Moving beyond the floor target - All Saints Church of England Primary School, South Tyneside

Date of issue: Jan. 2008

Theme: Schools Causing Concern (SCC)

School context and profile

All Saints’ Church of England Primary School is located in the South Shields area of South Tyneside. An extremely high proportion of pupils are entitled to free schools meals, which reflects the high level of social and economic disadvantage in the area. The proportion of pupils with learning difficulties or disabilities is more than double the national average.

In their Ofsted inspection of November 2006 the school was placed into the notice to improve
category. The main areas for improvement were:

raise standards, particularly in English, and provide better opportunities for pupils to practise basic skills in other subjects;
improve the quality and consistency of teaching and learning;
improve provision for the more able and ensure that all pupils have clear guidance about how to improve their work;
improve attendance.

Overall, children were not enjoying school. In January 2007, due to the retirement of the previous headteacher, a new headteacher took up post.
Results for Key Stage 2 L4+ mathematics for 2005 – 62%; 2006 – 43%; 2007 – 70%
Results for Key Stage 2 L4+ English for 2005 – 50%; 2006 – 33%; 2007 – 70%

Go to top

Barriers to improvement

Prior to the new headteacher taking up post the following characterised the school:

overall low staff expectations of pupils in the areas of behaviour, attainment and achievement, coupled with low parental expectations;
little involvement of parents in their children’s learning. Overall limited communication between parents and the school;
inconsistency in the quality of teaching;
low self-esteem of children, who were given few responsibilities;
poor behaviour, and ineffective measures to deal with behaviour;
variable attendance.

Go to top

The school-based issues – what needed to change?

Staff expectations of pupils.
The overall quality of teaching, classroom organisation and allocation of teaching time to specific areas of the curriculum.
Low pupil self-esteem, with pupils having low expectations of themselves. Pupils were given few responsibilities.
Poor learning and overall lack of pupil progress.
A lack of rigour in tracking.
A lack of accountability among staff.
The monitoring of classroom practice was not used effectively.
A poor curriculum structure.
The reputation of the school in the community.

What was done?

Immediately on taking up post, and as a result of her assessment of the situation prior to that date, the headteacher moved the Year 2 teacher to Year 6 as part of a strategy to improve results at the end of Key Stage 2 in 2007. Thereafter the following actions were taken:

the headteacher implemented her clear vision for the school and what she believed should be done for and with children. She ‘walked the job’ and spent time in classes. She monitored learning and teaching with the School Improvement Officer (SIO); provided feedback for staff and determined targets for improvement; scrutinised teachers’ plans and pupils’ work and provided feedback; and introduced performance management;
a Raising Attainment Plan (RAP) was introduced with clear success criteria;
Continuing Professional Development (CPD) was given a greater emphasis and focused on priorities in the School Improvement Plan (SIP);
teacher planning was introduced and timetables were developed to ensure consistency in practice across the school. Clear expectations of staff were defined regarding timescales with teachers emailing their plans to the headteacher by specific dates. This was consistently reinforced over time;
individual discussions were held with staff;
pupil progress meetings were held which examined data; analysed individual pupil’s progress; discussed reasons for any lack of progress; and decided on what had to be done to meet children’s needs. Staff were made accountable for their children’s progress;
staff were involved in tracking and crucially in using the evidence in tracking;
staff and children began to be involved in target setting; the headteacher had individual discussions with staff.
Classroom Assistants’ (CAs) time was increased and their role refocused into supporting learning, rather than supporting teachers. Planning sheets were developed for CAs who were also made accountable;
overall, there was a refocusing on meeting children’s needs and generating an enthusiasm for learning;
standards for the presentation of pupils’ work, marking and use of display were set;
a policy of assertive discipline was reintroduced to staff;
Assessment for Learning was reintroduced to staff and expectations made clear;
a ‘Getting Along’ programme was introduced to help develop pupils’ social skills;
opportunities for children were increased with children being involved in educational excursions. The School Council was reinvigorated and children given a voice in the school;
breakfast club was made available to all children in school;
links with the wider community were re-established and greater contact made, for example, with the school nurse and school welfare officer.

Monitoring and evaluation

Extensive use of success criteria in the RAP.
Analysis and use of data.
Pupil progress meetings with all staff.
Discussions with children and parents.
Questionnaires to parents.
‘Walking the job’ – the headteacher is in most classes every day.
Monitoring of the quality of learning and teaching.
Scrutiny of pupils’ work.
Use of the performance management system.

What has been the overall impact?

Much more effective leadership for learning.
The Senior Management Team (SMT) members much more empowered and accountable.
Rigorous use of monitoring and performance management systems.
More effective use of the tracking system to help meet children’s needs.
More effective use of classroom assistants.
An improvement in the overall quality of teaching, but further improvement still required to ensure consistency and ensure that all teaching is good.
Attainment improved at Key Stage 2, and improved outcomes at Foundation Stage.
Attendance improved and no longer an issue.
Exclusions reduced.
Staff now more accountable.
A much-improved school ethos.
Children are more enthusiastic learners, they are asked for and give their opinions, they are more confident and overall are making more progress.
Parents are now visiting the school and more involved in their children’s learning, they attend assemblies and, at times, join children at lunchtimes.
Staff are more aware of families and their needs, as a result of links with outside agencies, helping to meet children’s needs.
School governors more supportive.

Go to top

Local authority support and challenge

The key areas for support/challenge?

The quality of leadership.
Staff expectations.
Learning and teaching including planning; tracking; classroom organisation; and the teaching process.
Attainment.
Attendance.
Children’s attitudes to learning.
Pupil behaviour.
Parental involvement in their children’s learning.

What was done?

Although the local authority (LA) is not funded within the Intensifying Support Programme (ISP), it has adopted the processes and materials used within it. Actions of the authority were in two stages: Stage 1 was the period of time when the previous headteacher was in post; and Stage 2 the period following the appointment of the new headteacher.

Stage 1

Consultants were involved in the school, one-to-one training took place and additional funding was provided. This had little overall impact due to a lack of cooperation from the school.

Stage 2

Following the appointment of the new headteacher, the following actions were taken:

two SIOs worked initially in the school on aspects of leadership and management which included the SIP, timetabling and generally the provision of advice for the headteacher;
a team of three consultants worked in the school, one for Early Years, one for Key Stage 1 and one for Key Stage 2. Initially they gave very high levels of support to the school and were responsible for teaching, learning and curriculum development. One was appointed as a lead consultant responsible for the organisation of support. The initial priority was planning;
a mentor headteacher was appointed to support the new headteacher; they worked together on tracking and the identification of under achievement;
Education Action Zone (EAZ) provided support in assertive discipline and resources;
a School Support Group (SSG) met every half term to monitor support and ensure the school was not overloaded. The group judges impact of developments and identifies other areas for support, such as providing support for the joint monitoring of lessons. The group comprises the headteacher, Chairperson of governors, the Diocese Director, the SCC officer and two SIOs;
there is a RAP for each cohort and this is the main element of the SIP. It is proving helpful in setting targets for cohorts and individual pupils in addition to curricular targets;
all CPD is linked to the RAP/SIP, for example, on tracking. Staff met weekly and were either led by the headteacher or consultants;
the headteacher, with support from consultants, changed the stages at which teachers taught and used teachers’ skills appropriately;
a tracking system was introduced using the ISP model;
progress meetings were held regularly;
a monitoring process was implemented which included pupils’ work scrutiny, lesson observations and the scrutiny of plans;
a Performance Management system was introduced, with targets set being based on pupils’ progress;
monies were used from School Improvement and Targets Unit, Intervention and SCC to fund, for example, booster groups and intervention strategies;
the school was part of the ‘Making good progress’ pilot which provided additional funding for one-to-one tuition;
the headteacher 'walked the school' regularly.

Monitoring and evaluation

Half termly SSG meetings took place where the headteacher reported to the group against the targets in the SIP.
Use of the success criteria in the RAP.
A termly SIP visit using a standard form where the following was discussed:

Standards of achievement in reading, writing and mathematics.
The impact of the SIP.
The SEF (school self-evaluation form).
Target setting.
Communication, Language and Literacy (CLL).
An invitation to be included in the LA’s good practice directory.
The budget.
Use of the Common Assessment Framework (CAF).
School categorisation – discussions based on school self-evaluation and headteacher and SIP judgements of the school.
Identification of needs for LA support.

What has been the overall impact?

A major improvement in National Curriculum test results.
Improvements in the quality and consistency of teaching.
Improved planning and subject knowledge.
Higher expectations of teachers, with staff being more open to change.
Improved tracking and identification of under achievement.
A greater focus on meeting children’s needs.
Effective intervention.
Improved behaviour and an increase in children’s self-esteem.
An overall improvement in the ethos of the school.
Staff more accountable and aware of their responsibilities.
Much more focused and dynamic leadership.

‘With the introduction of major initial intensive support to the school the LA found that the schools could be
improved more quickly, and thereafter could remove the intensive support relatively quickly… but only if
the headteacher continues to lead developments once the authority withdraws.’

Go to top

Sustainability – what next?

What mechanisms are in place to ensure improvements are sustained?

What will the school do?

Continue with efforts to embed improvements begun.
Extend roles of SMT members to extend leadership capacity.
Continue with intervention procedures.
Increase the focus on the whole curriculum, and introduce a more creative curriculum.
Raise staff expectations across the curriculum.
Increase the focus on inconsistencies in the quality of teaching.

What will the LA do?

There will be a gradual withdrawal of support from consultants. The lead consultant will continue to go in regularly, along with a leading teacher.
The school is now required to define what it sees as areas for improvement.
There is a shift in focus from the authority taking the lead to the headteacher taking the lead.

Go to top