Schools & FE · Independent school inspection

Magdalen Court School

Inspected — · published 16 Dec 2016 · URN 113623

Original PDF ↗

Summary

No overall grade in this framework

Sue Frater

What we read, and from where

Click a reading to see it highlighted in the report.

Inspectors verified
Sue Frater
Postcode verified
EX2 4NU
Name on report verified
Magdalen Court School
URN verified
113623

Page 1 of 9

Deep dive

What this report says

In plain English

Join free to get a short, plain-English summary of any report.

Tone of the report

How positive or critical the inspectors' language is, from the words they chose. No AI involved.

−1Mixedmore positive than 20% of reports of this type

In line with other reports of this type.

Praiseindependentconsistentlysafeimprovedeffectivelyclearpromptlyaccurate

Criticismnot metconcernsabsencegapsconcerningnot effectively

How the report reads, start to finish

Every paragraph in order, sized by length. Tap one to see it on the page.

FindingsWhat needs to improveAbout the inspection positive critical

Findings2048w−5
What needs to improve61w+33

Strengths

Quoted from the report. Tap to see it on the page.

met consistently (paragraph 34(1)(a)) – fulfil their responsibilities effectively so that the independent school standards are met consistently (paragraph 34(1)(b)) – actively promote the well-being of pupils (paragraph 34(1)(c)). p.5

Concerns

Quoted from the report. Tap to see it on the page.

Next steps

Quoted from the report. Tap to see it on the page.

What the report dwells on

Topics by how often they come up, coloured by how they are described. Open one for an example.

Anatomy of the report

How the report is built, against others of the same type and grade.

Pages: 9
Words of findings: 2,074; about usual (typical 1813)
Reading level: Hard; Flesch 41, typical 49
Average sentence: 20 words
Next steps: 3; typical 8
Hedged sentences: 0%; “some”, “not always”, “most”…

Where the words go

Findings 69%What needs to improve 2%About the inspection 29%

Full report text

School progress monitoring inspection report

p.1

Victoria Park Road, Exeter, Devon EX2 4NU

p.1

Main inspection findings

Part 3. Welfare, health and safety of pupils Paragraph 7, 7(a), 7(b)  At the time of the previous standard inspection in November 2014, the proprietors did not meet this standard. This was because they did not ensure that an annual review of safeguarding arrangements was undertaken and did not provide suitable induction training for all new staff.  The standard remained unmet at the time of the progress monitoring inspection in November 2015. The school provides for a small number of pupils with higher levels of need. At the time of the progress monitoring inspection, incidents of challenging behaviour were uncommon but were routinely logged and recorded by staff. Staff responded appropriately to intervene during occasional disputes and to calm situations with humour. However, when staff had to intervene to physically separate pupils, the logs of the incident did not record the hold used by staff or the duration of the hold. In

p.1

Main inspection findings

addition, staff had not received training on the use of physical restraint. There was also an over-reliance on staff transferring information orally rather than completing individual records. For these reasons, the standard was not met.  At the time of this second progress monitoring inspection, the proprietors had taken suitable action to ensure that staff were completing incident report forms, including those concerning physical restraint, appropriately. The forms met requirements, including recording the hold used by staff and its duration. In addition, the proprietors obtained pupils’ views on the appropriateness of the restraint. All staff had received appropriate training on the use of physical restraint.  An annual review of the school’s safeguarding arrangements had been completed by the proprietors. The school’s safeguarding policy was up to date with the latest guidance, for example in ‘Keeping Children Safe in Education’, September 2016. The policy was

p.1

Main inspection findings

available on the school’s website and included the contact information of staff members responsible for safeguarding and of local authority safeguarding personnel. The policy provided parents, staff and pupils with a clear indication of the steps to take to share any concerns. Staff and school leaders were aware of the requirements to refer incidents to the relevant authorities. Staff had been suitably trained in safeguarding, including training on preventing extremism and radicalisation. The school’s induction procedures had been improved since the 2014 inspection to ensure that new members of staff were provided with key policies and procedures on arrival.  Pupils said they felt safe in school. They learned how to keep safe, including when using the internet. They also said that staff dealt with any bullying incidents effectively. Parents agreed that their children were safe in school.  Given the improvements in recording incidents of restraint, and that all staff had been

p.1

Main inspection findings

trained in its use, the school now meets the requirement in each previously unmet paragraph. The previously unmet standard is, therefore, met. Paragraph 15  At the time of the inspection in 2014, the proprietors did not meet this standard. This was because they did not ensure that the admission register was kept up to date with the required information, including the contact details of parents and the address of the pupil’s previous school, and that it was backed up monthly and stored for three years. The proprietors did not ensure that any amendments to the admission and attendance registers were annotated with the date, reason and identity of the person making the change. In addition, the proprietors did not ensure that a suitable explanation was entered in the attendance registers following an absence.  The standard remained unmet in the progress monitoring inspection in 2015. This was because a small number of pupils being educated at the school were not recorded on the

p.2

Main inspection findings

admission register. Where pupils had been entered, the admission register included the date the pupil started at the school, their family contact details in case of emergency and the pupil’s previous school. Procedures for recording pupils’ attendance had improved. Registers were recorded electronically and provided a more accurate view of pupils’ punctuality and attendance. Pupils were checked in when they first arrived at the school and their attendance was recorded promptly at the start of morning and afternoon sessions. Senior leaders had established clear procedures to follow up promptly any unauthorised absence. Staff completed telephone calls on the first day of absence and shared information on pupils’ absence appropriately where there were any concerns.  At the time of the current inspection, in November 2016, the proprietors had taken appropriate action to include all pupils educated at the school in the admission register.

p.2

Main inspection findings

The entries had been completed fully and met requirements. The electronic attendance registers continued to be completed in line with requirements.  The improvements in the admission and attendance registers demonstrate that the standard is now met. Part 4. Suitability of staff, supply staff, and proprietors Paragraphs 19, 19(2)(a), 19(2)(a)(i), 19(2)(a)(i)(aa), 19(2)(a)(i)(bb), 19(2)(a)(i)(cc), 19(2)(a)(ii), 19(2)(b), 19(2)(c), 19(2)(d)(i), 19(2)(d)(ii), 21, 21(3)(a)(i), 21(3)(a)(ii), 21(3)(a)(iii), 21(3)(a)(iv), 21(3)(a)(v), 21(3)(a)(vi), 21(3)(a)(vii), 21(3)(b), 21(5)(c)  At the time of the 2014 inspection, the standard was not met because the proprietors had not obtained references and undertaken prohibition from teaching checks, or ensured that gaps in employment history were appropriately followed up. They had not undertaken all required recruitment checks, including of the barred list, enhanced

p.2

Main inspection findings

criminal record checks, identity, right to work in the United Kingdom and overseas checks, and obtained declarations of medical fitness. They had not ensured that the single central register of appointments accurately and completely recorded the required checks of identity, right to work in the United Kingdom, overseas checks, barred list and prohibition checks.  At the time of the 2015 progress monitoring inspection, the standard remained unmet. This was because the proprietors had not received written notification that contracted staff employed to make improvements and modifications to buildings on the school’s premises had the required checks. The single central record did not, therefore, contain evidence of the written notification.  At the time of the 2016 progress monitoring inspection, the proprietors had taken appropriate action to ensure that all the required checks had been made on staff directly

p.2

Main inspection findings

employed by the school, peripatetic staff, trustees and parent volunteers. The proprietors had also obtained suitable written notification to confirm that all the required checks had been made on all contracted staff. The school does not use supply staff. The checks included the following: prohibition from teaching, disclosure by association, the barred list, enhanced criminal record, identity, and overseas and right to work in the United Kingdom checks. In addition, the proprietors had obtained declarations of medical fitness and two references for each person. They had ensured that all checks were recorded appropriately in a single central record. Furthermore, they had checked staff qualifications and any gaps in employment history in application forms.  Given that the required checks are now carried out on all staff and people contracted to work on site, and that the checks are recorded appropriately in a single central record,

p.3

Main inspection findings

the school now meets the requirement in each previously unmet paragraph. The previously unmet standard is, therefore, now met. Part 8. Quality of leadership in and management of schools Paragraph 34, 34(1)(a), 34(1)(b), 34(1)(c)  This standard was not part of the inspection evaluation schedule in 2014. It was not met at the time of the 2015 progress monitoring inspection because several standards remained unmet and they related to pupils’ well-being. Leaders and managers, therefore, did not fulfil their responsibilities effectively or demonstrate good skills and knowledge in ensuring that the independent school standards were met consistently.  At the time of the 2016 inspection, the proprietors had taken appropriate action to address the previously unmet standards. However, they did not fulfil their responsibilities with regard to pupils’ welfare soon enough. Training for staff in the use of physical

p.3

Main inspection findings

restraint did not take place until several months after the 2015 inspection. This meant that staff and pupils had not been suitably supported when incidents requiring restraint occurred in the intervening time. In addition, incidents were not referred to the appropriate authority.  All the independent school standards are now met. Staff training in safeguarding and physical restraint has been completed. Safeguarding and recording procedures are up to date. Staff and school leaders are aware of the requirements to refer incidents to the relevant authorities. In view of this, the school now meets the requirements of each previously unmet paragraph in the standard relating to the quality of leadership in and management of schools. The previously umet standard is, therefore, now met.

p.3

Compliance with regulatory requirements

The school meets the requirements of the schedule to the Education (Independent School Standards) Regulations 2014 (‘the independent school standards’) and associated requirements that were checked during this inspection. This included the standards and requirements that the school was judged to not comply with at the previous inspection. Not all of the standards and associated requirements were checked during this inspection.

p.4