Skip to content

Help us get it right

Sign in (free) to send feedback, so we can tell you when it's fixed.

Other · Local authority data pack

Setting

Inspected —

Help us get it right

Sign in (free) to send feedback, so we can tell you when it's fixed.

Original PDF ↗

Summary

No overall grade in this framework

What we read, and from where

Click a reading to see it highlighted in the report.

    Page 1 of 2
    Page 1 of the report

    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.

    −20Mixedmore positive than 37% of reports of this type

    In line with other reports of this type.

    Criticismlower

    How the report reads, start to finish

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

    Findings positive critical

    Strengths

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

    No standout praise found.

    Concerns

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

    No strong criticism found.

    Next steps

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

    No next steps set out.

    Full report text

    Aspect Current performance Indications of improvement Capacity to sustain improvement School Improvement 2.58 3.25 1.80 SEN 1.00 2.00 1.00 Social Inclusion 1.90 2.00 2.67 Life Long Learning 2.50 - 1.00 Strategic Management 1.83 - 2.00 Average Score 2.08 2.63 1.92

    p.1

    3 star Proven Secure

    Notes: 1. Details of how categories are scored can be found in the CPA Education Guidelines.

    p.1

    3 star Proven Secure

    2. The Average Score thresholds for the Performance star ratings are as follows: 3 star is obtained if the Average Score is less than or equal to 2.37 2 star (upper) is obtained if the Average Score is more than 2.37 but less than or equal to 2.79 2 star (lower) is obtained if the Average Score is more than 2.79 but less than or equal to 3.34 1 star is obtained if the Average Score is more than 3.34 but less than or equal to 3.75 - star is obtained if the Average Score is greater than 3.75

    p.1

    2001-2003 Percentage of primary schools causing concern Trend

    2 (0.5) 1.47 1_C1 Percentage of schools graded V or G for management and efficiency 3 85.33

    p.2

    2001-2003 Percentage of primary schools causing concern Trend

    1_A2 2002 KS2 English Average Point Score 2 (0.5), 3 27.72 1_B2

    p.2

    inadequate sixth forms) Trend

    2 (0.5) 0.00 1_C2 JRS 6 - allocation of resources to priorities

    p.2

    inadequate sixth forms) Trend

    1_A3 2002 KS2 Mathematics Average Point Score 2 (0.5), 3 27.32 1_B3 2000-2002 KS2 English Average Point Score Trend 2 (0.5), 3 -0.07 1_C3 JRS 25 - performance management of services to support school improvement

    p.2

    2002 KS2-KS3 VA

    2 (0.5) 100.30 1_B4 2000-2002 KS2 Mathematics Average Point Score Trend 2 (0.5), 3 -0.04 1_C4 JRS 27 - effectiveness of services to support school improvement

    p.2

    2002 KS3-GCSE VA

    2 (0.5) 99.30 1_B5 2000-2002 KS3 English Average Point Score Trend 2 (0.167), 3 0.33 1_C5 EDP Grade

    p.2

    2002 KS3-GCSE VA

    1_A6 JRS 14 - support to schools for raising standards in curriculum use of ICT 1_B6 2000-2002 KS3 Mathematics Average Point Score Trend 2 (0.167), 3 0.41

    p.2

    2002 KS3-GCSE VA

    1_A7 JRS 4 - effectiveness of strategy for school improvement 1_B7 2000-2002 KS3 Science Average Point Score Trend 2 (0.167), 3 0.62

    p.2

    2002 KS3-GCSE VA

    1_A8 JRS 1 (Context) - JRS 2 (Performance) -1 1_B8 2000-2002 GCSE Average Point Score Trend 2 (0.5), 3 0.94

    p.2

    2002 KS3-GCSE VA

    1_B9 JRS 5 - progress in implementing strategy for school improvement 1_B10 2000-2002 GCSE 5+ A*-C Percentage Trend (Schools <25% in 1999)

    p.2

    Score

    2_A1 JRS 30 - effectiveness of LEA in meeting statutory obligations 2_B1 JRS31 - effectiveness in exercising functions to support school improvement 2_C1 JRS 29 - effectiveness of strategy for SEN

    p.2

    Score

    2_A2 Percentage of pupils for whom a statement is issued for the first time within 18

    p.2

    Score

    3_A1 2003 Primary Attendance Rate 2 (0.5), 3 94.86 3_B1 2001-2003 Primary Attendance Rate Trend 2 (0.5), 3 0.05 3_C1 JRS 33 - overall effectiveness of the LEA in promoting social inclusion

    p.2

    Score

    3_A2 2003 Secondary Attendance Rate 2 (0.5), 3 92.56 3_B2 2001-2003 Secondary Attendance Rate Trend 2 (0.5), 3 0.23 3_C2 JRS 42 - effectiveness of the LEA in combating racism

    p.2

    Score

    3_A3 2002 GCSE 1+ A*-G Percentage (children in public care) 55.56 3_B3 Percentage of pupils receiving alternative tuition reintegrated into schools 25.93 3_C3 Percentage of schools graded V or G for climate 96.10

    p.2

    Score

    3_A4 2002 GCSE 1+ A*-G Percentage 98.04 3_B4 2000-2002 GCSE 1+ A*-G percentage Trend 0.25

    p.2

    Score

    3_A6 JRS 16 - support for EM and Traveller children

    p.2

    16-17 year old participation rates in education and training

    84.00 4_C1 JRS 49 - effectiveness of the co-ordination of actions in support of priorities

    p.2

    Score

    5_A1 JRS 52 - overall effectiveness of the LEA 5_C1 JRS 51 - capacity of the LEA to improve

    p.2

    Score

    5_A2 JRS 45 - effectiveness of decision making 5_C2 JRS 7 - effectiveness of strategies to promote continuous improvement

    p.2

    Score

    5_A3 JRS 34 - extent to which LEA meets its requirements (places) 2 (0.5) 5_C3 Percentage of schools graded V or G overall 82.89

    p.2

    Score

    5_A4 JRS 36 - extent to which LEA meets its requirements (admissions) 2 (0.5)

    p.2

    1.92

    Notes: 1. For JRS indicators scores are calculated so that; grades 1 and 2 equate to a score of 1; grade 3, 4 and 5 equate to scores of 2, 3 and 4 respectively; and grades 6 and 7 equate to a score of 5. For non-JRS indicators scores please consult CPA guidance. 2. Variables given a weighting when calculating average. The weighting applied is given in brackets. 3. Thresholds from the 2002 model used to calculate scores 4. BOLD = changes to the model for 2003 5. For more information on the indicators, please see the 'Contents and Operation of the Education Profile' at www.ofsted.gov.uk/lea

    p.2

    Discuss this inspection

    Members compare notes on inspectors and inspections here. Join free to read and post.

    Join the discussion