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 31 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

Susan Bowles

What we read, and from where

Click a reading to see it highlighted in the report.

  • Inspectorssingle source

    Susan Bowles

  • Postcode verified

    RM4 1AU

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.

+69Positivemore positive than 91% of reports of this type

Reads more warmly than most reports of this type.

Praisesafefeel safeconfidentlyclear

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
  • Findings340w+67
  • Leadership120w0
  • What needs to improve96w+20

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.

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
542
shorter than usual (typical 963)
Reading level
Hard
Flesch 43, typical 48
Average sentence
19 words
Next steps
3
typical 2
Hedged sentences
14%
“some”, “not always”, “most”…

Where the words go

Findings 49%Leadership 17%What needs to improve 14%About the inspection 20%

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

Mr G Alderton Headteacher Lambourne Primary School Hoe Lane Abridge Romford Essex RM4 1AU

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 24 June 2009 to look at 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 pupils, scrutiny of relevant documentation and pupils’ work.

p.1

Ofsted survey inspection programme – E-safety

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

p.1

Outcomes for learners

 Pupils have appropriate knowledge and understanding about how to keep themselves safe when using the internet and new forms of communication. They feel safe in school and the great majority adopt safe practices when using technology at home, though there have been a few incidents.  Their safety is mainly due to the school’s securely managed system which blocks inappropriate websites. Activities in school have led them to understand some ways to keep themselves safe, but much is learned at home, where pupils generally have less restricted access.

p.1

Quality of provision

 The school’s managed system protects pupils from unsuitable material on the internet. Pupils learn to use this system independently and appropriately from an early age; for instance, in Key Stage 1 they have sent e-mails to Australia.  Pupils follow a relevant and interesting ICT curriculum linked to learning in other subjects. Lessons sometimes have an e-safety emphasis: for example, older pupils learn to make discriminating choices about web content.  Year 6 have specific guidance about personal e-safety, sometimes led by the police, and the school has responded to incidents by giving pupils suitable advice.  However, the curriculum has not been closely monitored to check that it equips all pupils across the age range to deal confidently with the issues they experience out of school.

p.2

Leadership and management

The leadership and management of e-safety are satisfactory.

p.2

Leadership and management

 Your vision for e-safety appropriately seeks to enable pupils to learn from safely-managed but realistic experience of new technologies. However, the current development plan does not show how the vision will be realised, and action to date has been ad hoc.  There is no agreed policy for the acceptable use of new technology. However, policies for Child Protection, ICT and PSHE have now been updated to take account of e-safety.  Incidents have been logged and followed up carefully. You have acted to teach all involved how to avoid similar problems in future.  The school’s website provides parents with a helpful link to up to date information on e-safety.

p.2

Quality of training

 As a result of informal briefings the teachers are broadly aware of the dangers and benefits of using new technologies and have been able to guide and support the pupils adequately. However, briefings on e- safety have not involved all staff or governors.  Although the pupils are safe, you are aware of the need to introduce a more strategic approach to training on e-safety. You are drawing on resources from, among others, the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA) to match future training to the needs of staff and governors.

p.2

Areas for improvement, which we discussed, included:

 ensuring all staff and governors are trained to implement clear expectations for the use of new technology  developing a curriculum which allows the students to gain better knowledge and understanding of the e-safety issues which they may come across.

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