. Leaders do not routinely monitor the impact of the additional support that some pupils receive. The impact of the support is unclear.
• In the most recent tests and assessments at the end of Year 6 in 2017, pupils’ progress was exceptionally low in reading and below average in mathematics. It had improved in mathematics from the previous year, but from a very low outcome in 2016 and was still below average in 2017. Writing, which was teacher assessed, was in line with the national average, but leaders acknowledged that they have had issues with inaccurate teachers’ assessments, which still prevail in some instances.
• Outcomes in phonics in Year 1 have declined in the last three years, based on the proportion of pupils achieving the expected standard. As a result, older pupils are not able to apply phonics strategies effectively in their reading. Outcomes for current pupils in phonics are improving as a result of consistently well-taught sessions. Evidence from pupils’ written work indicates that too many pupils are not making enough progress in writing. They have had limited opportunities to reason or problem solve to enable them to work in greater depth in mathematics.
• Pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities are not making enough progress. Those with responsibility for leadership have not ensured that additional interventions are having an impact or that the quality of teaching in the classroom enables the pupils to make rapid progress.
• Leaders recognise that they are not doing enough to diminish the difference for disadvantaged pupils. In most year groups in key stage 2, the gaps in progress compared with other pupils remain very wide and show little sign of improving.
• Not enough most-able pupils have reached a high standard in reading and writing or are working at greater depth in mathematics by the end of Year 6. Boys are not doing as well as girls in key stages 1 and 2, especially in writing.
• In a small number of year groups, the large majority of pupils are making rapid progress in their learning where teaching and the quality of additional support over time are consistently good.
• In 2017, progress at the end of Year 6 was in line with the national average for teacher-assessed writing. Standards in writing were also in line with the national average and were high for middle-attaining pupils.

Early years provision Good

• From their typically low starting points on entry to the school, children go on to make rapid progress. By the time they leave Reception, outcomes are in line with the national average. This is as a result of consistently good teaching. The setting provides children with a stimulating learning environment and a broad range of activities. Children are well prepared for the start of Year 1.
• Leaders of the early years provision have an accurate view of strengths and areas for development. Strategies to narrow the gap in outcomes between boys and girls are having a positive effect.
• Leaders have rewritten curriculum plans to allow children to have greater depth of understanding. The curriculum in early years prepares children well to enhance their knowledge of the world around them as well as their own local area. Topics have been chosen carefully to appeal to boys, such as superheroes, magic, fantasy and adventure.
• A focus on reading has led to the development of a dedicated area with book boxes from the library. Children can borrow books based on the current topic to take home. There is a strong emphasis on developing children’s phonics strategies, which they can deploy when reading unfamiliar words.
• Leaders have ensured that teachers’ assessment is now accurate. Leaders recognise that previous assessments were overgenerous.
• Relationships between adults and children and between children themselves are highly positive. Children are able to work together well with each other, sharing and taking turns. They are confident in contributing their thoughts and ideas and are articulate when explaining tasks.
• There are clear, well-established routines built on high expectations. Children remain actively involved in their learning throughout each session. Their behaviour is good.
• Additional adults have a positive impact on the quality of children’s learning. They ask effective questions that help children with their understanding of concepts.
• Safeguarding in early years is effective. Leaders ensure that policies and procedures are implemented consistently.
• Parents are encouraged to contribute effectively to their children’s learning and development at home.
• When children are writing on their own, a number of them stop work if the support is unavailable. They do not ‘have a go’ themselves. Children’s inaccurate letter formation is not consistently addressed by adults.

School details

Unique reference number Local authority 141769 Wolverhampton Inspection number 10042878 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 Academy converter 3 to 11 Mixed Number of pupils on the school roll 227 Appropriate authority The school improvement board Chair Geraldine Walker Acting executive headteacher Karl Russell Telephone number 01902 866840 Website Email address www.corpuschristiacademy.co.uk corpuschristiprimaryschool@wolverhampton.gov.uk Date of previous inspection Not previously inspected

Information about this school

• The school does not meet requirements on the publication of information about SEN, the pupil premium, the curriculum, complaints or governance on its website.
• The school does not comply with DfE guidance on what academies should publish about its equality objectives and governance arrangements.
• Corpus Christi Primary School is smaller than the average-sized primary school.
• The proportion of disadvantaged pupils is well above the national average.
• The proportion of pupils who have SEN and/or disabilities is about one in 10, which is below the national average. There are no pupils with a statement of special educational needs or an education, health and care plan.
• Most pupils in the school are White British, comprising almost 80% of the pupil population. The percentage of pupils from minority ethnic groups is low compared with the national average. The largest minority ethnic group is Black or Black African which makes up about 10% of the pupil population. The proportion who speak English as an additional language is below the national average.
• The proportion of pupils who join or leave the school midway through a key stage is broadly average.
• The school converted to become an academy in March 2015. This school is one of four in the Pope John XXIII Catholic Multi-Academy Company (MAC).
• The principal left her post in October 2017. One of the two deputy principals was appointed as acting head of school from 1 November 2017. The other deputy principal relinquished her post and was not replaced.
• On 1 November 2017, the executive headteacher of two other primary schools in the MAC was, in addition to his current role, appointed as acting executive headteacher of Corpus Christi. He has been absent since 1 January 2018.
• In early January 2018, two senior leaders from other schools in the MAC started to work alongside the acting headteacher to provide additional leadership. They are currently spending the majority of their time in the school but have not relinquished their substantive roles in other schools.
• The literacy and numeracy coordinators were both recently appointed in September 2017.
• The academy committee, which had responsibility for governance, was dissolved by the board of directors on 5 February 2018, the day before the inspection was announced. The replacement school improvement board had not yet met at the time of the inspection.
• In 2016, the school met the government’s current floor standards, which set the minimum expectations for pupils’ attainment and progress in English and mathematics by the end of Year 6.

Information about this inspection

• Inspectors observed 11 lessons or parts of lessons, of which 10 were jointly observed with either the acting head of school or leaders from other schools in the MAC. In addition, inspectors made a number of other short visits to lessons and other activities.
• Inspectors heard pupils read during lessons and conducted scrutinies of their written work in literacy and numeracy and other subjects.
• Inspectors held meetings with the acting head of school, other leaders and members of staff and spoke to two groups of pupils.
• Inspectors met the chair of the newly established school improvement board, who is also chair of the board of directors of the MAC. Inspectors also met with other directors and members of the board.
• Inspectors met a representative from the Archdiocese of Birmingham Education Service and two representatives from the local authority.
• An inspector also spoke by telephone to the director of education for the diocese and a senior representative from the local authority.
• Inspectors spoke to 13 parents at the gate. In addition, they took account of 35 responses to the online questionnaire, Parent View, and 35 responses to the Parent View free-text service. Inspectors also reviewed 23 responses to the staff survey and two responses to the pupil survey.
• Inspectors observed the school’s work and scrutinised a number of documents, including those relating to the school’s self-evaluation, as well as minutes of governing body (academy committee) meetings, improvement plans, and school information on pupils’ recent attainment and progress.
• Inspectors also considered behaviour and attendance information, and policies and procedures relating to SEN, pupil premium funding, PE and sport premium funding, safeguarding and child protection.

Inspection team

Mark Sims, lead inspector Su Plant

Her Majesty’s Inspector Ofsted Inspector