High Standards & High Expectations

Bishop Fox’s

High Standards & High Expectations

SELF EVALUATION FORM
Updated: September 2016
SECTION 1:
JUDGEMENTS
OVERALL JUDGEMENTS
Category / Section / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / Lead SLT
Achievement / 3 / √ / KT
Teaching & Learning / 4 / √ / NWB
Behaviour & Safety / 5 / √ / CM
Leadership & Management / 6 / √ / PS
SMSC / 7 / √ / SJS
Overall effectiveness / 8 / √ / SLT/FGB

The overall effectiveness is judged to be ‘Good’. This reflects the fact that Ofsted judgments have been driven by ‘Achievement’.

This is endorsed by data evidence and external verification including:-

-  ROL

-  Ofsted

-  Data dashboard

-  SIP evaluation

-  LA categorization

-  Arbor reports

-  Parent/community perception

SECTION 2
SCHOOL CONTEXT

·  The school assumed Academy Status in July 2011.

·  Both Ofsted Reports of July 2010 and 2013 judged the school as ‘Good’ with a number of outstanding features.

·  The school’s capacity is 915 and the school roll is currently 962.

·  KS2 APS was well below the National Average. ( 27.1 for year 11 in 2016).

·  KS4 outcomes have significantly improved and the overall school culture has remained positive. Year 11 students made impressive progress in both 2016 and 2015 in keeping with the outstanding set of results achieved in 2014.

·  KS4 value-added progress measures have been consistently higher than the National Average for all but one of the past eight years.

·  Average staff costs are higher than the National Average with the low staff turnover that is typical of many schools outside of the major towns and cities in the South-West.

·  Despite the challenge of a falling secondary demographic in the highly competitive Taunton area, the current school roll has risen to 962 students. We now plan for 200 students to join us in Year 7 each year rather than the previous cohorts of 180. At present the demand for places unfortunately exceeds our capacity for any additional students.

·  In the same time-frame the %FSM, %SEN, %EAL have all risen, increasing the challenge the school faces in securing good KS4 qualifications for all (27% PP).

·  Over the past 5 years the stability of the school population has ranged from 82% to 88%. All figures are below national averages.

·  The level of casual admissions has been consistently high for the past 8 years.

·  Over 10% of students have English as a second language. This proportion is growing with an expansion in the number of students from Eastern European countries. This figure is below the National Average (2015 ROL 15.1%).

·  The proportion of students on the SEN register varies between year groups from 25% to 30% (prior to the new Code of Practice changing the criteria). With a school average of 15% of the students having SEN support, this figure is currently above the National Average (12.4%, 2015 ROL). Seven students currently have statements/EHC plans.

·  The level of fixed-term exclusions is relatively low despite our firm stance on acceptable behaviour. There has not been any permanent exclusions for eight years.

·  The Wealth Poverty Index at 0.17 suggests Bishop Fox’s is broadly at the National Average (0.22) but below average in Somerset.

·  Secondary schooling in Taunton is highly competitive with several independent and two very successful Local Authority schools who draw able students from our catchment area.

·  The extra-curricular provision (see website) is extensive and highly valued by students.

·  The DfE School efficiency matrix judged Bishop Fox’s as the most efficient compared to all Somerset schools (2014).

·  Year 11 ( 2016 leavers) KS2 Average fine points score is 27.1, the lowest of all year groups and below the National Average (27.6). 9% of the Year 11 cohort do not have KS2 data. Based on prior attainment bands only 25.7% of Year 11 are “highs”, this is below the national figure of 30.9%.

SECTION 3
ACHIEVEMENT

Overall grade judgement: Good (2)

In 2014 the school delivered its best ever KS4 performance – despite evidence of national volatility – with 71% of students gaining 5+ A*C EM best entry and 66% on first entry. Value Added was 1015.8. Both of these headline measures rated sig +ve against National Performance despite the KS2 APS being below National Average.

This pattern was sustained in 2015 with 62% achieving 5+A*C EM best entry and 61% first entry. The Value Added figure remains above average at 1005.3. For this cohort the KS2 APS was also below National Average at 27.6, and proportions of lower ability students (22%) were significantly higher than National Average (15.9% ROL 2015).

In 2016 the 5+A*/C measure was 61% and the Progress 8 measure a creditable 0.38 despite a number of students carrying “ empty buckets “ and a number educated off site for medical reasons.

Overall evidence of achievement at KS4 includes the following:

·  Percentage of candidates achieving 5+A*-C EM is above National Average in 2014 (SIG+), 2015 and again in 2016; despite lower than average KS2 APS.

·  Capped APS remains positive (+19.7, sig+ ROL 2014, +10.4 ROL 2015)

·  All identified sub-groups of students score positively against National Average comparisons. In 2014 sig+ groups include male, low and middle attainment, EAL, SA. The pattern is similar in 2015 with sig+ groups including male, disadvantaged students and those with low attainment (ROL).

·  5+A*G figures remain positive in relation to the National Average and were sig+ in 2014 (98%) and 2015 (97%) ROL.

·  Best 8 Value Added measures are positive showing that the students’ progress at a better than expected rate. In 2014 the VA measure was sig+ at 1015.8 (27th percentile) and in 2015 at 1005.3.

·  In 2014 English A*-C was 78% (16% above National Average) and in 2015 the results were similar with A*-C at 76.8% (12.2% above national average) and APS was 41 (+1.9 above National Average).

·  APS in English (EBACC) were sig+ in 2014 (42.2, +3.5 above National Average) and 2015 (40.3, +1.6 above National Performance). Value Added performance in English was sig+ in 2014 at 1002.5 and just above in 2015 at 1000.8. In 2014 88% of students made expected progress in English, in 2015 it was 77%. 2016 saw the figure rise again with over 90% achieving 3 levels of progress.

·  The ‘in gap’ for expected progress in English for all prior attainment groups is positive in 2014 and 2015. The ‘in gap’ is greatest for pupils with Level 4 attainment with 93% (+17 when compared to National Performance) achieving expected progress in 2014 and 82% (+8) in 2015. In 2016 all groups achieved positive Progress 8 scores with the exception to SEN whose figure was at the national average for all students.

·  Significant proportions of Level 4 students made more than expected progress in English (42% and ‘in gap’ of +10 in 2014, and 40% +9 in 2015).

·  In 2015 69% of disadvantaged students made expected levels of progress in English, 11% less than the non-disadvantaged students, but 7% greater than the national disadvantaged student’s average. This was an improvement on 2014 when 58% of disadvantaged students made expected levels of progress in English, 31% less than the non-disadvantaged cohort, but 7% greater than the national disadvantaged student’s average.

·  In 2014 Maths A*-C was 72.3% (3.4% above National Average) and APS was 38.7 (+0.7, above national average) in 2015 the results dipped with A*-C at 68.9% (-1.6%, below National Average) and APS was 37.9 (-0.4, below National Average).

·  Average Point Score in Maths (EBACC) were broadly in line with National Performance in 2014 (38.7, +0.7) and 2015 (37.9, -0.4) ROL when compared to National Performance. Maths Value Added in 2014 was 999.9 (53rd percentile) and in 2015 999.3 (65th percentile). In 2014 65% of students made expected progress in Maths, in 2015 it was 61%.

·  The ‘in gap’ for expected progress in Maths for all prior attainment groups is more mixed in 2014 and 2015. The ‘in gap’ is reduced for pupils with Level 4 attainment with 71% (+1 when compared to National Performance) achieving expected progress in 2014 and 71% (+2) in 2015. The gap is more significant with higher attaining students as only 69% of level 5 students made expected progress in 2015 (-6 below National Performance). This gap has grown since 2014 when 71% (-3%) made expected progress. In 2014 40% of the small cohort of level 3 students made expected progress in Maths, this was in line with National Performance. However in 2015 only 30% made the expected progress -4% below National Performance.

·  Significant proportions of Level 4 students made more than expected progress in English (84% and ‘in gap’ of +10 in 2014, and 82% +9 in 2015).

·  In 2015 49% of disadvantaged students made expected levels of progress in Maths, 31% less than the non-disadvantaged students, and 4% less than the National disadvantaged student’s average. This was a slight improvement on 2014 when 44% of disadvantaged students made expected levels of progress in Maths, 35% less than the non-disadvantaged cohort, and 5% less than the National disadvantaged student’s average.

·  The challenge for the school is to improve Maths results, there is a long term strategy to improve outcomes and levels of progress in this core subject. Higher (L5) and lower (L3) students need to make better progress when compared to National Performance.

·  Value Added in Science (1001.3, 30th percentile) and Humanities (1003.6, 10th percentile) were both sig+ in 2014, but just below National Performance in 2015 (999.3 62nd percentile in science, 999.4 57th percentile in Humanities). Value Added in Languages is broadly in line with National Performance (in 2014 999.5, 56th percentile and in 2015 999.1, 61st percentile).

·  The challenge for the school is to improve outcomes in KS4 EBACC subjects particularly in French (2014 and 2015 sig-), History, and Core and Additional Science.

·  SEN students score better in 2014 with Value Added 1002.3 than the 997.2 in 2015. Students with SEN support perform better than their national average counterparts on achieving attainment thresholds in 2015, and also when comparing APS.

·  EAL students scored positively in 2014 and 2015 on ‘Progress Measures Value-Added.’ KS2-4 VA of 1072 for EAL students was sig+ in 2015. In 2014 100% EAL students made expected progress in English, in 2015 this was 86%. In Maths expected levels of progress for EAL students was positive in 2014 at 73%, this dropped to 64% in 2015.

·  In 2014 and again in 2015 and 2016 many of the key measures were impressive and well beyond FFTD/FFT20 targets (71% at 5+ A*/C EM in 2014 and 62% in 2015).

SECTION 4
TEACHING AND LEARNING
Overall grade judgement (2)

We believe that Teaching and Learning is at least ‘Good’ and bordering on ‘Outstanding’.

Our justification for this view is based upon evidence which suggests that:

·  T & L was judged to be ‘Good’ in the last full inspection in April 2013 and in the Maths subject inspection prior to that in September 2011.

·  Systems are in place to support and develop T & L for staff new to teaching and for whom concerns have been identified.

·  Team Review for the past 3 years has judged T & L to be continually above 86% good or better.

·  Evidence from Team Review supports the view that T & L is good or better and improving

·  We have an effective coordinated system of whole school INSET and CPD linked with SIP/TIPs/PM targets

·  Performance Management Objectives are linked to student progress, the SIP and TIPs to coordinate school and staff development.

·  We have robust tracking of individual student progress and of underperforming groups, and apply necessary intervention. Impact is evident in the data.

·  Student Voice and Parents Surveys are very positive (see file evidence).

·  Our structures to deliver middle tier accountability for outcomes and support from Lead Teachers has delivered much improved and more consistent practice as evidence through work scrutinies and the use of next steps and marking stickers.

Assessment/marking/feedback

·  AFL is well established

·  Teacher and peer assessment are consistent features of the school's

practice (lesson observations, team review).

·  Intervention plans are robust and managed effectively by all teaching

staff (ILPs / PSPs etc).

·  The marking and assessment dialogue between teachers and students

is now consistently impressive (see team review and SLT scrutiny of work)

following the introduction of the sticker system.

·  The whole school tracking systems, Assessment Manager/SISRA, are

used in Raising Standards and Team Leader meetings to monitor progress

against targets (see Raising Standards meetings/ERA and minutes of team

meetings).

·  Regular work scrutinies have been built into the school calendar in

order to improve standards through monitoring and raising expectations

(see evidence files)

·  The new marking sticker system, tracking system and presentation of

work policies have delivered impressive improvements in these