Skip to content

Help us get it right

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

Other · Ofsted letter

Setting

Inspected — · published 10 Jul 2009

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

Tanya Harber Stuart

What we read, and from where

Click a reading to see it highlighted in the report.

  • Inspectorssingle source

    Tanya Harber Stuart

  • Postcode verified

    L30 2NA

Page 1 of 3
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.

+70Positivemore positive than 91% of reports of this type

Reads more warmly than most reports of this type.

Praisesafeconfidentwell prepared

How the report reads, start to finish

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

FindingsAbout the inspectionLeadershipWhat needs to improve positive critical
  • Findings457w+68
  • Leadership120w+13
  • What needs to improve103w0

Strengths

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

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.

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
3
Words of findings
666
shorter than usual (typical 963)
Reading level
Fairly hard
Flesch 57, typical 48
Average sentence
18 words
Next steps
3
typical 2
Hedged sentences
8%
“some”, “not always”, “most”…

Where the words go

Findings 55%Leadership 15%What needs to improve 13%About the inspection 17%

Full report text

Alexandra House 33 Kingsway London WC2B 6SE T 08456 404040 F 020 7421 6855 www.ofsted.gov.uk enquiries@ofsted.gov.uk

p.1

Father J G Briody Headteacher Savio Salesian College Netherton Way Bootle Merseyside L30 2NA

p.1

Ofsted survey inspection programme – E-safety

Thank you for your hospitality and co-operation, and that of your staff, during my visit on 12 May 2009 to look at work in E-safety.

p.1

Ofsted survey inspection programme – E-safety

As outlined in my initial letter, this visit looked at:  the extent to which schools teach learners to adopt safe and responsible practices in using new technologies  e-safety training for staff.

p.1

Ofsted survey inspection programme – E-safety

The visit provided valuable information which will contribute to our national evaluation and reporting. Published reports are likely to list the names of the contributing institutions but individual institutions will not be identified in the main text. All feedback letters will be published on the Ofsted website at the end of each half-term.

p.1

Ofsted survey inspection programme – E-safety

The evidence used to inform the judgements made included interviews with staff and students, scrutiny of relevant documentation and analysis of students’ work.

p.1

Ofsted survey inspection programme – E-safety

The overall effectiveness of e-safety was judged to be good.

p.1

Outcomes for learners

 Students are safe when they are using new technologies at the school. They know and understand, and put into practice, what they need to do to keep themselves safe, this is due to the curriculum provided and the security of the system. Not only do they stay safe in school, where they are supported, but the vast majority of them apply their knowledge and understanding outside school. This has greatly reduced the number of bullying incidents and all the students spoken to felt that they were safe when using new technologies.  The knowledge and understanding of the students is age related. The older students are prepared well for leaving school and coping with the more managed systems they will come across at university and in the work place.  You allow students to have different access to the system based on their year group. This includes allowing students in Year 9 and above to have email. However some older students stated that the system in

p.1

Outcomes for learners

school is too restrictive and that they would appreciate a more managed system.

p.2

Quality of provision

 Students learn about e-safety in various ways. There is a good series of lessons which are taught through different subjects. These lessons ensure that all students know the various issues with using new technologies.  In addition to these lessons you have linked with the police and other organisations to provide interesting and relevant experiences for the students. These include days on new technologies: covering the advantages and dangers and the impact of the use of them on young people. These days are planned to meet the needs and interests of the students to ensure that all are able to access the materials and learn.

p.2

Leadership and management

 You have linked with police to adopt the ‘sharp’ system, which allows students to report any incidents online, which is monitored in school and by the local police. You have also linked with the primary schools to provide e-safety teaching and learning to Year 6 pupils.  Parent links have been developed with the distribution of ‘handy hints on e-safety’ leaflets at review days as well as details of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) ‘Think you know’ website. Parents have been provided with the acceptable use policy and the school has worked closely with them to deal with the rare incidents of cyberbullying. Despite these measures you are determined to further involve parents in e-safety training.

p.2

Quality of training

 Training on e-safety is comprehensive. All members of staff, when they join the school, are provided with the ‘acceptable use’ policy. This sets out what they can and can not use new technologies for. Training on e-safety is embedded in the child protection training which takes place very quickly after a member of staff joins the school. This initial training is followed up each year.  Members of staff are confident that they know what procedures they need to follow and they are well prepared to support the teaching and learning of e-safety across the school.  Some staff and students have attended CEOP training, this has impacted on the training that you have run in school.  However the training provided is not linked to an audit. This means that all staff, regardless of need, receive the same training.

p.2

Areas for improvement, which we discussed, included:

 developing strategies which will allow some students access to a more managed system  working with parents to develop their knowledge and understanding of e-safety to enable them to better support their children  ensuring that the training is focused on the specific needs of the staff.

p.3

Areas for improvement, which we discussed, included:

I hope these observations are useful as you continue to develop e-safety in the school.

p.3

Areas for improvement, which we discussed, included:

As I explained in my previous letter, a copy of this letter will be sent to your local authority and will be published on the Ofsted website. It will also be available to the team for your next institutional inspection.

p.3

Discuss this inspection

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

Join the discussion