Setting

Old Rectory School DS0000024588.V311407.R01.S.d oc Version 5.2 Page 1 BOARDING SCHOOL

p.1

IP7 7QR

Lead Inspector Joe Staines Announced Inspection 2nd October 2006 11:00 Old Rectory School DS0000024588.V311407.R01.S.d oc Version 5.2 Page 2 The Commission for Social Care Inspection aims to:

p.1

IP7 7QR

• Put the people who use social care first • Improve services and stamp out bad practice • Be an expert voice on social care • Practise what we preach in our own organisation

p.2

IP7 7QR

Reader Information Document Purpose Inspection Report Author CSCI Audience General Public Further copies from 0870 240 7535 (telephone order line) Copyright This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI Internet address www.csci.org.uk Old Rectory School DS0000024588.V311407.R01.S.d oc Version 5.2 Page 3 This is a report of an inspection to assess whether services are meeting the needs of people who use them. The legal basis for conducting inspections is the Care Standards Act 2000 and the relevant National Minimum Standards for this establishment are those for Boarding Schools. They can be found at www.dh.gov.uk or obtained from The Stationery Office (TSO) PO Box 29, St Crispins, Duke Street, Norwich, NR3 1GN. Tel: 0870 600 5522. Online ordering: www.tso.co.uk/bookshop

p.2

IP7 7QR

Every Child Matters, outlined the government’s vision for children’s services and formed the basis of the Children Act 2004. It provides a framework for inspection so that children’s services should be judged on their contribution to the outcomes considered essential to wellbeing in childhood and later life. Those outcomes are: • Being healthy • Staying safe • Enjoying and achieving • Making a contribution; and • Achieving economic wellbeing.

p.3

IP7 7QR

In response, the Commission for Social Care Inspection has re-ordered the national minimum standards for children’s services under the five outcomes, for reporting purposes. A further section has been created under ‘Management’ to cover those issues that will potentially impact on all the outcomes above.

p.3

IP7 7QR

Copies of Every Child Matters and The Children Act 2004 are available from The Stationery Office as above. Old Rectory School DS0000024588.V311407.R01.S.d oc Version 5.2 Page 4

p.3

Name of school

Address Brettenham Ipswich Suffolk IP7 7QR

p.4

Name of school

Provider Web address www.oldrectoryschool.com

p.4

inspection

14/10/03 Old Rectory School DS0000024588.V311407.R01.S.d oc Version 5.2 Page 5

p.4

Brief Description of the School:

Old Rectory School opened in 1981 to respond directly to the needs of children with specific learning difficulties commonly known as ‘dyslexia’. The school is situated in rural Suffolk. There are few local facilities to which the pupils (or staff) have access without travelling. The market town of Stowmarket is about 7 or 8 miles away, Bury St Edmunds and Sudbury about 12 miles and the County town of Ipswich a little further. It is recognised by the staff in the school that the children who are admitted will, almost certainly, have had unhappy school experiences prior to their coming to Old Rectory School. This may have been due to their specific difficulties not being correctly diagnosed or the reason for non-achievement or progress because the child was assumed to be ‘lazy’ or lacking in ability. This leads, it was said during the inspection, to a severe loss of confidence on the part of individual children, poor self-esteem

p.5

Brief Description of the School:

and low self-image. With this in mind, it is the stated intention of those responsible for managing the school to redress this and ensure that children who come to Old Rectory School are taught in an understanding and sympathetic environment. The routines and systems in place at the school are extensive, and could be considered onerous by the uninformed. However, the school deliberately puts a great deal of emphasis on structure and organisation as it has been identified that the specific needs of children with dyslexia are best addressed through the introduction of organisation and routine, something often not addressed in most of the boarders previous educational establishments.

p.5

Brief Description of the School:

There is recognition on the part of the Head Teacher and her staff that if children are to re-integrate back into either mainstream state education of go on to independent preparatory or senior boarding schools they should be out of the ‘system’ for as short a time as possible. Accordingly, it is hoped to address the learning difficulties of individual children within an average of two years, to assist them to develop the necessary skills required not only to ‘survive’ within the educational establishment to which they go on, but to flourish and feel positive about both the experience and themselves. Old Rectory School DS0000024588.V311407.R01.S.d oc Version 5.2 Page 6

p.5

SUMMARY

This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection.

p.6

SUMMARY

The inspection took place over two days, with the feedback provided on the second day. The inspection was undertaken by Joe Staines, Regulation Inspector, who was accompanied by a member of the CSCI Business Services Team, Pauline Parlett, who attended as part of her professional development and with the consent of the head teacher. Prior to the inspection a planning meeting with the headmaster was undertaken. A pre inspection questionnaire and head’s self evaluation form was sent by the school to the Commission, along with a staff training programme, anti bullying policy, behaviour policy, policy on the use of restraint, the schools statement of aims and objectives and the schools child protection policy.

p.6

SUMMARY

A pupils’ questionnaire was not undertaken as part of this inspection, following feedback from the head, who was clear that such an exercise would prove extremely difficult for the boarders, all of whom had specific learning difficulties, commonly known as ‘dyslexia’, and who may find the process of undertaking a written questionnaire damaging to their self esteem, and hinder the inspection process as a whole. Instead, interviews were held with every boarder, in the form of individual and group discussions.

p.6

SUMMARY

During the inspection interviews with staff members were undertaken including the headmistress, senior teacher, head of care, house parents, care staff, chaplain and bursar. Both boarding houses were visited.

p.6

SUMMARY

Records inspected included those sent to the commission prior to the inspection, boarders welfare records, sanction records, menus, the school magazine, staff recruitment records, child protection records, health records, training records, risk assessments and the staff handbook.

p.6

SUMMARY

Boarders and staff welcomed the inspectors and any information requested was provided promptly and openly.

p.6

What the school does well:

This inspection confirmed that the Old Rectory School continues to provide a warm and nurturing environment for a group of children who may, in the past have been let down by a system which did not identify, or respond to the special needs of children with dyslexia. The ethos of the school, as described by one member of staff to “find the positive in every child” was evidenced through the schools behaviour management systems, where rewards for Old Rectory School DS0000024588.V311407.R01.S.d oc Version 5.2 Page 7 positive behaviours were easily available to boarders, and by far outweighed any minor disciplinary issues faced at the school.

p.6

What the school does well:

One area in which the school performs well is the ability to install in the boarders a sense of pride in the school, and an atmosphere in which boarders are mutually supportive of each other. The lack of reported bullying, the respect shown for each others property and the fabric of the boarding accommodation, plus the comments made by boarders that “we’re all the same here” all go to support the perception that the Old Rectory is viewed positively by the boarders who attend there.

p.7

What has improved since the last inspection?

The school is in the early stages on introducing a new staff development system, based on a revamped appraisal and training programme, which it is hoped will encourage and facilitate the development of all staff, including care staff in areas relating to boarders welfare. Some additional policies and procedures have also been produced since the last inspection, in areas including whistle blowing and managing crisis’ affecting boarders welfare. Staffing arrangements on sailing trips have also been changed to provide greater security.

p.7

What they could do better:

Some improvements are needed in the way the school maintains health and medication records.

p.7

What they could do better:

Regarding health & safety, the school also needs to respond to the deficiencies identified during the last visit from the fire safety officer. The school also needs to ensure that appropriate risk assessments are in place for shooting and go karting. A health & safety committee should operate, and include regular walkabouts of the boarding premises, to proactively identify any areas of concern.

p.7

What they could do better:

The school may also wish to examine the impact of the recent changes to the coach house boarding contingent, and associated staffing arrangements. Old Rectory School DS0000024588.V311407.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 Please contact the Head for advice of actions taken in response to this inspection. The report of this inspection is available from enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk or by contacting your local CSCI office. The summary of this inspection report can be made available in other formats on request. Old Rectory School DS0000024588.V311407.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9

p.7

CONTENTS

Recommended Actions identified during the inspection Old Rectory School DS0000024588.V311407.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10

p.9

The intended outcomes for these standards are:

• Boarders’ health is promoted. (NMS 6) • Safeguarding and promoting boarders’ health and welfare are supported by appropriate records. (NMS 7) • Boarders’ receive first aid and health care as necessary.(NMS 15) • Boarders are adequately supervised and looked after when ill.(NMS 16) • Boarders are supported in relation to any health or personal Problems.(NMS 17) • Boarders receive good quality catering provision (NMS 24) • Boarders have access to food and drinking water in addition to main meals.(NMS 25) • Boarders are suitably accommodated when ill. (NMS 48) • Boarders’ clothing and bedding are adequately laundered.(NMS 49)

p.10

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

6, 7, 15, 17 & 24 Quality in this outcome area is good.

p.10

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service.

p.10

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

Boarders can expect the school will promote good health and ensure the provision of appropriate first aid, health care and support with health and personal problems as necessary. However, some minor improvements are needed in the area of medication records. Boarders can be confident that the schools catering provision is good quality.

p.10

EVIDENCE:

Boarders informed the inspectors that there was always a member of staff available close by in case they felt unwell or had hurt themselves. Feedback from boarders confirmed that the school has a strict no smoking policy in all areas of the school where children are permitted. The head confirmed that no member of staff is permitted to smoke in the presence of a child. Visits to the school by the local community police officer cover areas such as drugs and personal safety. Sexual health and related matters are covered in the PHSE curriculum. Old Rectory School DS0000024588.V311407.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 The inspector visited the school sick bay area, where health records (including accident records) were stored. Records of the administration of medication were not consistently completed to the required standard in that some dosages had not been recorded. A notice was displayed, confirming that a protocol for

p.10

EVIDENCE:

non-prescription medication was in place, signed by the schools medical advisor. There was a comprehensive “health details form” in respect of every child, containing information about the medical history and needs of boarders. Members of staff with appropriate qualifications provide first aid. The school has an arrangement with the local GP practice to provide access to the GP if required at short notice. Major health concerns would be referred to the emergency services. The majority of boarders return every weekend, where they have access to their family GP. School records include a welfare file, which identifies any ongoing issues related to the pupil concerned. The inspectors viewed the files and found evidence that a wide range of health and personal problems were identified, giving staff the information they might need to understand how the particular problem might affect the pupil concerned. There was also evidence that ongoing health problems, such as allergies were

p.11

EVIDENCE:

all identified and addressed. Confirmation was seen that staff have received training in the use of an “epi pen” to respond to cases of allergic reaction. Member so f care staff confirmed that weekly meetings take place, where any specific needs of any boarders are discussed and, if necessary, fed into the whole school staff meeting by the head of care.

p.11

EVIDENCE:

The inspector joined boarders for two meals, breakfast and lunch. The meals taken were orderly affairs, with a salad, or vegetarian option always available. The dining areas were clean and spacious enough for the numbers of those attending, and there was sufficient time for boarders to finish their meals properly. Old Rectory School DS0000024588.V311407.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12

p.11

The intended outcomes for these standards are:

• Boarders are protected from bullying.(NMS 2) • Boarders are protected from abuse.(NMS 3) • Use of discipline with boarders is fair and appropriate.(NMS 4) • Boarders’ complaints are appropriately responded to.(NMS 5) • The operation of any prefect system safeguards and promotes boarders’ welfare (NMS 13) • Boarders’ welfare is protected in any appointment of educational guardians by the school.(NMS 22) • Boarders are protected from the risk of fire. (NMS 26) • The welfare of any children other than the school’s pupils is safeguarded and promoted while accommodated by the school.(NMS 28) • Boarders’ safety and welfare are protected during high risk activities.(NMS 29) • Boarders’ personal privacy is respected.(NMS 37) • There is vigorous selection and vetting of all staff and volunteers working with boarders.(NMS 38) • Boarders are protected from unsupervised contact at school with adults who have not been subject to the school’s complete recruitment checking

p.12

The intended outcomes for these standards are:

procedures and there is supervision of all unchecked visitors to the boarding premises.(NMS 39) • Boarders have their own accommodation, secure from public intrusion. (NMS 41) • Boarders are protected from safety hazards.(NMS 47)

p.12

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service.

p.12

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

Boarders, and those responsible for them can be confident that the school respects the privacy of boarders, protects boarders from bullying, and has adequate procedures in place for responding to child protection concerns. Boarders, and those responsible for them can also expect the school to provide Old Rectory School DS0000024588.V311407.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 a positive means of responding to positive and negative behaviours, and for protecting boarders from access by unchecked visitors.

p.12

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

However, some improvements are needed to the schools staff vetting procedures, health & safety, and fire safety provision.

p.13

EVIDENCE:

The feedback from boarders did not include any adverse comments about the way the school managed the issue of bullying. Most boarders stated that they had experienced some form of bullying or isolation at previous schools, but had not experienced anything like that at this school. When asked what the best things about the schools was, comments made included, “no-one calls you “slow” or “stupid”, and “everyone was the same here, we’re like a big family”. Staff feedback confirmed that the school has an effective anti bullying policy, which includes covering the subject as part of the PSE programme. The inspector saw evidence of children supporting and caring for each other when holding discussion groups with boarders. One boarder stated that they found it difficult to settle in when they arrived, but had been helped by other boarders, who took them under their wing and helped them to fit in. Members of the care

p.13

EVIDENCE:

staff team confirmed in discussion that boarders often help each other out, and gave an example of mutual support that had benefited both of the boarders concerned.

p.13

EVIDENCE:

The school has a clear child protection policy that had been reviewed and revised in September 2005. The head was the schools nominated child protection officer and displayed in interview, a clear understanding of the role. Staff training had been provided at a staff briefing, and feedback from staff confirmed that they had all received the briefing in how to respond to allegations or suspicions of abuse. All of the boarders replied “yes” when asked, “do you feel safe here?” by the inspector. There had been no incidents requiring formal notification under child protection reporting guidelines, and detailed records had been made in relation to an incident where it was thought this might be the appropriate way forward. These records showed that the school had sought appropriate advice, and responded to a case of inappropriate behaviour by one pupil, even though this did not come under the banner of child protection. The school had responded to the recommendation

p.13

EVIDENCE:

made after the last welfare inspection, by producing a whistleblowing policy for staff.

p.13

EVIDENCE:

The head reported that the school’s behaviour policy had been changed since the last inspection. The changes included the use of “circle time” within school sets, a greater emphasis on positive responses to good behaviour, and moving from use of the word “punishment” to “discipline” or “consequences”. The school had a points system for good behaviour, and a trophy for positive Old Rectory School DS0000024588.V311407.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 behaviour. Incident reports were seen for the very few incidents that required notifying to the head in relation to behaviour.

p.13

EVIDENCE:

Boarders confirmed to the inspector that they were aware of the likely responses to negative behaviour, which included “being told off” (this was the most common response), “points taken off”, and being reported to the head. No boarders stated that they felt the rules were unfair.

p.14

EVIDENCE:

Regarding complaints, the school had a formal complaints policy, and information, available to boarders in the welcome booklet, about who to contact and how, if they were unhappy. This document included reference to The Commission for Social Care Inspection.

p.14

EVIDENCE:

The school had an up to date fire risk assessment, which complied with current legislation. The inspection of records showed that the alarm system and fire fighting equipment was subject to regular testing. However, no checks on automatic door closures were recorded as having taken place. The school was visited by a fire safety officer prior to the inspection, and a report was produced, identifying some shortfalls with the schools fire safety provision, and identifying the need for more smoke detectors in bedrooms, improvements to bedroom door specifications. The report also found that the school had been wedging some fire doors open, and had allowed some exit routes to become blocked with movable items.

p.14

EVIDENCE:

The pre inspection information provided by the school confirmed that there were some identified high risk activities undertaken by boarders, including go karting, shooting on a range, sailing and swimming. Risk assessments had been completed in respect of these activities, but – in the case of shooting and go karting were inadequate. The last inspection of the school, over three years ago, identified the need for these assessments to be expanded. In respect of go karting, a clear statement was needed that the school has taken reasonable steps to confirm that the supervisor of the activity is competent to do so. With regard to shooting, the risk assessment needed expanding to include the storage of weapons and ammunition. The risk assessments seen in relation to these activities had been changed since the last inspection.

p.14

EVIDENCE:

Staff confirmed, in interview with the inspector, that the staff guidelines included reference to the need to promote the privacy of boarders. Boarders themselves confirmed to the inspector that they felt their privacy was respected at the school.

p.14

EVIDENCE:

The examination of staff recruitment records showed that, in the main, a vigorous process of vetting was undertaken when new staff were appointed, however, one shortfall was noted in that a member of care staff had been employed with a CRB check that had been undertaken previously, by a different employer. This left the school, and pupils vulnerable, as they could not guarantee the accuracy of the checks done when the persons identity was Old Rectory School DS0000024588.V311407.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 verified, and did not allow for checks in respect of the period between the original CRB being undertaken, and the date the person was employed at the old rectory school. However, this had occurred before the headmistress was appointed, and no such shortfalls were identified in respect of staff appointed since her arrival.

p.14

EVIDENCE:

The health & safety procedures at the school were described by the head and the bursar, who had responsibility for this area. During discussion it was confirmed that the bursar had only undertaken basic training in health and safety, and was not confident in the role. There was no health & safety committee, and no procedures for undertaking regular walkabouts around the school premises to identify potential health & safety hazards. The bursar did report that a health & safety committee was due to be set up in the near future. Old Rectory School DS0000024588.V311407.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16

p.15

The intended outcomes for these standards are:

• Boarders have access to a range and choice of activities.(NMS 11) • Boarders receive personal support from staff.(NMS 14) • Boarders do not experience inappropriate discrimination.(NMS 18) • Boarders’ welfare is not compromised by unusual or onerous demands.(NMS 27) • Boarders have satisfactory provision to study.(NMS 43) • Boarders have access to a range of safe recreational areas.(NMS 46)

p.16

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

14 & 18 Quality in this outcome area is good.

p.16

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service.

p.16

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

Boarders, and those responsible for them can be confident that the school ensures that support is available to boarders from a wide range of staff, and there is no inappropriate discrimination on grounds of gender, disability, race, religion, cultural background, linguistic background, sexual orientation, or academic or sporting ability.

p.16

EVIDENCE:

The inspector asked all the boarders how they felt about the adults who looked after them, and if they felt comfortable approaching any member of staff if they wanted to discuss a personal problem. It was positive to note that all the boarders gave a variety of names of people who they felt were caring, kind and who would be supportive to them if they were unhappy or upset. The interactions observed between boarders and staff was positive, with boarders presenting as relaxed and affectionate when with staff, and visa versa.

p.16

EVIDENCE:

The pre inspection information provided by the school identified that there was little diversity in the school I terms of race, religion, culture or language. However, as part of preparation for living in a global community the school arranged for ecumenical assemblies and services and marking of special days Old Rectory School DS0000024588.V311407.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 to raise awareness. Advice was given by the inspector, that the school may wish to consider more ways of promoting a positive attitude towards diversity, by having theme days, where different cultures were examined in a variety of forms, including food, dress, art and entertainment. Old Rectory School DS0000024588.V311407.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18

p.16

The intended outcomes for these standards are:

• Boarders are enabled to contribute to the operation of boarding in the school.(NMS 12) • Boarders can maintain private contact with their parents and families.(NMS 19) • New boarders are introduced to the school’s procedures and operation, and are enabled to settle in.(NMS 21) • Boarders have appropriate access to information and facilities outside the school.(NMS 30) • There are sound relationships between staff and boarders.(NMS 36)

p.18

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

12, 19, 21 & 36 Quality in this outcome area is excellent.

p.18

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service.

p.18

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

Boarders, and those responsible for them can expect to be provided with a wide range of effective means by which they can contribute to the operation of boarding. Boarders and their families can be confident that contact is promoted and facilitated, that new boarders are helped to settle in, and that there are very good relationships between boarders and staff.

p.18

EVIDENCE:

The feedback from boarders confirmed to the inspector that they felt they had means by which they could have a say in the running of the boarding house, and school as a whole. All of the boarders were aware of the school council and its role in enabling pupils to have a say in things. Prefects confirmed that part of their role was to bring issues of boarders to the head of care. The head was able to confirm that actions had been taken to change things as a result of pupil feedback, including the creation of a gardening club, changes to lining up procedures for break, repainting of the dining room and changes to bedtime routines. The boarders were also able to confirm that they had suggested some of these actions. Staff reported that the use of “circle time” where Old Rectory School DS0000024588.V311407.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 different boarders had the opportunity to talk with staff about a range of issues

p.18

EVIDENCE:

All of the boarders spoken to confirmed that they were able to keep in regular contact with their families by mobile phone, which are permitted at the school as long as they are not misused. Facilities exist for boarders to send and receive e-mails and faxes and there is a private phone available, should boarders need this facility.

p.19

EVIDENCE:

None of the boarders made any adverse comments about the attitudes of staff towards any particular groups of children in terms of gender, age, or boarding houses. Members of staff were observed supervising mealtimes, activities and free time, during which time boarders were observed receiving praise for their achievements, appropriate boundaries were maintained and boarders presented as keen to engage with staff members in activities. Many of the boarders made positive comments about the staff, referring to them as “kind” “caring” and “like a family”. These impressions were supported by the observations of the inspector when staff and boarders were seen engaging with each other. Old Rectory School DS0000024588.V311407.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20

p.19

The intended outcomes for these standards are:

• Boarders’ possessions and money are protected.(NMS 20) • Boarders are provided with satisfactory accommodation.(NMS 40) • Boarders have satisfactory sleeping accommodation.(NMS 42) • Boarders have adequate private toilet and washing facilities.(NMS 44) • Boarders have satisfactory provision for changing by day.(NMS 45) • Boarders can obtain personal requisites while accommodated at school.(NMS 50) • The welfare of boarders placed in lodgings is safeguarded and promoted.(NMS 51)

p.20

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

Quality in this outcome area is good, based on the finding of previous inspections of the school.

p.20

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service.

p.20

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

None of the above standards were assessed as part of this inspection as National Minimum Standards 51 does not apply (The school does not place any boarders in lodgings).

p.20

EVIDENCE:

Old Rectory School DS0000024588.V311407.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21

p.21

The intended outcomes for these standards are:

• A suitable statement of the school’s principles and practice should be available to parents, boarders and staff (NMS 1) • There is clear leadership of boarding in the school.(NMS 8) • Crises affecting boarders’ welfare are effectively managed.(NMS 9) • The school’s organisation of boarding contributes to boarders’ welfare.(NMS 10) • Risk assessment and school record keeping contribute to boarders’ welfare.(NMS 23) • Boarders are adequately supervised by staff.(NMS 31) • Staff exercise appropriate supervision of boarders leaving the school site.(NMS 32) • Boarders are adequately supervised at night.(NMS 33) • Boarders are looked after by staff with specific boarding duties, with adequate induction and continued training.(NMS 34) • Boarders are looked after by staff following clear boarding policies and practice.(NMS 35) • The welfare of boarders is safeguarded and promoted while accommodated away from the school site on short-term visits (NMS 52)

p.21

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

1, 8, 9, 10, 23, 31, 34 & 35. Quality in this outcome area is good.

p.21

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service.

p.21

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

Boarders, and those responsible for them can expect to be provided with information about the school’s principles and practice. They can also be confident in the leadership and management arrangements in place, with clear plans for managing crisis’ organisation of boarding, monitoring of risk assessments and significant events, staffing arrangements (including training and written guidance).

p.21

EVIDENCE:

Old Rectory School DS0000024588.V311407.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 The school have a statement of purpose included in its prospectus, which clearly sets out the aims and objectives of the school and contains the information as identified in the National Minimum Standards. There is a separate welcome document for boarders available to boarders and parents on request. The school also has a written crisis management policy, included in the staff handbook, identifying prepared responses to a serious of different significant incidents.

p.22

EVIDENCE:

The function of the coach house has changed since the last inspection, in that 5 junior boys have moved in to 2 of the bedrooms of the lower floor accommodation in this house, with 9 girls accommodated in the 3 upper floor bedrooms. The arrangements for boys to contact a member of staff (both of whom reside in the upstairs part of the house) are that they use a bell, connected to the house matron’s accommodation. There were no significant differences in the management of each house identified by the inspector, however, The introduction of boys into the coach house has clearly not been well received by all of the girls, some of whom expressed concern that they do not get as much attention from staff at the coach house as they feel they would like. Similarly, one of the parents who contacted the commission stated that the bell ringing woke up the girls, and their impression was that the staff response to boys ringing the bell was sometimes slow.

p.22

EVIDENCE:

The inspector spoke with all boarders about the numbers and availability of staff. Boarders did not report any occasions where staff were not available, should they be required, and boarders unanimously reported feeling safe at the school. Discussions with the head and care staff, combined with the observations of the inspectors during the course of the inspection confirm that satisfactory staffing levels are maintained outside of school hours. Teaching staff undertake additional boarding duties in order to supervise activities. The examination of staffing rotas, accident records, sanctions, significant events and medical treatment showed that boarders were adequately supervised.

p.22

EVIDENCE:

The examination of records of complaints and significant events showed that the head took a hands on role and played a significant part in the monitoring and responding to significant concerns about pupils, or events affecting the wellbeing of all at the school.

p.22

EVIDENCE:

The school has a written plan for the provision of staff training, which covers induction procedures for newly appointed staff, a programme of yearly appraisals, 3 training days per year and ongoing attendance at training courses specific to performance targets. Staff confirmed that when they first arrived at the school they received a induction briefing from the head, shadowed a senior member of staff for at least 2 days, and went through the staff handbook, which gives guidance on all aspects of the boarding tasks and routines. One member of care staff confirmed that they had received one yearly appraisal. Old Rectory School DS0000024588.V311407.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 The inspector saw the staff handbook during the visit. This document contained clear written guidance on the school’s boarding policies and practice. However, one shortfall, identified at the last inspection, had not yet been addressed in relation to the staff disciplinary procedure, which needed

p.22

EVIDENCE:

expanding to include provision for the precautionary suspension of staff where necessary pending investigation or final decision following allegations. The procedure also needed to include provision for guidance and support to staff during suspension or investigation while allegations against them are being investigated. Old Rectory School DS0000024588.V311407.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24

p.23

SCORING OF OUTCOMES

This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Boarding Schools have been met and uses the following scale.

p.24

SCORING OF OUTCOMES

4 Standard Exceeded (Commendable) 3 Standard Met (No Shortfalls) 2 Standard Almost Met (Minor Shortfalls) 1 Standard Not Met (Major Shortfalls)

p.24

SCORING OF OUTCOMES

“X” in the standard met box denotes standard not assessed on this occasion “N/A” in the standard met box denotes standard not applicable

p.24

SCORING OF OUTCOMES

BEING HEALTHY ENJOYING AND ACHIEVING Standard No Score Standard No Score 6 3 11 X 7 2 14 3 15 2 18 3 16 X 27 X 17 3 43 X 24 3 46 X 25 X 48 X MAKING A POSITIVE 49 X CONTRIBUTION Standard No Score STAYING SAFE 12 3 Standard No Score 19 3 2 4 21 3 3 3 30 X 4 4 36 4 5 3 13 X ACHIEVING ECONOMIC 22 N/A WELLBEING 26 2 Standard No Score 28 X 20 X 29 2 40 X 37 3 42 X 38 2 44 X 39 3 45 X 41 3 50 X 47 3 51 N/A Old Rectory School DS0000024588.V311407.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25

p.24

Continued

MANAGEMENT Standard No Score 1 3 8 3 9 3 10 3 23 3 31 3 32 X 33 X 34 3 35 2 52 X Old Rectory School DS0000024588.V311407.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 Are there any outstanding recommendations from the last inspection?

p.25

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

This section sets out the actions that must be taken so that the proprietor meets the Children Act 1989, Inspection of Schools and Colleges Regulations 2002 and the National Minimum Standards.

p.26

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

No. Standard Recommendation Timescale for action (Serious welfare concerns only) 1 BS15 The school should ensure that medication records include details of the dosage given. 2 BS26 The school should comply with the recommendations made in relation to boarding by the fire safety officer following their last visit to the school. 3 BS29 The school should ensure that detailed risk assessments are produced for all high-risk activities undertaken by boarders. 4 BS38 The school should undertake its own criminal records bureau check on new members of staff 5 BS35 The school should amend its staff disciplinary procedure to include provision for the precautionary suspension of staff where necessary pending investigation or final decision following allegations, and for guidance and support to staff during suspension or investigation while allegations are being investigated. Old Rectory School DS0000024588.V311407.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 27

p.26

Commission for Social Care Inspection

Suffolk Area Office St Vincent House Cutler Street Ipswich Suffolk IP1 1UQ

p.27

Commission for Social Care Inspection

National Enquiry Line: Telephone: 0845 015 0120 or 0191 233 3323 Textphone: 0845 015 2255 or 0191 233 3588 Email: enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk Web: www.csci.org.uk © This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI

p.27