Bishop Perowne CofE College Ofsted Report

Full report

In accordance with sections 44(1) and 13(3) 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?

• Strengthen leadership and management to drive up standards and ensure that all pupils, especially those who are disadvantaged and those who have special educational needs and/or disabilities, make rapid progress by ensuring that:
  • governors hold school leaders fully to account for raising achievement
  • leaders ensure that strategic planning is focused and rigorous and that the monitoring and evaluation of standards across the school are accurate
  • additional funding is used effectively to raise the achievement of disadvantaged pupils
  • a review of provision for pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities is carried out and action taken as a result so that systems are robust and pupils learn well
  • an effective strategy for the teaching of numeracy in subjects across the curriculum is introduced quickly.
• Improve the quality of teaching, learning and assessment, particularly in English and mathematics, in order to raise achievement, including for middle-ability pupils, by:
  • ensuring that teachers use accurate assessment information to plan activities that meet the needs of pupils of different levels of ability and challenge them in their thinking
  • ensuring that day-to-day teaching is of high quality and that the number of interventions needed to address shortfalls in learning reduces
  • supporting teachers to improve their questioning skills
  • making sure that teachers have high expectations of how pupils’ work is presented.
• Improve pupils’ personal development, behaviour and welfare by:
  • building on the strategies that have improved overall attendance and reduced exclusions and targeting these further upon disadvantaged pupils and those who have special educational needs and/or disabilities
  • implementing a coordinated plan for teaching personal, social and health education. An external review of the school’s use of the pupil premium should be undertaken to assess how this aspect of leadership and management may be improved. An external review of governance should be undertaken to assess how this aspect of leadership and management may be improved.

Inspection judgements

Effectiveness of leadership and management Inadequate

• Leaders have not adequately addressed the issues identified at the previous inspection and have not ensured that pupils receive a good standard of education. Pupils underachieve because the quality of teaching, learning and assessment is too variable.
• Leaders are ambitious for the school. However, their self-evaluation is inaccurate and pays too little attention to the unsatisfactory outcomes for pupils over time. Small improvements are considered to be more successful than they are because they are not compared sufficiently with national measures. Leaders’ analysis of the school’s effectiveness is insufficiently self-critical. This prevents the necessary sharp, robust and evaluative focus on improvement.
• Leaders, including governors, use the low aspirations of the local community as excuses for the poor quality of education the school provides. This point of view leads to expectations not being high enough and becomes a major barrier to improving pupils’ outcomes.
• Leaders’ improvement planning lacks rigour and accuracy. The school improvement plan has many targets and associated actions which have not been evaluated. It is, therefore, difficult to tell what is making a difference in the school and what is not.
• Middle leaders, including the heads of English and mathematics, who are relatively new to the school, are enthusiastic and committed. They give the impression, however, that the school is undertaking many improvement activities when other initiatives are not yet embedded.
• Most staff who responded to the online inspection questionnaire feel that the school is well led and improving. Staff also speak of a changed and improved ethos within the school.
• The leadership of teaching and learning is ineffective. The leader responsible for this is unsure about how pupils’ progress informs the school’s judgements on the overall quality of teaching and how it is used in the context of teachers’ pay progression. Leaders fully accept the need to improve the quality of teaching to make up for poor practice in the past. They have yet to develop the focused systems to do this.
• The school’s systems for tracking pupils’ performance are unreliable. This led to significant over-optimism about the outcomes that pupils would achieve in 2016. The headteacher subsequently reported to governors that predictions were ‘wildly inaccurate’. 

• Leaders do not make effective use of the additional funding for disadvantaged pupils. In its analysis of the impact of how the funding was used, the school states that the progress of disadvantaged pupils in Year 11 in 2016 did not show a significant increase and ‘value for money was poor’. Disadvantaged pupils do not achieve well in this school.
• Leaders are not making effective use of the additional funding for pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities. Leaders provided limited information about how this group of pupils’ progress and attendance are monitored and evaluated, and only for current Year 11 pupils. This is a significant shortcoming as pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities performed poorly in 2015 and 2016, and their attendance was a key weakness.
• Some pupils had not been identified as requiring extra support in a timely manner. In 2016, 10 students were identified as having special educational needs and/or disabilities but not until midway through their Year 11 programme.
• Some pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities are moved to an alternative provision placement because they are at risk of permanent exclusion. Some have low reading ages. Leaders are not focusing enough support on these pupils.
• The school’s curriculum is broad and balanced but has not been effective in rapidly raising achievement. Leaders have adapted provision for some pupils to address their needs and accommodate the new systems for judging pupils’ progress and attainment. The school has made decisions on the most appropriate curriculum for pupils, particularly in Year 9, but it is too early to see the impact of this.
• Pupils appreciate the wide-ranging opportunities offered within extra-curricular activities. Pupils explained their involvement in activities including sports, the school production, the science technology engineering and maths club and art. Some pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities told inspectors about how cultural visits they had undertaken, including one to a cathedral in the autumn term, had supported their learning.
• Pupils are prepared adequately for life in modern Britain. Aspects of spiritual, moral, social and cultural development are present within the religious education curriculum, for example. These are not, however, key strengths of the school. Pupils discussed aspects of fundamental British values but their use of terminology was not strong. Pupils have had little access to personal, social and health education this year. The headteacher has said that long-term planning in this area will be a key focus in the coming months.
• In January 2017, eight Year 11 pupils were removed from the school’s roll, in accordance with a locally agreed approach for pupils to be educated full-time at an alternative provision academy. Leaders say that this happens only when it is in the best interests of the pupils.

Governance of the school

• Governance is inadequate. Governors have presided over poor outcomes and are not demonstrating the capacity to improve them rapidly.
• Governors feel that the school does a ‘robust job with a difficult population’. This blames pupils and their backgrounds for outcomes and displays a lack of ambition.
• The chair of governors described the 2016 results as ‘diabolical’ and records of governors’ meetings from September clearly indicate disappointment. These records note the governors’ view that the school has not progressed in the previous 12 months and their frustration with the leaders’ inaccurate predications and pupils’ poor outcomes. While governors appear to know weaknesses within the school, they feel the headteacher and staff are not to blame as they work hard. Governors are not challenging leaders to secure sustained improvements.
• Governors have not ensured that the pupil premium is used to good effect.
• Governors have not ensured that information for parents on the school website is accurate.
• Governors feel that they are becoming more cohesive as a group. They have a wide range of skills, including from the legal and financial sectors, but are not using this expertise effectively to hold leaders to account.
• Governors are aware of their statutory functions, including the fair and consistent application of policies, such as the oversight of staff performance management.
• Governors have recently supported the headteacher’s request to advertise for an additional deputy headteacher to increase leadership capacity.

Safeguarding

• The arrangements for safeguarding are effective and statutory requirements are met.
• Staff have an adequate understanding of effective safeguarding practices.
• Most pupils spoken to felt safe. Although some raised concerns about bullying, pupils know that there are adults from whom they can get support. Pupils explained how they were taught to stay safe through lessons and assemblies.
• Most parents feel that their children are safe at the school and are looked after.
• Leaders, including governors, have been tardy in ensuring that all staff are aware of updated government guidance about keeping pupils safe in school. Information has now been provided to staff, and staff are aware of their responsibilities and how to spot signs that a pupil may be at risk.
• All necessary pre-employment checks of staff are completed. Inspectors confirmed that the school knew that all pupils who were absent on the first day of the inspection were safe.
• While there is no evidence that pupils have been put at risk, leaders know that failing to update key policies and provide timely training are unacceptable.

Quality of teaching, learning and assessment Inadequate

• Teaching has not been effective across a wide range of subjects over time. Teachers’ planning has been weak. It has been based on inaccurate information about pupils’ prior skills and knowledge.
• Teaching has not enabled pupils to make the progress of which they are capable. This has been particularly marked in English and mathematics and for pupils of middle ability, disadvantaged pupils and those who have special educational needs and/or disabilities.
• Although some improvement is being seen currently, it is not consistent across the school. It is not possible to identify which specific areas of the improvement strategy are having a positive impact on teaching.
• Relationships between teachers and pupils are strong and teachers’ subject knowledge is good, but pupils’ learning is not consistently effective. This is because, in too many instances, pupils are not directed towards appropriately challenging work. Some pupils are set work which is too easy for them and there is, at times, insufficient focus on stretching and challenging the most able. On other occasions, pupils are set work which is too demanding without being given the help they need to succeed. This leads to low-level disruption, which slows progress.
• Teachers’ questioning is effective in history and sometimes in English and science, but is not used well enough across the school to build pupils’ understanding and develop learning. In some mathematics lessons, pupils’ misconceptions are not checked and their misunderstanding prevents them accessing work during the silent periods of study the school expects in lessons.
• Teachers do not have consistently high expectations about the layout of work in pupils’ books. Some lower-attaining pupils have disorganised books, which will not be helpful when they need to return to previous work to help with revision.
• Pupils do not use and apply their numeracy skills sufficiently in other subjects. As a result, they lack necessary skills in this area and this contributes to lower outcomes. A strategy is still being developed to ensure that teachers focus more on numeracy across all subjects.
• Pupils who are supported in the nurture base make good progress. Teaching assistants liaise well with teachers. As a result, work is well matched to pupils’ needs.

Personal development, behaviour and welfare Requires improvement

Personal development and welfare

• The school’s work to promote pupils’ personal development and welfare requires improvement.
• Most pupils focus when work is set at an appropriate level. However, a number quickly lose concentration. They become unsettled and this disrupts the learning of others. Teachers are usually successful in getting pupils to re-engage with their tasks.
• Teachers encourage pupils to work hard. Pupils understand the reward system. A number commented, however, that the effort required to gain the merits is too high, given the rewards on offer. Pupils are encouraged to work together cooperatively, and this was seen successfully in a number of lessons.
• One of the school’s key focus areas is to ensure that Years 7 and 8 make a good start to school. Year 7 pupils have a daily ‘readiness to learn’ lesson. Pupils approached this positively, including some silent reflection upon ‘striving for progress, not perfection’.
• Some pupils feel that bullying does occur but is rare and dealt with effectively. Others said it was more common. Some felt that it is not adequately dealt with by teachers, and pupils must deal with it themselves. A small number of parents raised concerns about bullying. Inspectors’ analysis of records and conversations with leaders indicated that bullying is not tolerated within the school and it is dealt with effectively.
• Pupils know how to keep themselves safe in a range of situations, including in relationships, in areas around potential extremism and through healthy lifestyles. The inspection took place during ‘Safer Internet Day’. Pupils participated in an effective extended assembly delivered by the deputy headteacher on how to keep safe online.
• The school checks that pupils who are educated off-site are kept safe. However, these pupils’ academic progress has been limited in the past.

Behaviour

• The behaviour of pupils requires improvement.
• Some younger pupils feel that, at times, other pupils’ behaviour causes them concern. This was almost always during social times and involved older pupils. Younger pupils told inspectors that they would not recommend the school to any pupil who lacked confidence.
• Pupils feel that there is a better attitude to learning in classes for higher-ability pupils than those for middle- or low-ability pupils. Pupils who had themselves displayed poor attitudes previously said that many of their lessons are disrupted at some point by poor behaviour. Inspectors’ observations and analysis of work confirmed teaching is comparatively stronger for the most able pupils and these pupils’ attitudes to learning are more positive.
• Other pupils are far more positive in their view on behaviour, with many older pupils telling inspectors that it has improved. Pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities told inspectors that they feel safe at school and know there are members of staff they could approach if they had concerns.
• Staff feel that behaviour is good, as are the systems to monitor it. Most parents feel that their children are safe.
• Most pupils behave well in lessons. Pupils move around the school sensibly, mix well, including at the end of the day, and are polite to visitors. The school environment displays inspiring messages and is respected and well cared for by pupils.
• The attendance of most groups of pupils, especially those who are disadvantaged and who have special educational needs and/or disabilities, remains below the national average. This has been the case for several years. The school has, however, been effective in tackling this and there is an improving trend.
• Disadvantaged pupils and those who have special educational needs and/or disabilities have been disproportionality excluded from school compared to their peers. This figure is now falling.

Outcomes for pupils Inadequate

• Pupils’ achievement by the end of key stage 4 has been inadequate for the last two years. There are marginal improvements in progress across the school but overall this is slow and uneven across subjects. There is insufficient evidence that pupils are being prepared well for the new, more challenging GCSEs.
• Pupils’ understanding of their level of skills and what they need to do to improve is not strong.
• Disadvantaged pupils’ outcomes are exceptionally poor. In 2015, they made very slow progress from their starting points. The progress made by disadvantaged pupils in 2016 overall, and in both English and mathematics, put the school in the lowest 10% of schools nationally. Disadvantaged pupils made over three quarters of a grade less progress overall and in English than other pupils nationally. In mathematics, they made over a grade less progress.
• While the school’s assessment information suggests that there will be some improvement this year, leaders acknowledge that their predictions are tentative as they develop more robust monitoring systems. Despite interventions and extra funding being provided to support disadvantaged pupils, the school’s information shows that current pupils are still making well over half a grade less progress than they should.
• The progress of disadvantaged pupils at key stage 3 is a concern. The quality of pupils’ work shows improvements but overall this is fragile, because leaders focus most efforts on Year 11 and the systems to secure good teaching in both key stages are not embedded.
• Leaders feel that a small number of pupils who made very poor progress had an adverse impact on overall outcomes in 2016. Most of these pupils were disadvantaged. However, leaders had not ensured that teachers and other staff met these pupils’ needs or enabled them to be successful.
• The achievement of middle-ability disadvantaged pupils has been poor. This is because the current quality of teaching in sets containing middle-ability disadvantaged pupils is weaker. Behaviour is also more challenging in these groups. These issues are evident in both key stages 3 and 4.
• Pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities made very slow progress in 2015 and 2016. Last summer they achieved, on average, one grade less than the national average. This put the school in the lowest 10% of all schools nationally.
• The monitoring of current standards for pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities in the school is weak. Information about their achievement is confused and inadequate. Leaders suggest that current pupils are making good progress but this is not supported by the evidence.
• The most able and the most able disadvantaged pupils are not challenged to make the progress of which they are capable. Most-able pupils underachieved in both 2015 and 2016. In 2016, they achieved just under half a grade less than they should have done. The quality of work seen in books and in lessons suggests that current most-able pupils are not making the progress of which they are capable. Information provided by the school confirms this view for Year 11.
• The proportion of pupils attaining the top grades at GCSE is smaller than the national figure. This means that pupils are less well equipped to attain highly when they begin A-level study.
• The overwhelming majority of pupils who leave the school move on to education, employment or training. Disadvantaged pupils’ destinations were less secure in the past but this has been fully addressed by the school. This is evidence of an effective independent careers advice and guidance programme.

School details

Unique reference number Local authority Inspection number 138107 Worcestershire 10025178 This inspection of the school was carried out under section 5 of the Education Act 2005. Type of school Secondary School category Age range of pupils Gender of pupils Academy converter 11 to 16 Mixed Number of pupils on the school roll 773 Appropriate authority The governing body Chair Headteacher Telephone number Website Email address Judith Pettersen Mark Pollard 01905 746 800 www.bishopperowne.co.uk/ kwi@bishop-perowne.worcs.sch.uk Date of previous inspection 28–29 January 2015

Information about this school

• The headteacher has been in post for less than two years and there have been other changes to leadership during this period.
• The school is smaller than the average secondary school.
• Most pupils are White British. The proportion of pupils from minority ethnic backgrounds is below average.
• The proportion of pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities is above average. The proportion of pupils who have a statement of special educational needs or an education, health and care plan for special educational needs and/or disabilities is below average.
• The proportion of pupils who are disadvantaged is above average.
• The school uses two providers of alternative education for pupils at key stages 3 and 4. These are the Aspire Academy and the Heart of Worcestershire College.
• The school has an informal partnership with Haybridge High School.
• The school does not meet requirements on the publication of specified information on its website about governance, admissions and key stage 4 results.
• The school does not comply with Department for Education guidance on what academies should publish. This relates to governors’ business interests, financial interests and roles in other schools, admissions and results at key stage 4 which, on the exam and assessment results page, contained information from 2015.
• The school meets the government’s 2016 floor standard, which sets the minimum expectations for pupils’ attainment and progress.

Information about this inspection

• Inspectors observed learning in lessons and on learning walks in which they were joined by the headteacher.
• Pupils’ work was sampled in lessons and through a formal review. Work from a range of subjects was looked at from both key stages 3 and 4.
• Inspectors listened to pupils read subject-specific information in lessons.
• Inspectors talked to pupils about their attitudes to, and opinions about, school, including asking older pupils how the school had changed over time. Inspectors met with four focus groups of pupils. Inspectors observed pupils around the school at social times, lesson changes and at the end of the school day.
• Meetings were held with the headteacher, senior and middle leaders, teachers and governors. Support staff were spoken to informally, including as part of the inspectors’ analysis of safeguarding practices. The lead inspector had a telephone conversation with the headteacher of Haybridge High School, which works informally with the school.
• Inspectors evaluated 50 responses to the Ofsted online questionnaire, Parent View, 45 written comments in the free text facility and one letter sent by a parent. They also considered the responses of 21 pupils and 34 staff who completed their respective online questionnaires.
• Inspectors scrutinised a range of documentation, including the school’s self-evaluation, its improvement plan, records of governing body meetings and the school’s records about pupils’ safety, behaviour, attendance and attainment.

Inspection team

Nigel Griffiths, lead inspector Clare Considine Dan Robinson Paul Elliott Ofsted Inspector Ofsted Inspector Ofsted Inspector Ofsted Inspector