University of Gloucestershire

University of Gloucestershire Francis Close Hall Campus, Swindon Road, Cheltenham GL50 4AZ

p.1

Inspection judgements

Early Years ITT Primary age-phase Secondary age-phase Further education age- phase

p.1

Inspection judgements

Overall effectiveness Requires improvement Requires improvement Requires improvement Inadequate

p.1

Inspection judgements

The quality of education and training Requires improvement Requires improvement Requires improvement Inadequate

p.1

Inspection judgements

Leadership and management Requires improvement Requires improvement Requires improvement Inadequate

p.1

Inspection judgements

Overall effectiveness at previous inspection Good Outstanding Outstanding Good

p.1

What is it like to be a trainee at this ITE partnership?

The partnership is founded on the principle of working with schools and settings to benefit children and young people in the local area. The partnership provides many routes into teaching to meet a broad range of trainees’ and employers’ needs.

p.1

What is it like to be a trainee at this ITE partnership?

The partnership prioritises all trainees’ personal well-being. Trainees appreciate the adjustments that have been made for them because of COVID-19 (coronavirus) so that they can complete their training successfully.

p.1

What is it like to be a trainee at this ITE partnership?

Across all phases, trainees experience a blend of theory and practice through their training. However, school- and centre-based training are not always coordinated well, and so important knowledge is not learned as well as it should be. In the further education phase, the apprenticeship programme is intended to help teaching assistants achieve their ambition to train as primary school teachers. However, the partnership has chosen an apprenticeship standard that is not suitable for this purpose.

p.1

What is it like to be a trainee at this ITE partnership?

School mentors provide apprentices with ongoing on-the-job guidance and support alongside generic off-the-job training sessions. Although apprentices are given much on- the-job training, they are not provided with the subject- or phase-specific off-the-job training they need. Secondary programme leaders have identified what trainees need to know by the end of the course. Trainees feel that their training is relevant preparation to start teaching. Nevertheless, trainees’ depth of knowledge varies between subjects considerably.

p.1

What is it like to be a trainee at this ITE partnership?

The quality of primary trainees’ experience depends on the route they follow. Primary trainees on the undergraduate programme learn well because they follow a well-planned initial teacher education (ITE) curriculum. However, the quality of academic support provided to trainees on school-based routes is not as strong. Therefore, these trainees are not as well prepared as they should be when they finish the programme. For example, they have limited appreciation of strategies for supporting pupils who speak English as an additional language. All primary trainees, regardless of route, benefit from training that prepares them to teach phonics. However, some routes ensure that trainees gain a deeper insight than others.

p.2

What is it like to be a trainee at this ITE partnership?

Early years tutors are expert in this phase of education and share their expertise with trainees. Trainees are prepared well in some areas of learning, such as in the prime areas of the early years curriculum. Even so, training in some of the specific areas of learning is not planned as well. This leads to variability in trainees’ understanding of these areas.

p.2

What is it like to be a trainee at this ITE partnership?

Mentors and programme leaders communicate well with trainees. They know the trainees well as individuals. Consequently, most trainees feel included and valued. They are confident that when issues are raised partnership staff ‘go the extra mile’ to resolve them.

p.2

Information about this ITE partnership

◼ In 2020/21, the partnership had 460 trainees over four phases: early years, primary, secondary and further education and skills (FES). ◼ There were 14 trainees in the early years phase, 365 trainees in the primary age- phase, 71 trainees in the secondary age-phase and 10 apprentices in the FES phase. ◼ Early years trainees follow a route that leads to the award of early years teacher status (EYTS). ◼ In the primary phase, the following training routes are available: the undergraduate bachelor of education degree with qualified teacher status (BEd with QTS) route; the core postgraduate certificate in education (PGCE) route; the PGCE School Direct fee- paid route; and the School Direct salaried route. Trainees opt for either the three to seven primary age-phase or the five to 11 primary age-phase. Trainees may also specialise in mathematics. The partnership has ceased to offer the assessment-only route.

p.3

Information about this ITE partnership

◼ In the secondary phase, the partnership offers the core PGCE route. In 2020/21, trainees were enrolled on the following secondary subject courses: art and design, biology, computing, English, geography, history, mathematics, physical education and physical education with either English, geography or history. The partnership has ceased to offer the assessment-only route. ◼ In the FES phase, the partnership has apprentices on a postgraduate diploma in higher education route. In 2020/21, apprentices were studying the level 5 learning and skills teacher apprenticeship. ◼ In the primary phase, the partnership works with approximately 320 schools in 10 local authorities. ◼ In the secondary phase, the partnership comprises approximately 50 schools in eight local authorities. ◼ In the FES phase, the partnership includes nine schools from three local authorities. ◼ The partnership places trainees and apprentices in settings that were graded

p.3

Information about this ITE partnership

outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate at their previous Ofsted inspection.

p.3

Information about this inspection

◼ This inspection was carried out by 10 of Her Majesty’s Inspectors and three Ofsted Inspectors. ◼ Inspectors spoke with a range of staff and partners, including: the vice chancellor; the head of the school of education and humanities; the head of the partnership; the academic strategic leader; other senior leaders and university phase leaders; members of the teacher education partnership board; members of the phase partnership boards; headteachers and senior leaders in schools and settings; teaching school leaders; and the employers of apprentices. ◼ Inspectors also held conversations with partnership mentors, lead tutors and professional mentors and university link tutors. ◼ Inspectors sampled a wide range of documentation relating to the ITE training programmes. This included: subject and phase curriculum plans; trainees’ assignments, target-setting and mentoring records; and information relating to the

p.3

Information about this inspection

Department for Education’s (DfE) ‘Initial teacher training (ITT): criteria and supporting advice’. ◼ Inspectors also reviewed a wide range of information relating to the leadership and management of the partnership. These documents included leaders’ improvement planning documents. ◼ In the early years phase, inspectors spoke with eight trainees and three former trainees. ◼ In the primary phase, inspectors spoke with 17 trainees and seven newly qualified teachers (NQTs), either face to face or remotely. ◼ In the secondary phase, inspectors spoke with 15 trainees, four NQTs and one trainee from an earlier cohort. Discussions were held either face to face or remotely. ◼ During the visit, inspectors visited eight early years settings, 12 primary schools and eight secondary schools. Inspectors visited a further four primary schools where apprentices were employed. Some visits were carried out remotely. ◼ In the early years phase, focused reviews were conducted in communication and

p.4

Information about this inspection

language, personal, social and emotional development, mathematics and understanding the world. In the primary phase, the focused reviews looked at early reading, history, music and science. In the secondary phase, inspectors carried out focused reviews in art, English and physical education. In FES, inspectors carried out focused reviews in English, mathematics and special educational needs. Early years phase report

p.4

better?

Trainees enjoy their learning in the early years phase. They form a small, tightly knit, and supportive group. There are opportunities to share ideas and to learn from each other. Trainees greatly appreciate this and like the flexibility it offers. Trainees hold the course leader in high esteem. Her knowledge of, and passion for, the early years enthuses trainees and is often the reason why trainees enrol on this course.

p.5

better?

The curriculum prepares trainees in their understanding of child development, including the health, cognition and development of babies and toddlers. The curriculum focuses on the prime areas of learning and revisits them at timely intervals. Trainees know that well-taught oracy is a precursor for early reading. Visiting course tutors provide training to enhance trainees’ knowledge of systematic synthetic phonics. However, the curriculum is not yet fully developed. Leaders do not ensure that trainees learn about some of the specific areas of learning well enough. For example, weaknesses in the curriculum content choices and sequencing of learning of understanding the world do not provide trainees with the subject knowledge they need. This means that some trainees are not prepared well enough to teach in early years settings.

p.5

better?

Leaders have not ensured that the curriculum takes account of the changes to the early years foundation stage (EYFS) statutory framework from September 2021. Consequently, trainees do not know about the revised expectations for children from birth to five years.

p.5

better?

Leaders have not ensured that the procedures in place when selecting trainees give full regard to the latest statutory guidance. However, there are sufficient safeguards in place once trainees start on the course to ensure that the omissions do not have a significantly negative impact on trainees.

p.5

better?

Course leaders have started to take the right actions to remedy the weaknesses which leaders have identified. As a result, trainees’ experiences are improving. However, there are still too many inconsistencies that hold trainees back. For example, the systems for ensuring high-quality mentoring are relatively new. While some trainees’ experience of mentoring is strong, this is not the case for others. There are times when mentors do not know how well they are doing, particularly where they are new to their roles. The quality of target-setting with trainees is too variable and trainees do not benefit from the level of support they require. Leaders have begun to provide support for mentors, but this does not always meet their needs well.

p.5

better?

Despite the recent improvements, a lack of leadership capacity has restricted the ability to make necessary improvements. At times, this has a negative impact on trainees’ experiences. For example, when content could not be taught directly due to restrictions in place because of COVID-19, leaders were unable to recover lost ground to the same standard. Trainees were reliant on background reading and their work with mentors. This had a detrimental impact on some trainees.

p.5

(Information for the partnership and appropriate authority)

◼ Weaknesses in the curriculum mean that trainees do not have the subject knowledge they need in some of the areas of learning in the EYFS statutory framework. Leaders should ensure that the curriculum is planned and sequenced well so that trainees have the breadth and depth of knowledge they need in all of the specific areas of learning. ◼ Mentors do not always have a good understanding of their roles or how well they are meeting the partnership’s expectations. Despite recent improvements, they are not having a consistently strong impact on trainees’ learning. Leaders should ensure that they develop this aspect of the partnership’s work so that all trainees benefit from the same high standard of mentoring. ◼ The quality of trainees’ experiences varies too much. Leaders do not check rigorously enough on the impact of their plans and actions. This includes the recruitment and selection of trainees. Leaders should ensure that the monitoring of

p.6

(Information for the partnership and appropriate authority)

the partnership’s work is precise enough to ensure that the quality of education and training provided is consistently good. ◼ Although, leaders have ensured that most of the necessary background checks are completed before trainees start on their course, administration systems are not sufficiently comprehensive. This means that leaders cannot assure themselves fully that every trainee is suitable to work with children from the outset. Leaders should ensure that recruitment and selection procedures give full regard to the latest statutory guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

p.6

compliance criteria?

◼ The partnership does not meet the DfE statutory compliance criteria.

p.6

compliance criteria?

The partnership does not meet the following criteria: ◼ criterion C1.3, which requires ITT partnerships to ensure that a rigorous selection process is in place to assess applicants’ suitability to train to teach. Primary phase report

p.6

better?

The quality of training on different primary programmes varies considerably. In some, the ITE curriculum is not well organised. Leaders have not ensured that trainees have the breadth and depth of subject knowledge they need in some national curriculum subjects, especially foundation subjects. This variability means that trainees who follow some primary programmes, particularly School Direct, are not as well prepared as they should be to take up employment as a teacher.

p.7

better?

Despite these shortcomings, the training programmes fulfil the requirements set out in the DfE’s ‘Core content framework’ (CCF). Leaders provide partner schools with guidance about their expectations. In some partner schools, the ITE curriculum is implemented well. However, this is not the case across all partners. For example, some trainees do not feel well prepared to teach pupils who speak English as an additional language. Leaders are aware of this. They have plans in place to make improvements so that trainees are better prepared.

p.7

better?

Most trainees know how to teach phonics and early reading. In most school placements sufficient time is allocated to prepare trainees to teach early reading. However, weaknesses in a minority of school placements result in some trainees not gaining the knowledge and skills they need. A small minority of NQTs reported that they needed to seek out additional support to be able to teach early reading effectively.

p.7

better?

Leaders do not have robust systems to check the effectiveness of training. Typically, link tutors report to course leaders on the progress of trainees and the quality of their experience. Recently, this has been hampered due to COVID-19 restrictions. A small minority of trainees feel isolated and unsupported.

p.7

better?

The quality of mentoring is too variable. Some mentors have had little or no training. This leads to trainees not receiving the quality of school-based training and support that they need to be well-prepared for employment.

p.7

better?

Leaders attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of the programmes, mainly through trainee surveys. These are typically positive. However, they do not provide a rigorous, objective view of the quality of the ITE curriculum or its implementation. Consequently, leaders have not identified the deficiencies in some areas that lead to a high level of variability in the quality of training.

p.7

better?

When recruiting trainees, leaders have not ensured that the full range of checks are in place to confirm that trainees are suitable to work with children. Due to arrangements once trainees start on their course, leaders gain the assurances they need. Therefore, the missing checks do not have a significantly negative effect on trainees or on their suitability to work with pupils directly.

p.7

better?

Partners, including headteachers, speak highly of course leaders and many are keen to employee trainees. They are united in their view that communication across the partnership has improved significantly recently. Trainees speak positively about the availability of course leaders to talk through any worries or concerns they may have. They say that leaders are particularly considerate of their well-being.

p.7

(Information for the partnership and appropriate authority)

◼ Across the partnership, training in the foundation subjects is not consistently strong. In some partnerships, trainees do not have the knowledge they need for the subjects they are training to teach. The partnership should ensure that trainees gain breadth and depth of knowledge in the foundation subjects. ◼ Mentors do not have the knowledge they need to ensure that all trainees develop their skills well. This affects some trainees’ development. The partnership should ensure that mentors are suitably well-trained and that they understand their role fully. ◼ A minority of trainees are not prepared to teach phonics and early reading as well as they need to be. These trainees do not have the depth of knowledge and skills that they need. Leaders should ensure that all trainees receive effective training in phonics and early reading. ◼ Too little focus has been given to developing trainees’ understanding of how to

p.8

(Information for the partnership and appropriate authority)

adapt their teaching to meet the needs of pupils who speak English as an additional language. This means that some trainees lack the knowledge and experience to be able to adapt teaching so that all pupils can learn the curriculum well. The partnership needs to ensure that trainees know how to teach pupils who speak English as an additional language well. ◼ Checks on the quality of the curriculum and its impact on trainees’ development are not stringent enough. This results in disparity in the quality of training that trainees receive. Leaders need to improve their checks on the quality of training to ensure that the quality of provision is effective across the partnership. ◼ Although leaders have ensured that most of the necessary background checks are completed before trainees start on their course, administration systems are not sufficiently comprehensive. This means that leaders cannot assure themselves fully

p.8

(Information for the partnership and appropriate authority)

that every trainee is suitable to work with pupils from the outset. Leaders should ensure that recruitment and selection procedures give full regard to the latest statutory guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

p.8

compliance criteria?

◼ The partnership does not meet the DfE statutory compliance criteria. The partnership does not meet the following criteria: ◼ criterion C1.3, which requires ITT partnerships to ensure that a rigorous selection process is in place to assess applicants’ suitability to train to teach. Secondary phase report

p.8

better?

Leaders have used their expertise to incorporate pertinent subject knowledge and up-to- date research into their ITE centre-based curriculum so that it matches the requirements of the CCF. Trainees explore and critically reflect on the educational theories that underpin teaching practice as part of the centre-based curriculum. However, on school placements, some trainees revert to pragmatic solutions rather than drawing on what they have learned in centre-based training. For example, trainees are less secure in their understanding of how to plan a curriculum so that it breaks down complex ideas for pupils into their constituent parts.

p.9

better?

Subject leaders have reviewed the content of what they teach but have not considered carefully enough the best order in which to introduce important concepts. Trainees do not revisit important ideas through the planned curriculum routinely. This means that they do not learn from their school-based experiences as effectively as they could.

p.9

better?

The professional studies programme prepares trainees in the professional characteristics of the teacher. This is beginning to align more closely with subject programmes so that trainees can look at things through both a generic and subject-specific lens. Sessions on how to support pupils with special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND) and safeguarding help trainees to see issues from different perspectives.

p.9

better?

The information that school-based staff receive about the centre-based curriculum lacks detail. There is too much reliance on trainees’ own explanations of what they have learned. Consequently, school leaders do not align the centre- and school-based training in a meaningful way. Staff in schools and the centre lack a shared understanding of how different aspects of the training programme fit together. The quality of mentor support for trainees is variable. Mentors often focus on administration and ensuring that deadlines are met. The partnership has not ensured that there is sufficient evaluation of the quality of subject-specific mentoring.

p.9

better?

Trainees are not assessed against how well they are learning the ITE curriculum. Mentors rely too heavily on the ‘Teachers’ standards’ to assess trainees’ developing competencies. Trainees regularly reflect on their practice, but their development targets lack the detail needed to identify precisely how they can improve.

p.9

better?

School leaders are involved in the recruitment of trainees and are kept up to date with changes to the course. However, school partners are not closely involved in the evaluation and development of the training programme. Missing checks when trainees are being recruited had not been identified. Leaders are responsive to issues as they arise but there is not the systematic scrutiny needed to check the quality of the training provided. This, coupled with insufficient leadership capacity, means that leaders do not take enough stock of the impact of their actions.

p.9

(Information for the partnership and appropriate authority)

◼ The ITE curriculum is not sequenced well. This means that trainees do not gain the depth of knowledge they need. Leaders need to ensure that the curriculum supports trainees to reflect on, refine and consider what they have learned in light of their training and experiences. ◼ The different components of the training curriculum are not integrated fully. This means that trainees do not readily make links between different aspects of their training to help them retain this knowledge in the longer term. Furthermore, school-based staff who plan training or provide support are not aware of the detail of the centre-based curriculum. Staff need to know more about this part of the curriculum so that they can plan accordingly. Leaders need to ensure that information about the centre-based curriculum is set out with precision and is shared with school partners. ◼ The quality of mentoring is too variable. This means that trainees’

p.10

(Information for the partnership and appropriate authority)

experiences differ significantly between school settings. Leaders should check more incisively whether the quality of mentoring is improving as a result of the training that is taking place. ◼ The approach to assessing trainees’ competencies relies too heavily on the premature use of the ‘Teachers’ standards’. This means that trainees are assessed against these standards before they have gained the knowledge to meet these. Leaders should revise the arrangements for formative assessment and ensure that trainees’ targets are precise and clear. ◼ Leaders do not quality assure the training programme with sufficient rigour. This means that leaders do not have a wholly accurate picture of the impact of the actions they are taking. Leaders need to ensure that there is a systematic approach to checking the quality of the content and delivery of the training programme and sufficient leadership capacity to implement it.

p.10

(Information for the partnership and appropriate authority)

◼ Although leaders have ensured that most of the necessary background checks are completed before trainees start on their course, administration systems are not sufficiently comprehensive. This means that leaders cannot assure themselves fully that every trainee is suitable to work with pupils from the outset. Leaders should ensure that recruitment and selection procedures give full regard to the latest statutory guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

p.10

compliance criteria?

◼ The partnership does not meet the DfE statutory compliance criteria. The partnership does not meet the following criteria: ◼ criterion C1.3, which requires ITT partnerships to ensure that a rigorous selection process is in place to assess applicants’ suitability to train to teach. Further education and skills phase report

p.10

needs to be done better?

Leaders have not ensured that apprentices benefit from a well-planned FES ITE curriculum. The curriculum has been designed as an access course for support staff aiming to teach in the primary sector. As a result, apprentices are not well prepared, and do not want, to teach in the FES sector.

p.11

needs to be done better?

The curriculum has not been planned effectively. Apprentices are not experiencing high- quality training and professional practice in FES settings. They have no opportunities to observe expert colleagues teach in FES.

p.11

needs to be done better?

Off-the-job training is not sufficiently subject, phase or learner specific. As a result, apprentices do not develop a deep mastery of the specific-subject knowledge and skills required to teach a primary curriculum or a specific-subject curriculum in the FES sector.

p.11

needs to be done better?

There is currently insufficient off-the-job support and training for apprentices to improve their own English, mathematics and digital skills. Leaders have rightly recognised this and have plans in place to provide additional off-the-job training, alongside reviewing the take- up and effectiveness of the resources they provide for apprentices.

p.11

needs to be done better?

Leaders and mentors do not assess learning routinely to identify apprentices’ existing knowledge, skills and behaviours or any gaps in learning. As a result, the curriculum is not tailored to meet individual apprentices’ requirements. Progress reviews do not identify the specific knowledge, skills and behaviours which the apprentice has learned. Targets are too vague and do not identify apprentices’ areas for development.

p.11

needs to be done better?

Although leaders provide mentors with information on the curriculum delivered and how to reinforce it in schools, the on- and off-the-job curriculum is not sufficiently well integrated. It is unclear how off-the-job teaching modules are identified or how they support the apprentices’ learning journey. School-based professional practice modules rely heavily on the mentors within the placements to provide subject and phase specificity. Course leaders do not check whether the school-based curriculum is appropriately reinforcing the off-the- job training modules.

p.11

needs to be done better?

Leaders do not use the extensive knowledge and expertise of leaders and mentors in partnership placements to construct and evaluate the curriculum. As a result, they do not amend the programme swiftly to meet particular needs in partnership schools.

p.11

needs to be done better?

Although partnership leaders check the workload demands of apprentices, the majority of apprentices struggle with the workload required to complete the programme. Apprentices find the initial focus on developing academic skills, in preparation for the level 6 course, particularly hard. Some employers have had to build in additional study time to enable apprentices to cope with the workload. Quality assurance systems are not effective. Leaders failed to identify many of the significant weaknesses that inspectors identified during the inspection. Quality assurance documents lack rigour. They do not identify when and how the apprenticeship will be monitored.

p.11

needs to be done better?

Mentors support the majority of apprentices well to gain new knowledge, skills and behaviours to teach in a primary school. They use the learning and skills teachers’ standards creatively and attempt to establish meaningful opportunities for apprentices to apply and develop their skills in primary and SEND settings.

p.12

needs to be done better?

Apprentices rightly value the off-the-job training which they can apply in their schools, such as their training in SEND. Apprentices are now better prepared to work with pupils with SEND in primary schools.

p.12

needs to be done better?

Although the apprenticeship standard is not a suitable one for the apprentices to be studying, leaders have been responsive to employer demand and acted in good faith to establish this apprenticeship.

p.12

(Information for the partnership and appropriate authority)

◼ Leaders do not have an effective curriculum in place for their apprenticeship. As a result, apprentices are not well prepared to teach and meet the requirements of learners in the FES sector. Leaders need to ensure that they plan and implement a coherent phase-centric FES curriculum. ◼ Leaders do not make effective use of assessment either at the start of the apprenticeship or through their systems to review apprentices’ progress over time. They do not assess precisely apprentices’ existing skills and expertise. They do not monitor the knowledge, skills and behaviours which apprentices are learning on the course effectively. Leaders need to develop their assessment and target- setting approaches so that the apprenticeship is tailored to individual apprentices. ◼ Apprentices are not receiving effective support and teaching to develop their English, mathematics and digital skills. As a result, apprentices are not making

p.12

(Information for the partnership and appropriate authority)

progress towards developing their own skills and knowledge in these areas. Leaders need to implement their plans to address this swiftly. ◼ Off-the-job training is often not phase or subject specific. It is not aligned with on- the-job training. Mentors lack the knowledge and support to develop an on-the-job curriculum that enables apprentices to develop their skills rapidly. Leaders need to review the content and sequence of on- and off-the-job training and ensure it supports apprentices to develop mastery of their subject areas. ◼ Leaders have an overly positive view of the effectiveness of the apprenticeship. They do not have a secure understanding of the quality of the curriculum. As a result, they cannot assure themselves of the quality or monitor their subsequent actions. Leaders should develop robust quality assurance systems, accurately assess their strengths and weaknesses, and put in actions to tackle weaknesses.

p.12

ITE Partnership details

Unique reference number 70045 Inspection number 10167316 This inspection was carried out by Her Majesty’s Inspectors (HMIs) and Ofsted Inspectors (OIs) in accordance with the ‘Initial teacher education inspection framework and handbook’. This framework and handbook set out the statutory basis and framework for initial teacher education (ITE) inspections in England from September 2020.

p.13

ITE Partnership details

Type of ITE Partnership HEI Phases provided Early years Primary Secondary Further education and skills Date of previous inspection 19–21 October 2015

p.13

Inspection team

Overall lead inspector Iain Freeland Her Majesty’s Inspector Phase lead inspector – Early years Stewart Gale Her Majesty’s Inspector Phase lead inspector – Primary Matt Middlemore Her Majesty’s Inspector Phase lead inspector – Secondary Sarah McGinnis Her Majesty’s Inspector Phase lead inspector – FES

p.13

Inspection team

Team inspector Kathryn Rudd Her Majesty’s Inspector Alison Attfield Ofsted Inspector Susan Aykin Her Majesty’s Inspector Julie Carrington Her Majesty’s Inspector Sue Costello Her Majesty’s Inspector Non Davies Ofsted Inspector Tracy Hannon Ofsted Inspector Kathy Maddocks Her Majesty’s Inspector Denise Olander Her Majesty’s Inspector

p.13

Annex: Partnership settings, schools and colleges

Inspectors contacted trainees and staff at the following settings and schools, as part of this inspection:

p.14

grade

Chestnuts Day Nursery EY379310 Early years Good Churchdown Parton Manor Pre- School 115511 Early years Good

p.14

grade

Fox Cubs Day Nursery EY389263 Early years Good Hopton School House EY239574 Early years Good Little Smarties EY547310 Early years Good Upton-upon-Severn Church of England Primary School 116853 Early years Good

p.14

grade

Winchcombe Abbey Primary School 140797 Early years Outstanding Woodmancote Pre-school Group 101654 Early years Good Abbeymead Primary School 115601 Primary Good Barnwood Church of England Primary School 115714 Primary Requires improvement Battledown Centre for Children and Families 147562 Primary Not yet inspected Bourton-on-the-Water Primary School 139291 Primary Good

p.14

grade

Brockworth Primary Academy 138674 Primary Requires improvement Calton Primary School 115486 Primary Good Field Court Church of England Infant Academy 137477 Primary Not yet inspected Glenfall Community Primary School 115577 Primary Good Grange Primary School 146311 Primary Not yet inspected Harewood Junior School 115492 Primary Good Springbank Primary Academy 137194 Primary Good Warden Hill Primary School 115740 Primary Outstanding All Saints’ Academy 136016 Secondary Good Churchdown School 137634 Secondary Good Dene Magna School 137387 Secondary Outstanding Forest High School 138496 Secondary Requires improvement Holmleigh Park High School 147300 Secondary Not yet inspected Newent Community School and Sixth Form Centre 138746 Secondary Good

p.14

grade

Pittville School 115772 Secondary Good Winchcombe School 136764 Secondary Good Birdlip Primary School 115515 FES Outstanding Drove Primary School 138309 FES Not yet inspected Mountford Manor Primary School 138308 FES Good Southwold Primary School 142728 FES Good guidance ‘Raising concerns and making a complaint about Ofsted’, which is available from Ofsted’s website: www.gov.uk/government/publications/complaints-about-ofsted . If you would like Ofsted to send you a copy of the guidance, please telephone 0300 123 4234, or email enquiries@ofsted.gov.uk .

p.14

grade

achieve excellence in the care of children and young people, and in education and skills for learners of all ages. It regulates and inspects childcare and children’s social care, and inspects the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass), schools, colleges, initial teacher training, further education and skills, adult and community learning, and education and training in prisons and other secure establishments. It assesses council children’s services, and inspects services for children looked after, safeguarding and child protection. If you would like a copy of this document in a different format, such as large print or Braille, please telephone 0300 123 1231, or email enquiries@ofsted.gov.uk . You may reuse this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-

p.16

grade

government-licence , write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk .

p.16

grade

Interested in our work? You can subscribe to our monthly newsletter for more information and updates: http://eepurl.com/iTrDn .

p.16

grade

T: 0300 123 1231 Textphone: 0161 618 8524 E: enquiries@ofsted.gov.uk W: www.gov.uk/ofsted

p.16