School given three-year deadline to improve

A PRIMARY school has been told it must make improvements quickly after inspectors warned it could slide into special measures.

Stanford-le-Hope Primary, in Copland Road, has been told it “requires improvement” following Ofsted’s latest inspection.

The school was graded the same in both its 2007 and 2010 inspections, when the category, which is the second worst rating, was called “satisfactory”.

Under the new rules, the “satisfactory” category was changed to “requires improvement” in September, and schools which fall into it are now expected to make rapid changes within three years or face being put in special measures.

The latest report for Stanford-le-Hope Primary criticised the failure to improve, and said some teachers had “low expectations” for pupils.

It said: “Leaders have been slow in addressing sustained poor performance.

“The quality of teaching is not strong enough to ensure good progress for all pupils, as some teachers’ expectations are too low, especially for what more able pupils can achieve.

“In some classes, mainly in the lower years, the pace of learning is too slow and pupils only make adequate progress.”

The report also said that while many parents thought teaching at the school was good, Ofsted disagreed.

It said: “Inspectors disagree with the view of the majority of parents who responded to the online survey that the quality of teaching is good.

“There is not enough good teaching across the school, and this is the main reason why most pupils only make adequate progress.”

The report said that while there was a good level of support in some lessons, Ofsted inspectors had witnessed lessons where pupils were “confused” and nothing was done about it.

It said: “Teachers work well with the teaching assistants to ensure they offer good quality support in the lessons.

“More typical, however, was a mathematics lesson where basic misunderstandings were not picked up and rectified by the teacher. “Instructions were not clear, and that meant pupils were slow to get on with their work as they were confused.”

Headteacher Linda Moore said the report recognised that staff were committed to making improvements, and pointed to positives, including the quality of marking, pupils’ behaviour, and their progress in English and maths lessons.

She added: “However, this report is another challenge for the school, but we are convinced that, with the support of the staff and governors, we can and will meet it.”

Comments (5)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:21pm Sun 25 Nov 12

Dave_ says...

I'm amused by comments around basic misunderstandings not picked up, this is what happned when our kids were in school, so is nothing new.
I think that the problem in primary education is the one class system, whereby a teacher may have some things they are good at and some they are not. But the fact that a 'subject teacher' would have to be able to teach under 5s to 11 year olds, brings loads of its own problems.
What you must also do is completely disregard OFSTED reports, they are worthless in the extreme. I was always confused as to who assessed the assessors. When you consider many OFSTED inspectors were teachers and not all of them the cream.
The concern is also, why when a school is not ticking the required boxes, why OFSTED don't have people who go into the schools to assist with addressing problems? Plus did the same people carry out the previous inspections?
I'm amused by comments around basic misunderstandings not picked up, this is what happned when our kids were in school, so is nothing new. I think that the problem in primary education is the one class system, whereby a teacher may have some things they are good at and some they are not. But the fact that a 'subject teacher' would have to be able to teach under 5s to 11 year olds, brings loads of its own problems. What you must also do is completely disregard OFSTED reports, they are worthless in the extreme. I was always confused as to who assessed the assessors. When you consider many OFSTED inspectors were teachers and not all of them the cream. The concern is also, why when a school is not ticking the required boxes, why OFSTED don't have people who go into the schools to assist with addressing problems? Plus did the same people carry out the previous inspections? Dave_
  • Score: 0

6:33pm Sun 25 Nov 12

sooty31 says...

i have to agree with the above comments three years to improve crazy far too long
i have to agree with the above comments three years to improve crazy far too long sooty31
  • Score: 0

7:26am Mon 26 Nov 12

Dave_ says...

So how long do you think they should be given ... 3 months, 6 months, 1 year?
The extant problem is OFSTED go in to schools criticise or praise against tick boxes then walk away. What they should do in the case of so called "failing schools" is put a team of people from those who did the inspection in the school for 6 months, every day, who are there to advise/oversee measures. I'm sure the struggling schools would welcome their expert views on such things. However what this I imagine would highlight is that they are not experts, in anything other than ticking boxes. It's one thing to tell someone they are doing something wrong and leave, but completely different to tell them and then help them rectify their mistakes.
I have no interest in Stanford School or other school, just a gross despising of inspection / auditng where people waft in with too much power and do not provide support after criticising people doing a job. If they are to go down the latter route, then they should be no more than advisory and no statuatory power.
So how long do you think they should be given ... 3 months, 6 months, 1 year? The extant problem is OFSTED go in to schools criticise or praise against tick boxes then walk away. What they should do in the case of so called "failing schools" is put a team of people from those who did the inspection in the school for 6 months, every day, who are there to advise/oversee measures. I'm sure the struggling schools would welcome their expert views on such things. However what this I imagine would highlight is that they are not experts, in anything other than ticking boxes. It's one thing to tell someone they are doing something wrong and leave, but completely different to tell them and then help them rectify their mistakes. I have no interest in Stanford School or other school, just a gross despising of inspection / auditng where people waft in with too much power and do not provide support after criticising people doing a job. If they are to go down the latter route, then they should be no more than advisory and no statuatory power. Dave_
  • Score: 0

5:04am Tue 27 Nov 12

Thurrockbob says...

Get rid of Ofstead, much better idea. The world then would be a much better place.
Get rid of Ofstead, much better idea. The world then would be a much better place. Thurrockbob
  • Score: 0

11:56pm Thu 29 Nov 12

Marcus P says...

There was article in the Daily Mail a while back about the number of failed Head Teachers who become Ofsted inspectors.

Says it all really.

The goal posts have changed to justify the eventual privatisation of the state education system

G4S could be running your child’s school in a few years time If Gove and JDP get their way.
There was article in the Daily Mail a while back about the number of failed Head Teachers who become Ofsted inspectors. Says it all really. The goal posts have changed to justify the eventual privatisation of the state education system G4S could be running your child’s school in a few years time If Gove and JDP get their way. Marcus P
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree