Schools & FE · Independent school inspection

Gable End

Inspected 22 Nov 2017 · published 21 Dec 2017 · URN 130855

Original PDF ↗

Summary

No overall grade in this framework

Kim Pigram

What we read, and from where

Click a reading to see it highlighted in the report.

Inspection date verified
22 Nov 2017
Inspectors verified
Kim Pigram
Name on report verified
Gable End
URN verified
130855

Page 1 of 8

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.

−39Criticalmore positive than 7% of reports of this type

Reads more critically than most reports of this type.

Praiseindependentvery wellconsistentlysafeeffectiveengagingeffectively

Criticismnot metconcernsnot yetnot effectivefailedlack

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

Findings1853w−43
What needs to improve69w+33

Strengths

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

Adults work very well with external agencies to support pupils, when they are in need. p.1

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: 8
Words of findings: 1,881; about usual (typical 1813)
Reading level: Hard; Flesch 38, typical 49
Average sentence: 27 words
Next steps: 3; typical 8
Hedged sentences: 12%; “some”, “not always”, “most”…

Where the words go

Findings 72%What needs to improve 3%About the inspection 26%

Full report text

School progress monitoring inspection report

p.1

Main inspection findings

Part 3. Welfare, health and safety of pupils Paragraphs 7, 7(a) and 7(b)  This standard was not met in the previous inspection as safeguarding was not effective in the provision. This was because the checks on staff and the single central record of these checks were not compliant with the most up-to-date statutory guidance. Additionally, the school’s safeguarding policy did not reflect the most recent statutory guidance.  In the school’s action plan, the proprietor proposes to: undertake routine prohibition checks for current teaching staff, and as part of routine employment checks for future teachers; update the safeguarding policy and staff training so that these ensure that staff understand the most up-to-date statutory guidance, particularly ‘Keeping Children Safe in Education’ (September 2016); monitor the single central record of pre- employment checks on staff routinely; and arrange refresher training for leaders and

p.1

Main inspection findings

governors in safer recruitment.  Leaders have ensured that the omission in their checking of teaching staff has been corrected. This is reported on in Part 4.  The school now has an up-to-date safeguarding policy which has better quality references to up-to-date statutory information.  The headteacher acts as the designated safeguarding officer, alongside two other adults in the provisions, one on either site. Together, they ensure that staff are well trained, know what to look for, and report concerns appropriately.  Since the previous inspection, leaders have also ensured that staff are aware of, and understand the most recent statutory guidance, including ‘Keeping Children Safe in Education’ (September 2016).  A number of leaders and governors have undertaken safer recruitment training so that all leaders involved in recruitment are up to date with the most recent guidance.  The school maintains effective records. All adults work collectively to safeguard pupils

p.1

Main inspection findings

through daily communication about their welfare and safety. Adults work very well with external agencies to support pupils, when they are in need.  This standard is now met. Part 4. Suitability of staff, supply staff, and proprietors Paragraphs 18(2), 18(2)(b), 21(1), 21(3) and 21(3)(b)  This standard was not met in the previous inspection.  The inspection in February 2017 found that the school had failed to undertake the full range of checks required on staff, notably the prohibition check on teaching staff.  Since the inspection in February 2017, leaders have ensured that this check has been undertaken on all teaching staff, and that it is part of the provision’s set procedure during its recruitment process.  Leaders and governors were able to provide evidence that they undertake all appropriate checks, and that they record these checks on a single central record. At the time of the inspection, leaders were in the process of merging their single central register onto a

p.1

Main inspection findings

new electronic system.  This standard is now met. Part 6. Provision of information Paragraphs 32(1), 32(1)(b), 32(3) and 32(3)(b)  This standard was not met in the previous inspection. This is because the school did not have information in the form of a policy that was available, on request, regarding the provision for pupils for whom English is an additional language.  In the school’s action plan, the proprietor proposes to create and routinely review the policy that outlines the support that the school provides for pupils for whom English is an additional language.  Since the previous inspection, leaders and governors have created a policy and ratified this. This policy was available during this inspection.  This standard is now met. Part 8. Quality of leadership in and management of schools Paragraphs 34(1), 34(1)(a), 34(1)(b) and 34(1)(c)  This standard was not met at the previous inspection. Specifically, this was linked to the

p.2

Main inspection findings

fact that leaders were not ensuring that all pre-employment checks were undertaken on teaching staff. However, the lead inspector in February 2016 also identified issues with some of the school policies, including the one related to safeguarding.  The inspection in February 2017 also identified additional concerns about leadership and governance. These included: a lack of quality assurance by governors about leaders’ work; the quality of the school’s self-evaluation and school development plan; the clarity around staff’s job descriptions and roles; and the impact of monitoring and training of staff.  In the school’s action plan, the proprietor proposes to: improve the quality of safeguarding procedures and training as identified in Parts 3 and 4 of this report; implement a new methodology for self-evaluation and school development planning; create routine line-management meetings with governors and with staff; sign up to

p.2

Main inspection findings

regional and national online forums to keep up to date with any changes to statutory guidance; and establish annual appraisal for teaching staff that supports the identification of staff’s professional development needs.  As already identified in the previous sections of this report, leaders have acted to address the issues identified in the previous inspection around the safer recruitment checks on staff, and on their understanding of the most up-to-date statutory guidance.  Leaders and governors have ensured that the headteacher has undertaken some additional training in line with her role, linked to examination accreditation. They have also created job descriptions for staff.  However, leaders’ self-evaluation and school development plan have not identified the vital priorities in the school. Consequently, leaders and governors are not holding one another, or staff, securely enough to account for the impact of the work that they

p.2

Main inspection findings

undertake against these agreed priorities.  Leaders and governors have created monitoring systems for teaching, but these are not yet well embedded. The follow-up work with staff, which guides their training needs and holds them securely to account, is also not yet a routine part of the school’s work. The quality of the records of these meetings is also not supporting consistency in leaders’ approach to the monitoring of teaching, learning and assessment.  Dates for performance management meetings have now been set, although these have not yet been undertaken.  Leaders and governors are not routinely working together to review the independent school standards. While there are checks being made on different aspects of the standards, leaders and governors are not ensuring that they have a shared understanding about which of these checks are the priority, or that they work collectively to check these standards efficiently.

p.3

Main inspection findings

 Consequently, this standard remains unmet.

p.3

Compliance with regulatory requirements

The school does not meet 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, as set out in this report. 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