The Hampshire SCITT Partnership

The Hampshire SCITT Partnership Thornden School, Winchester Road, Chandlers Ford, Hampshire SO53 2DW

p.1

Inspection judgements

Primary and secondary age-phase combined

p.1

Overall effectiveness Requires improvement

The quality of education and training Requires improvement

p.1

Overall effectiveness Requires improvement

Leadership and management Requires improvement

p.1

Overall effectiveness Requires improvement

Overall effectiveness at previous inspection Outstanding

p.1

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

Hampshire SCITT fosters a strong sense of professionalism and pride in trainees. The partnership is founded on high levels of mutual respect. Relationships between trainees, mentors and trainers are professionally fruitful and pastorally nurturing. Through carefully selected placements, trainees benefit from the expertise of experienced teachers. They value the guidance they readily receive.

p.1

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

The expectation is that every trainee will be awarded a Postgraduate Certificate in Education. Trainees gain a depth of knowledge around aspects of the programme such as how pupils learn, behaviour and safeguarding. Secondary trainees savour the central ‘subject pedagogy’ days. The primary programme ensures that trainees’ readiness to teach early reading is not left to chance. Former trainees greatly appreciated input about English as an additional language when welcoming Ukrainian refugees to their classrooms.

p.1

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

Some areas, such as adaptive teaching, are not embedded coherently enough across the different aspects of the programme. Although trainees are enabled to be successful as they take their first early career steps, they have not consistently been equipped with the depth and breadth of knowledge, and its practical application, as might be reasonably expected. However, trainees are reflective, realistic about the demands of the profession and enthusiastic to make a difference.

p.1

Information about this ITE provider

◼ The provider has offered initial teacher education in the secondary phase since 2014. At the time of this inspection, there were 22 secondary trainees. This was slightly lower than in previous years. ◼ In September 2022, provision was expanded to include the primary phase for the first time. At the time of the inspection, there were four primary trainees in this first cohort. Primary and secondary are trained separately for almost the entirety of the course. ◼ Each year, there are a small number of trainees taking the School Direct salaried or fee-paying routes. These trainees follow the same training programme as other trainees. ◼ Varying year to year, the partnership includes up to 18 partner secondary schools. At present, there are three partner primary schools. Currently, all partnership schools were judged good by Ofsted at their most recent graded inspection.

p.1

Information about this inspection

◼ The inspection was conducted by an Ofsted Inspector and two of His Majesty’s Inspectors. ◼ Throughout the inspection, inspectors held discussions with the SCITT director and primary phase lead. They also met with a range of lead subject tutors, trainers and facilitators. Inspectors spoke with a range of headteachers of partner schools and leaders from other providers working with Hampshire SCITT on current and future plans. The lead inspector met with the partnership’s executive group. ◼ Inspectors spoke with 17 current trainees and nine early careers teachers who trained with this provider. They also spoke with 19 mentors and professional mentors. The team took account of the views of 13 trainees and 45 staff through Ofsted’s online surveys. ◼ Between them, the inspection team visited trainees and mentors in five partner schools in person. They engaged with a wider range of partner schools through a

p.2

Information about this inspection

series of remote meetings. ◼ To evaluate how well trainees are prepared to teach, the inspection team carried out focused reviews. In the primary phase, inspectors focused on early reading, history and geography. In the secondary phase, they focused on drama, mathematics and physical education.

p.2

better?

Leaders and trainers at all levels are clear about the potentially positive impact of high- quality training on retention in the profession. Committed trainers and mentors bring experience and expertise to the programme. The close partnership with schools means that they feel integral to the training, consulted and heard. Strong pastoral support for trainees, alongside careful management of their workload, helps them successfully navigate the course’s demands. Relevant research underpins the programme. However, despite these strong foundations, the training curriculum has not been sufficiently well designed across its different elements to embed the core content framework (CCF) fully, particularly in the secondary phase. While aspects such as learning and behaviour exceed the minimum entitlement, there are mixed messages about other elements such as adaptive teaching. This limits the depth and extent of some trainees’ understanding.

p.2

better?

Each aspect of the training adds value. However, the join-up between the various ‘Friday sessions’ and input from mentors is not coherent enough, particularly in the secondary phase. Leaders have not ensured that secondary mentors have a secure grasp of the programme’s curriculum. Similarly, in secondary, the balance between subject-specific training and generic principles is not quite right. At times, the content delivered has limited relevance to practical subjects, leaving these trainees feeling frustrated. In both phases, tools for the assessment of trainees do not link closely enough to the training curriculum. Targets set for trainees vary significantly in quality and sometimes are not developmentally helpful.

p.3

better?

In primary, the different elements of the early reading curriculum are closely aligned so that trainees become secure in both the principles and their practical application. The programme attaches value to the full range of national curriculum subjects. The primary lead monitors the quality of mentoring, giving constructive feedback.

p.3

better?

Rigorous recruitment procedures help leaders recognise trainees’ potential and set the standard for the high calibre of professionalism the partnership promotes. Safeguarding is given a high priority throughout. Trainees convey good knowledge about their individual responsibilities and appropriate professional curiosity.

p.3

better?

Leaders make systematic and effective use of trainee feedback to drive improvements. However, over time in the secondary phase, leaders’ monitoring has verified that intended things are happening, without enough focus on how well they are being implemented. Leaders, including the executive group, have been reassured by high levels of satisfaction among trainees and schools. They have not ensured quality assurance probes deeply enough to be certain whether trainees benefit from the high-quality curriculum to which they are entitled or to drive the necessary improvements.

p.3

(Information for the provider and appropriate authority)

◼ There is a lack of clarity and knowledge at different levels about how the CCF is, or should be, embedded in the secondary training programme. Trainees do not receive clear and consistent messages about important aspects such as adaptive teaching. Consequently, their knowledge and understanding are variable and not as strong as they should reasonably be overall. Leaders should ensure that each and every ‘learn that’ and ‘learn how to’ statement from the CCF is purposefully embedded and sufficiently reinforced across the curriculum to ensure that trainees are secure in this minimum content entitlement. ◼ There is not enough coherence in the secondary curriculum across school- and centre-based training, and between ‘subject pedagogy’ and ‘professional studies’ days. This means that trainees are not developing the depth and breadth of knowledge and understanding that they might. Leaders should ensure that the

p.3

(Information for the provider and appropriate authority)

different elements of the training blend together as seamlessly as possible to optimise the chances of trainees mastering everything the curriculum intends. ◼ The design of the secondary course structure does not sufficiently prioritise training in specialist subjects versus more generic professional studies. This leaves some trainees frustrated that central training is not consistently as helpful as it could be. Leaders should review the design of the secondary training programme to ensure that the focus on subject-specific dimensions is prioritised, with generic principles taught and practised where appropriate. ◼ The ongoing assessment of trainees in both phases does not link closely enough to a clearly defined curriculum. This weakens its use in diagnosing gaps and writing high- quality developmental targets. Leaders should ensure that assessment approaches align with the intended curriculum so that any gaps in trainees’ knowledge can be

p.4

(Information for the provider and appropriate authority)

precisely identified and specifically targeted. ◼ Over time in the secondary phase, leaders’ monitoring and quality assurance has been too focused on checking that things are happening without sufficiently delving into their quality and effectiveness. Thus, feedback has not been suitable to secure necessary improvements. Leaders should ensure quality assurance activities are thorough, go further beyond compliance, result in relevant developmental feedback and better support and drive improvement. ◼ Without the insight that more rigorous quality assurance would bring, strategic leaders were not sufficiently aware of the significance of some of the existing weaknesses. Consequently, in recent years, they have not planned well enough to secure the range of timely improvement required. Leaders should ensure that they use the insights from a range of careful monitoring and evaluation activities to form a

p.4

(Information for the provider and appropriate authority)

thorough and accurate view of strengths and weaknesses. They should prioritise areas that need addressing in a more robust improvement-planning cycle.

p.4

comply with the ITE compliance criteria?

◼ The provider meets the DfE statutory compliance criteria.

p.4

ITE provider details

Unique reference number 70300 Inspection number 10277993

p.5

ITE provider details

This inspection was carried out in accordance with the ‘Initial teacher education inspection framework and handbook’.

p.5

ITE provider details

This framework and handbook sets out the statutory basis and framework for initial teacher education (ITE) inspections in England from September 2020.

p.5

ITE provider details

Type of ITE provider School-centred initial teacher training Phases provided Primary and secondary combined Date of previous inspection 15 June and 16 November 2016

p.5

Inspection team

Clive Dunn, Lead inspector Ofsted Inspector Alan Derry His Majesty’s Inspector Linda Culling His Majesty’s Inspector

p.5

Annex: Placement schools

Inspectors visited the following schools as part of this inspection:

p.6

Name URN ITE phases

Crestwood Community School 116445 Secondary St Mark’s Church of England School 116342 Primary Tanners Brook Primary School 142076 Primary The Romsey School 137239 Secondary Thornden School 136715 Secondary 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 1231, or email enquiries@ofsted.gov.uk .

p.6

Name URN ITE phases

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.7

Name URN ITE phases

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

p.7

Name URN ITE phases

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

p.7

Name URN ITE phases

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

p.7