School Self Evaluation Form
Elm Church of England Primary School
Summer Term (1) 2017
Context
1. School Structure
Nursery Reception Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Pupils
55
30
29
30
32
Boys
31
13
20
11
12
Girls
24
17
9
19
20
PP
6
4
5
7
Total number on roll in main school: 210
Gender balance: Boys 106 (50.4%) % Girls 104 (49.6%).
Pupil Premium Including LAC: 43 (20%).
Year 4
31
18
13
5
Year 5
31
15
16
8
Year 6
27
17
10
8
Commentary: numbers are stable. The school is popular. The nursery is also nearly full,
although numbers usually drop sharply in the autumn.
2. SEN information
SEN Support
Statement/EHC
22
4 (plus one pending)
Categories of need (updated this term by DfE):
Learning Difficulties and Disabilities
Social, Emotional and Mental Health Difficulties
Autism and Social Communication Difficulties
Speech, Language and Communication Needs
Physical and Neurological Impairment
Sensory: Hearing, Visual and Multi-sensory Impairment
Number in school
17
3
3
4
0
0
3. Context
We are a one form of entry primary school. We are more or less full. Thus we are somewhat
smaller than the average primary school. We also operate a pre-school through an agreement
with the County Council. At the time of writing we are a VC school under Cambridgeshire and the
Diocese of Ely, but the school is in the process of converting to academy status and should
convert on 1st July 2017.
Almost all pupils are of White British Heritage. The school serves a small Fenland village situated
on the outskirts of Wisbech. Some children come to Elm Primary School from the surrounding
rural area and some from Wisbech itself. The mixture of housing in the village is reflected in the
diverse intake of pupils, which includes a group of (mainly settled) travellers – perhaps 10% of the
school population. The school’s intake has average levels of FSM but somewhat higher than
average levels of deprivation (Raiseonline 2015-16). The school is situated in the heart of the
village and some of the buildings date back as far as 1861.
There has been a considerable turnover of staff. The headteacher and SLT have been in post for
five terms only and only three of the teaching staff were on the staff in 2014-15.
The school was judged “Good” by Ofsted in 2014 (Pupils’ achievement in 2013 had been good. A
number of aspects of the school’s work were graded good, including: the leadership of the
headteacher, the curriculum, teaching, governance and behaviour. However, marking,
deployment of TAs and meeting the needs of the most able were noted as areas for
improvement). Since then the school has had serious difficulties in terms of achievement, with
three warning letters from the LA in as many years, as well as a recent coasting school
designation. As a result, many changes to teaching, learning and other aspects of provision have
1
been introduced by the new headteacher and SLT and there were clear signs of improvement in
for 2015-16 in Foundation Stage outcomes, Year 1 phonics results and attendance (up from
94.3% to 95.3% in 2016). Recent data indicates steady continual improvement in outcomes and
provision, with good progress in the majority of classes in-year and projected improvement in
Year 6 results.
Overall effectiveness: 3
Judgement: overall, the school requires improvement.
Evidence:
When the present headteacher took up post in September 2015, attainment and achievement had
slumped over the previous two years. They were also inadequate in 2016 in Year 6. The picture
in other year groups was more mixed in 2015-16, with positive attainment in Reception, improved
phonics results and better progress in Year 1, better progress in Year 3 and other green shoots
reflecting improvements to provision. Attendance also showed improvement from 94.3% in
2014/15 to 95.3% in 2015/16.
This improvement is expected to continue into 2017 with 89% expected to pass the phonics
check and attendance currently running at 95.6%. Also the very poor Y6 results are expected to
rise to 59% at national standards in reading (2016 – 41%), 56% in writing (17% in 2016) and 48%
in maths (31% in 2016). Whilst this is not meteoric, it does show the school picking up its
performance and justifying a grade of Requires Improvement, rather than anything more negative.
The school is a safe community where relationships are often good. Spiritual, moral, social and
cultural (SMSC) development is good (evidence LA review Autumn 2015, good SIAS 2012 and
predicted good SIAMS Summer 2017). The school takes its difficulties seriously, and leadership
(including governors) is actively working to improve provision and outcomes. Improvements are
really beginning to show in pupils’ work and attitudes and in the quality of teaching (last round of
observations were 86% at good), although there is a way to go in terms of consistency.
With this in mind the school has applied for academy status through the Diocese of Ely
Academy Trust. Working with the Trust should enable the school to consolidate its
improvements and raise standards further.
In January 2017 the school was identified as a “Coasting School”. This led to an HMI visit. The
HMI’s report to the RSC led to a letter to the school, as follows: “Thank you for hosting Sai Patel
on 7th February 2017. I was pleased to hear from Sai that the headteacher, Andy Howe, has
accurately assessed what needs to be done in order to improve the school, and that he has a
core focus on rapidly improving teaching and learning.
I have now reviewed the information you have provided alongside your school’s wider context,
achievement and overall provision. My decision, based on the evidence, is that you are providing
pupils with the support they need to succeed. I am pleased that you are looking to secure long
term support for your school, and that you already have plans in place to join the Diocese of Ely
Multi-Academy Trust.”
The LA conducted a safeguarding review in January 2016 which was positive. An attendance
review also showed that the school was doing all it could to promote better attendance and was
seeing improvement as a result. An Inclusion Review in December 2016 found strengths in
© The Key Support Services Limited. Full article on http://schoolleaders.thekeysupport.com
leadership, staffing and assessment but identified weaknesses in TA deployment and a need to
improve areas of SEN administration and monitoring. This work is underway. Teachers’
differentiation was also seen as an area which would benefit from further training.
Areas for improvement (NB these are all included in the SIP):


Improve the quality of teaching at all Key Stages so that it is consistently good and results
in improved achievement in maths, reading and writing.
Complete academy conversion process by end of Autumn term 2016 (now July 2017).
Effectiveness of leadership and management: 2
Judgement: Good
Changes in leadership meant that the attempted improvements made in the two years
following our last inspection did not have an impact on pupils’ progress. However, with the
appointment of a new leadership team, the school has moved forward. A number of
improvements to provision have started to impact. The loss of one weak leader in 2015/16
and the appointment of an effective replacement have further strengthened the SLT. The
headteacher is highly experienced with a solid track record of school improvement in
other schools. Overall leadership is good because the school was in dire straits in 2015
and is now turning a corner thanks to firm and experienced leadership.
Evidence:
Points for improvement from last inspection
Increasing the level of challenge in lessons, especially for more-able pupils
Monitoring of planning and staff meetings have focused on differentiation. Improvement is evident
in lesson observations, but further work is planned.
Making sure that teaching assistants support learning effectively
Monitoring of teaching shows TAs are better deployed. Training in initiatives such as Write Away
Together, Rapid Maths, Lexia and Read Write Inc has enabled these staff to feel more valued
and to make more difference to pupils’ learning. Work with Inclusion Expert focused on 5 top tips
for TA behavior in class has certainly improved their focus on learning. Inclusion Expert also
helped us focus on more effective cueing and prompting. Regular TA meetings and some
attendance at CPD have supported the improvement.
Improving marking so pupils consistently know how to improve their work and ensuring
they act on the advice they are given.
A new marking system (Effective Marking) has been introduced. This has been reviewed twice.
Improvement has taken place and marking is more and more consistently good.
Although the school is currently graded ‘Good’, it does not live up to this billing (standards,
progress, etc.). The school had at least two inadequate teachers when the new HT took it on in
September 2015. Standards were low across the board, from EYFS, through poor phonics results
in Year 1, below average standards in Year 2 and repeatedly poor results in Year 6. Hence two
warning letters during the period before the new HT took up post. Subsequent poor performance
by Y6 in 2016, attributable to poor teaching over two years and the teacher then going sick just
© The Key Support Services Limited. Full article on http://schoolleaders.thekeysupport.com
before SATs, led to the designation “Coasting School”, but the view of the HMI cited above, was
that the correct evaluation and clear priorities of the new headteacher were starting to really
improve the provision and outcomes in the school. We are now confident that we can
demonstrate the capacity to improve further.
This is because:







A new leadership team is in place and is starting to have a positive impact on the quality
of teaching and the curriculum.
There is evidence of genuine improvement in standards in Foundation Stage and Years
1, 3, 5 and 6.
The basis for improving provision and outcomes has been established – monitoring
shows 86% of teaching to be good most recently. Recruiting more effective new
teachers and retaining and developing others has been crucial in the improvement (E.g.
very effective ex-deputy head now Y2 teacher from Christmas).
We can show case studies of significant improvements in teaching by individual staff
(see monitoring records).
We have a rigorous system of self-evaluation used to identify areas for improvement
(see points throughout this document) – the 2015 LA review and other advisors
consistently agree that the headteacher’s understanding of the school is accurate and a
good basis for improvement.
We can show case studies of areas we have identified and how they have improved
(e.g. impact of reading recovery, attendance)
There is a comprehensive School Improvement Plan, which the LA has described as a
“good clear plan” (LAIG meeting 08.02.16). This was completely re-written and
simplified for 2016/17 and is subject to half termly reviews. In the Spring 2017 it was
reviewed for DEMAT by Adrian Gray (consultant) and he identified one or two areas for
improvement which have been addressed.
The school has negotiated and received a range of support during the last 5 terms and this has
had a demonstrable impact on teaching. E.g. the quality of teaching in Y3 has improved following
several sessions with an advisory teacher. Work with Buckden CE Primary Academy brokered by
the Diocese of Ely has certainly improved the quality of writing. Work with Jen Reynolds has also
contributed to the accuracy of writing assessment and the planning of cross-curricular writing.
The impact of monitoring and improvement plans on individual teachers has also been clear. For
example a teacher who failed to meet our expectations resigned and another has left the school
by mutual agreement.
A number of changes to the curriculum have been designed to provide staff with structure so that
they can concentrate on planning and delivering effective lessons: Abacus Maths, Read Write Inc
phonics/reading, Get Spelling, and Wordsmith English scheme. These are all in relatively early
stages but are providing a structure aligned to the new National Curriculum. They require refining
and increased monitoring.
New assessment practice based on Essex Target Tracker is helping to improve the accuracy of
assessment, alongside termly testing and progress meetings. Staff are now recently confident
and starting to extend the system to science.
Curriculum teams lead improvement and monitoring in maths and English. These teams have had
limited success so far. Work in RWI was delegated to a younger teacher and has been
© The Key Support Services Limited. Full article on http://schoolleaders.thekeysupport.com
successful. The maths leader has revised the Calculation Policy and monitored planning and
outcomes with an improvement advisor. During 2017 it became clear that the teams were not
really working and that a real focus for urgent development was the practice of middle leaders.
This is underway. All middle leaders have now completed action plans addressing the key issues
in their subjects.
Under a new chair, governors have specific responsibility for monitoring areas of the curriculum
and areas of the school improvement plan. They have begun to offer improved support and
challenge for the school. Governors have started to visit the school more regularly, focusing on
key issues from the school improvement plan. They understand the school’s position and have
faith in the new core leadership team to drive improvement.
Governors have supported the headteacher’s wish to see the school become an academy. The
committee structure has been removed and all decisions are made through a tight and wellinformed LGB meeting twice a term.
Areas for improvement:
 Develop further the role of the subject leaders so that they can monitor, plan and
implement improvements in a regular and effective way.
 Develop further the role of governors in monitoring and challenging the school’s
provision and outcomes.
 Ensure that assessment systems are providing an accurate and helpful picture of
progress and that responsibilities for effective assessment are shared across the SLT.
 Ensure a structured approach to implementation and monitoring of interventions.
Quality of teaching, learning and assessment: 3
Judgement:
Teaching and learning require improvement but are clearly far stronger than they were in
September 2015. Teachers have improved their practice as new approaches and
expectations have been introduced, poorer teachers have left the school, and effective
new teachers have arrived. Nevertheless a minority of teachers lack consistency and
clarity of approach. This is reflected in the outcomes.
Evidence:
Monitoring records in 2015-16 show about half of teaching was good. Teaching in Reception,
Year 1 and Year 5 was firmly good. Particularly in YR and Y1 this was very clear in the pupils’
good achievement. By the end of the Spring Term 2017 teaching in Years R, 1, 2, 3 and 6 was
consistently Good and improving strongly in Year 5. Teaching in Year 4 is RI at best (NQT). Nonclass-based teachers are good. A further inexperienced teacher was replaced at Christmas 2016
with a very effective teacher (ex-deputy head) in Year 2.
Where teaching is good:
 TAs are effectively deployed
 Questioning is targeted and supports pupils’ language development,
 Behavior is well-managed because tasks match pupils’ needs and engage them,
 Pace is good
 Phonics teaching is effective
 Marking clearly ensures that pupils have to respond and follow up comments and
questions.
 Working walls have shown improvement and are used effectively in lessons (the use of
whiteboards for this has been a recent positive development).
 Interventions are used effectively (e.g. in guided reading the use of Lexia has made a
© The Key Support Services Limited. Full article on http://schoolleaders.thekeysupport.com
measurable difference to some children; in Y6 maths interventions are linked effectively to
work in class).
Where teaching is less effective:
 A lack of differentiation, especially for the more able pupils
 Ineffective behavior management resulting in a lack of focus on learning.
 Marking which does not consistently follow up learning and errors
 Planning where objectives and success criteria are inappropriate or not shared
 Expectations of the amount and quality of children’s work are not high enough
 Working walls not used effectively to scaffold or involve children in the learning process
 Planning does not always ensure activities are challenging enough or cover appropriate
content
 Interventions are not raising standards swiftly enough.
Maths teaching generally has appropriate structure – it is based on the Abacus scheme.
However, teachers are not always sufficiently thoughtful in adapting the scheme to the needs of
the children or the new curriculum.
English teaching has been hampered by the lack of a proper structure. We have worked with the
LA English consultant to try and improve planning for writing and we have also tried to underpin
this through a published scheme (WordSmith) and also through a cross-curricular approach, but
this needs a lot of adaptation and is not a quick fix.
In the EYFS, there is a strong emphasis on purposeful play and child-initiated activity. Good use
is made of the outdoor area. Adults interact thoughtfully with children. Early writing and phonics
skills are effectively taught. Reception embodies strong provision. The nursery was less welldeveloped, but improvements in leadership and staffing, together with support from Early
Excellence have resulted in real improvements in provision.
Marking is becoming more consistent. The headteacher’s expectations in this regard are high and
staff are working hard to ensure that pupils are given positive and developmental feedback much
more consistently than at the time of the last inspection. However, monitoring has shown some
teachers are not consistently checking pupil responses and children are not consistently
responding to marking. This has been recently addressed in staff meetings where we review
children’s books together.
Homework is set regularly but the level of completion and support for homework varies widely.
Home-school reading diaries are consistently used. Homework policy was reviewed with parents
in autumn 2016. We have tried to ask for less but more focused on skills development.
The teaching of RE has been a focus. Evaluation of lessons with children and the impending use
of “Understanding Christianity” has resulted in an approach that focuses on questioning, active
lessons and more imaginative teaching.
Questionnaires answered by children indicate that 86% of pupils feel that teachers explain to
them how to improve their work and 76% feel they learn a lot in lessons – this broadly positive
view of the quality and outcomes of lessons needs further drilling down to establish what children
see as the real learning process.
© The Key Support Services Limited. Full article on http://schoolleaders.thekeysupport.com
Areas for improvement:
 Consistently high expectations which translate into rigorously planned and delivered
English and maths lessons.
 Differentiated success criteria and work matched the needs of the higher attainers to be
the norm in all English and maths lessons.
 Consistent marking with next steps identified, responded to and checked more regularly.
 Ensure all lessons focus relentlessly on learning.
 Ensure that assessment systems are providing an accurate and helpful picture of
progress (including target setting) and that staff fully understand the systems.
Personal development, behaviour and welfare: 3
Judgement:
Personal development, behaviour and welfare require improvement. While there are
improvements very evident in areas such as attendance, there is still a way to go to ensure
positive behaviour for learning across the school.
Evidence:
Only 28% of pupils described behaviour as good in the pupil questionnaire issued in the autumn
term 2015. By Spring 2017 this had improved to 40% but was still disappointing. However, this is
not born out in lesson observations and other monitoring and the LA review was positive about
behaviour. Behaviour is weaker in terms of attitudes to learning.
Monitoring shows most teachers are working within the school’s behaviour management and
rewards system, but not all are working consistently. Where behaviour is weaker, it tends to be
where work is not pitched well, so pupils lose interest.
Attitudes to work and school are variable. Some do not take pride in their written work and books.
This is being tackled, but more effectively by some staff than others. Nevertheless, pupils respect
others and their opinions. Their spiritual, moral, social and cultural (SMSC) development was
rated highly during the LA review. The school works hard to encourage Christian values and to
use Collective Worship effectively to make children think beyond the here and now. The house
system is used to encourage both co-operation and competition. Class Dojo helps focus both
pupils and staff on the positive. So do the very popular achievement assemblies attended by
parents on Friday afternoons.
Exclusions are relatively infrequent, although a few older boys (mainly from Traveler
backgrounds) can exhibit very challenging behaviour which has resulted in short term exclusion.
We have few racist incidents (three minor ones in the last year logged on the LA PRIDE website).
Behaviour at lunch time is variable and pupils say there is some low-level bullying (again the
same small number of older boys). Pupils trust adults to take action but we are looking at ways of
engaging them better in taking responsibility for supporting their peers at lunch and break times.
Personal, social and health education (PSHE) covers anti-bullying work.
Questionnaires from spring 2015 show that 90% of pupils feel safe and a similar number of
parents agree. Where there was disagreement, it was largely because of past events involving
boisterous playground behaviour and in one year group particular events associated with a child
with SEN. The school council plays an important part in the life of the school. Safety awareness,
for example, safe internet use and preventing cyberbullying, is part of the curriculum. Pupils can
talk about the risks they may face. Parent questionnaires (late autumn 2015) are very positive
about the school: 95% say their children like school and 95% think children behave well.
© The Key Support Services Limited. Full article on http://schoolleaders.thekeysupport.com
Attendance was 94.3% in 2014/15, and it improved to 94.7% in the autumn term. At the end of
the year it had risen to 95.3% and there is evidence that measures being taken are having some
effect. The extent of persistent absence reduced greatly during the last year (from 36 children
below 90% in December 2015 to 18 children at the end of the year). Currently attendance is
running at 95.6% with 7% persistent absence. This gradual but definite improvement is the result
of a high focus with parents on the subject, incentives and tracking. The headteacher leads
strongly on this, and meets with parents of persistent absentees. We continue to monitor this
closely and take several initiatives to improve matters. The attendance review in early February
2016 was positive in terms of tracking and incentives which seem to be working.
December 2016: attendance on 16th December was running at 96.1% for the term which was a
very positive improvement. However, the school was struck by a D&V illness on 19th and 20th
December and attendance slumped to 94.8%. While this was still an improvement on autumn
term 2015, it was very disappointing. The improvement over the last term and a half has been
very welcome, if gradual.
Areas for improvement:
 More consistency and understanding in use of the school’s behaviour strategies in
lessons, including developing pride in pupils’ work and more positive attitudes towards
learning.
 Improving the capacity of the MDA team to deal with behaviour problems. E.g. increased
provision of lunchtime activities through a sports coach.
 Improving the capacity of the school to deal with the tiny minority of very challenging
children.
 Developing the school’s capacity to work with children and families from Traveller
backgrounds.
 Continuing actions to improve attendance to get to 96%.
 Further work to develop issues identified in SIAS inspection 2012, particularly around
areas for reflection, Christian traditions and collective worship.
for children and learners: 3
Outcomes for children and learners: 3
Judgement
Although standards and progress were clearly inadequate in Year 6 this was due to one
poor teacher who has left the school. In other areas improvements in standards (e.g.
Reception, Year 1, Year 3) are clear so tandards and progress require improvement.
Evidence:
Children enter reception with attainment mostly below what is expected. This was confirmed in the
most recent OfSTED inspection and through baseline assessment. Cohorts vary considerably as
one would expect in a village primary, but, for example, Pupil Premium children account for more
than a third in several classes.
Foundation Stage Profile outcomes
Average Points Score
Elm projected 2017
Elm 2016
Good level of
development
67%
82%
Elm 2015
58.6%
31
37.1
© The Key Support Services Limited. Full article on http://schoolleaders.thekeysupport.com
National 2016
69%
34
Cambridgeshire 2016
70%
35
Year 1
Year 1 Phonics
All pupils
Boys
Girls
School
66
56
82
2014
Nat
74
70
78
School
67
50
78
2015
Nat
77
73
81
School
80%
82%
79%
2016
Nat
81%
73
81
The trend has been reversed after two years of decline. This can be associated with the
introduction of RWI and more effective Y1 teaching.
Projected phonics standard for Year 1 2017 – 89%
Year 1 standards show strong evidence for progress through effective teaching. From a very low
baseline (see above), with a cohort including two statements and several other challenges:
 70% were at age expectations in reading by summer 2
 70% were at age expectations in maths by summer 2
 And 60% were at age expectations in writing by summer 2
Boys did better than girls. Of 6 Pupil Premium children only 3 were at age-expectations in reading
and only 2 in each of writing and maths.
Year 2
The proportion of pupils reaching expected standards in 2016 at end of Key Stage 1
Elm projected 2017
Elm 2016
Reading
73%
70%
Writing
60%
53%
Maths
67%
63%
National in 2016
74%
66%
73%
Cambridgeshire in 74%
64%
72%
2016
Previously the school’s KS1 results were broadly in line at Level 2C and rather below beyond that.
In general, attainment has been stable over time at KS1 in school but attainment nationally has
improved steadily so that the school is falling behind, especially at the higher levels and in maths.
Whilst in Year 2 this year the data indicated that reading was close to the national expectation (just
one child short), in writing and maths we were further adrift of the new standards.
Progress: in all of reading, writing and maths progress was extremely close to the 6 points
“sufficient progress” standard set on Target Tracker.
Pupil premium children make very similar progress to the whole class: 5.6 points. Similarly boys do
5.7 and girls do a little worse at 5.4 overall, but particularly in maths: 4.9.
© The Key Support Services Limited. Full article on http://schoolleaders.thekeysupport.com
Year 3
Reading
71%
Writing
58.1%
Maths
61.3%
At age
expectations
Points
6.9
6.3
7.4
progress
Although standards are probably below par, reflecting on their modest achievements in Year 2 it is
clear that the class has made good progress, particularly in maths.
Pupil premium children averaged an even better 8.5 points in the year. Boys – 7 points – did
slightly better than girls at 6.7.
Year 4
Reading
Writing
Maths
At age
54.8%
61.3%
64,5%
expectations
Points
5.8
6.4
5.8
progress
Again, reflecting on a year of very mixed fortune in terms of teaching, the overall picture is that
standards are below par, the class has made just about sufficient progress, except in writing where
they have done better.
Pupil premium children averaged slightly better 6.1 points in the year. Boys – 6.3 points – did
slightly better than girls at 5.8.
Year 5
Reading
Writing
Maths
At age
53.6%
14.3%
50%
expectations
Making
42.8%
10.7%
39.3%
sufficient or
better
progress
Standards were low, despite having a very capable teacher. It is very hard to work out progress, as
we did not have comparable Y4 data in any reliable form, but based on the Target Tracker view of
progress across the Key Stage we can see that it is of great concern. The cohort is highly
challenging, for example in terms of high levels of Pupil Premium and SEN, but the progress is
nonetheless disappointing.
50% of Pupil Premium children made sufficient or better progress in Reading.
20% of Pupil Premium children make sufficient or better progress in Writing.
50% of Pupil Premium children made sufficient or better progress in maths.
Year 6
Proportion of pupils reaching expected standards in 2016, end of KS2
Elm 2017
projected
Reading
Writing
59%
56%
Grammar,
Punctuation
and Spelling
44%
Maths
RWM
comb
48%
41%
© The Key Support Services Limited. Full article on http://schoolleaders.thekeysupport.com
Elm 2016
41%
National in
66%
2016
Cambridgeshire 65%
in 2016
17%
74%
34%
72%
31%
70%
17%
53%
71%
69%
66%
52%
The background to these poor figures is that the class, which was very challenging (14.6 APS at
end of KS1) with a high proportion of pupils on the ASD spectrum, two pupils whose attendance
was well below 50%, and many social and emotional issues, was taught by a highly inconsistent
teacher over two years. Then at Easter 2016 this teacher went long term sick. She had had a high
level of support, but her personal issues meant that she could not perform at the level required and
was subject to a personal teaching improvement plan. She has since left the school. Through
SATs the class was supported by a supply teacher. Progress was already poor, but declined
further in the term; hence the poor results, which are clearly inadequate.
We expect to see a significant improvement in 2017.
According to our figures from Target Tracker (Teacher Assessment):
55.2% had made sufficient or better progress across the Key Stage in reading.
62% had made sufficient or better progress across the key Stage in writing.
31% had made sufficient or better progress in maths across the Key Stage.
Progress measures from DfE
Reading: -3.7 – better than floor target
Writing: - 11.9 – lower than floor target
Maths: - 5.4 – lower than floor target but close.
In-year progress and standards 2017 to end of Spring Term
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Reading
2.8
3.9
5.1
4.2
5.6
4.5
Writing
2.5
4.1
4.4
3.9
3.9
6.5
Maths
2.9
4.1
4.8
4.2
5.5
4.1
For Years 2 – 6 we expect 4 points progress. In Year 1 3 points was the minimum expectation this
half term. In Key Stage 2 the picture is of continual improvement with just some slightly slower
progress in writing in 2 year groups. In Key Stage 1 progress has slowed in the last half term,
although it is close to expectations. Standards are more positive in Key Stage 1 (see below).
Standards at the end of Y6 will be stronger this year, although still below national expectations.
© The Key Support Services Limited. Full article on http://schoolleaders.thekeysupport.com
The effectiveness of early years provision: 2
Judgment:
Strong data and practice at the end of EYFS, allied to recent strong improvements in
leadership and provision in the nursery indicate good effectiveness. This is a real
improvement achieved during the past 18 months.
Evidence:
The historic picture of progress and attainment is that pupils enter both nursery and Reception
with standards below average (OfSTED 2014). Attainment historically has been low at the end of
Foundation Stage: in 2014/15 59% achieved a good level of development with a points score of
31, below national standards. Baseline data this year shows we were below national standards in
the Prime areas of learning but above average in terms of literacy and mathematical
development. Cohorts naturally vary and last year’s group have done much better – 82%
achieved a GLD and the APS was 37.1. This is considerably above national standards. Effective
teaching clearly made a difference. A different cohort with a higher proportion of SEN pupils
means that GLD in 2017 is expected to be 67%.
© The Key Support Services Limited. Full article on http://schoolleaders.thekeysupport.com
The school has only taken on responsibility for the nursery in the recent past (2012) and there
were concerns about the quality of provision. At that time children were generally all happy and
settled and behaviour was generally good (LA Review, October 2015). However, time was not
always used effectively to make the most of opportunities for learning. Also children were not
always encouraged to manage learning tasks independently or rigorously. This limited the
progress they made. The best use was not always made of assessment in terms of directing the
next steps in learning.
The Reception Teacher and EYFS leader was new in post from September 2015. Observations of
his teaching show he is a very effective practitioner with a very clear idea of how to foster good
development in pupils at this age. The classroom environment is very effective. The outdoors
provision is stimulating and well-organised. Children enjoy their play and show good engagement
and independence in their learning.
Staff model effectively and take every opportunity to support children’s language and the class
teacher uses every opportunity for learning such as counting, doubling and halving as the children
line up for lunch (example from LA Review).
Staff are using the ‘Tapestry’ program as their record of children’s learning and this is new to
them this year. They include a range of observations from different areas of learning that staff use
to inform their practice with the children. The children also have a writing journal as a record of
learning. Planning takes on a more in-the-moment approach but is based around the areas of
learning and is flexible to allow for the development of children’s interests and needs.
Basic skills, such as phonics and number knowledge are very effectively taught and children
make good progress. Teaching is good. Assessment is accurate in Reception and is well used to
support planning.
The outdoor area has been extended in the Reception area and now has an area for bikes. There
are a range of bikes, such as balance bikes and pedal bikes, which look at developing skills to
ride a pedal bike independently. This has provided greater opportunities to support rather
complex gross motor skills.
The EYFS leader is effective. Previous data has been analysed and he is aware of the low GLD
from the last few years and has put measures in place, such as hearing readers daily to improve
outcomes. He has a clear plan of improvement for the Nursery and there have already been
many improvements to provision. He has worked with the LA staff and an Early Excellence
consultant to develop provision in nursery.
Day to day leadership in nursery has improved with some staff changes and a change of
approach. In a previous visit by the Early Excellence consultant used by the headteacher, the
following positive observations were made:
“The improvements in Nursery were immediately evident upon entering the outdoor area.
 Significant de-cluttering and the areas of provision have much clearer definition.
 Inside has been further developed and clearly links with the provision in Reception
 Domestic role play has been carefully thought through and rearranged effectively.
 Real life resources are being added creating an authentic play experience for the children.
 During the visit staff expressed several new ideas stimulated by attendance at training.
 Pupil Premium money was spent on a quality set of wooden blocks.
© The Key Support Services Limited. Full article on http://schoolleaders.thekeysupport.com

There has been a transformation in the adults in nursery. They all spoke about how happy
they now are and this is largely due to the new-found confidence and courage of the
manager. I was particularly struck by her growth into the leadership position.”
The most recent visit from the Early Excellence consultant looked at continuity and progression
from Nursery to Reception. She reported that:
“The practice and provision continues to go from strength to strength. Both classrooms are
purposeful and consistent with only minimal changes being made to enhance provision and
provoke thinking. There is a clear pedagogical approach which is having a positive impact on the
children. Data is regularly analysed in order to ensure that children’s needs are being met and
particularly tuning into groups of children such as those in receipt of EYPP.
Nursery practice and provision continues to develop strongly. There is a strong working
relationship between the nursery and Reception and this has resulted in clear consistency and
continuity in approach. The children grow in independence across their two or more years in the
EYFS”
Areas for improvement:
 Develop the use of ICT to include more updated technology that is relevant to the
children. Look at ways of using ICT, for example, recording videos, taking photos
and research as well as using ICT as a learning tool.
 Continue to develop the nursery staff’s use of assessment data to inform practice.
Assessments are now fairly consistent but peer monitoring across the team could
be stronger.
© The Key Support Services Limited. Full article on http://schoolleaders.thekeysupport.com