Other · Ofsted report

Setting

Inspected —

Original PDF ↗

Summary

No overall grade in this framework

Matthew Coffey

What we read, and from where

Click a reading to see it highlighted in the report.

Inspectorssingle source
Matthew Coffey
Postcode verified
SS5 4HS

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.

−62Very criticalmore positive than 5% of reports of this type

Reads more critically than most reports of this type.

Praiseoutstandingexcellentstrongproudimprovedeffectivelyrobustimproving

Criticisminadequateconcernsweaknessesnot good enoughunacceptabletoo manynot yetlow expectations

How the report reads, start to finish

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

FindingsLeadership positive critical

Findings1000w−60
Leadership265w−59

Strengths

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

Overall, some academy leaders are sceptical that the Trust will be able to help them improve to a good or excellent standard. p.4

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.

low expectations of what pupils can and should achieve p.2

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: 1,244; about usual (typical 1049)
Reading level: Hard; Flesch 45, typical 45
Average sentence: 18 words
Next steps: 1; typical 5
Hedged sentences: 9%; “some”, “not always”, “most”…

Where the words go

Findings 79%Leadership 21%

Full report text

Ofsted is proud to use recycled paper 28 August 2014

p.1

Mr Ian Comfort CEO Academies Enterprise Trust Station Approach Hockley Essex SS5 4HS Matthew Coffey HMI Chief Operating Officer

p.1

Academy Trust

Louise Soden, Regional Director, East Midlands, asked inspectors to review the impact of the Academies Enterprise Trust (AET) and its work to improve its academies. Ofsted conducted this work because of concerns about the performance of individual AET academies.

p.1

Academy Trust

In summary, the concerns in May were that:

p.1

Academy Trust

 AET academies were not improving quickly enough, with too many continuing to be less than good  the progress of pupils, as measured by value-added scores, was below the national level between Key Stages 1 and 2 and between Key Stages 2 and 4  disadvantaged pupils in the Trust were well behind their more affluent peers and less likely to achieve 5 good GCSEs, including English and mathematics, than was the case nationally for all disadvantaged pupils  with eleven academies judged inadequate, the Trust faced a substantial challenge in raising the performance of its academies. Apart from its central resources, the Trust had only four outstanding academies to draw on for expertise, and three of these are clustered in one corner of the country  around half of all academies inspected by May 2014 were less than good, a picture that had hardly improved since our December 2013 inspections when six of your academies were judged inadequate.

p.1

Academy Trust

These concerns suggested that the Trust was not able to give its academies sufficient challenge and support. Aviation House 125 Kingsway London WC2B 6SE T 0300 123 1231 Textphone 0161 618 8524 enquiries@ofsted.gov.uk www.ofsted.gov.uk Direct T 0300 0131 407 Direct F 020 7421 6546 COOteam@ofsted.gov.uk

p.1

Outline of focused inspection activities

Ofsted inspected 12 AET academies in June 2014. In addition, inspectors conducted a telephone survey of a sample of academies to determine whether the Trust provided sufficient support and challenge. The details of the academies inspected and surveyed are set out at Annexes 1 and 2.

p.2

Inspection outcomes

Of the 12 academies inspected as part of the focused inspection activity in June 2014:

p.2

Inspection outcomes

 one was judged to be inadequate  five were judged to ‘require improvement’  six were judged to be ‘good’  none was judged to be outstanding.

p.2

Inspection outcomes

Only five of the 12 academies inspected had improved since their previous inspection. Half of those inspected continue to be less than good, including one which remains inadequate. One academy declined since its previous inspection.

p.2

Inspection outcomes

It remains the case that around half the academies in the Trust are not yet good. As a result, too many pupils in the Trust are not receiving a good enough education.

p.2

Inspection outcomes

The inspections highlighted key weaknesses across many of the academies inspected in June. These included:

p.2

Inspection outcomes

 teaching that was not good enough to enable all groups of pupils to make sufficient progress  work that was not matched well enough to pupils’ abilities and did not provide sufficient challenge  low expectations of what pupils can and should achieve  pupils that lacked good communication and mathematical skills  pupils that did not understand how to improve their work because marking and feedback were not good  pupils with less than good attitudes to learning and unacceptable behaviour  leaders that did not monitor how effectively their work was securing improvement  governance that did not hold school leaders to account or ensure action was taken to promote improvement. Overall, there is too much variability across the Trust, with some academies left to flounder. Much of the evidence supports the view expressed by one survey respondent that ‘the Trust has grown faster than the capacity of central leadership to

p.2