Department for Education Report - October 2014

Note of Visit Template: initial visit Academy name Sponsor Date of visit Adviser CoG & email Principal & email Results

The ACE Academy, Sandwell Education Central 22nd October 2014 Andrew Marson Stewart Towe stewart.towe@hadleygroup.co.uk Robin Grover robin.grover@acesch.co.uk

KS4 3+LP maths

2010 / floor 39% /35 48% /72 49% /65

Date of Ofsted inspection

Ofsted outcomes

Opened as a sponsor-led academy March 2013 and not yet inspected.

Not yet rated as an academy

KS4 5A*-C inc E&M KS4 3+LP English

Formerly Alexandra High School and Sixth Form Centre – last inspected 29–30 September 2010

2011 / floor 50% /35 61% /74 62% /66

2012 / floor 38% /40 54% /70 79% /70

2013 /floor 53% /40 69% /70 62% /70

Overall effectiveness: Capacity for sustained improvement: Outcomes for individuals and groups of pupils: Pupils' achievement: Pupils' behavior: The quality of teaching: Effectiveness of leadership and management: Overall effectiveness of the sixth form:

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Forecasts 2015 50%

2014 /floor 34% /40 48% 44% Likely next inspection timing

2014 or early 2015

Purpose of visit

1.

2.

3.

4.

To explore the reasons for fall in examinations results in 2014.

To determine if the academy is taking the right actions to ensure standards improve.

To explore the nature and effectiveness of the sponsorship arrangements.

To provide an assessment for the DfE of any issues, progress and further actions required.

Key issues STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Attainment on entry for all years is significantly below national averages and reflects high deprivation, high special needs and high numbers of FSM students in the cohort. For each year there are disproportionately less high achieving students and more lower attaining students than national figures.

Having said this, achievement in 2014 was low and 32% attained 5+A*-C grades including English and mathematics which was significantly below the Academy’s prediction of 54% and put the Academy well below the floor target.

Attainment was particularly low in the core subjects of English, mathematics and science. Similarly student progress in these three areas for expected and more than expected progress was significantly below national expectations.

This weak progress affected PPI and other vulnerable groups.

A culture of low expectations, poor quality teaching and learning, inconsistent adequate feedback to students and lack of continuity of teaching (as endorsed by the enormous teaching supply budget) was responsible.

Aspirations have been raised by students now targeting 4 levels of progress and the Academy is aiming to achieve over 50% 5+A*-C grades including English and mathematics in 2015 with progress measures getting closer to national expectations.

The first assessment (of six) had identified some green shoots and the “professional predicted grades” for 2015 suggest 40% 5+A*-C including English and mathematics, 79% 3 levels of progress in English and 49% 3 levels of progress in mathematics.

KEY ISSUES 1. The accuracy of assessments, as the results for 2014 were not predicted by the data provided by subject leaders. From Autumn 1 data this still remains a concern as the English progress measures appear overly “positive” following on from the 48% attainment in 2014.

2. The next Ofsted inspection which is overdue is likely to assess the Academy as Grade 4 based on these historic results.

BEHAVIOUR AND SAFETY This was not a major focus for our visit but the site is extremely secure and well managed. The students spoken to all felt safe and they were able to describe the behaviour management system if problems occurred in the classroom.

The uniform was well worn and checked on at the beginning of the day and while staff walked around the School.

Despite students’ lack of consultation and consent the sixth form students also looked smart in their grey suits.

On the evidence of the learning walk and the few lessons visited the behaviour for learning was positive and did not pose a barrier to learning to prevent progress being improved.

TEACHING AND LEARNING On the evidence of the learning walk and the lesson observations there was a mixed picture. Students were on task.

The students spoken to formally and in class could identify their targets and many were able to identify what they needed to do to improve. This however was not duplicated in the feedback and marking of the exercise books. Some books were superficially marked; in one class of mathematics there were positive comments in books but no clear guidance was given to students on how to improve. In the same lesson and in a science lesson there was insufficient engagement of all students and not enough regular check on learning.

Student feedback suggested that since September staff were more focused on learning and another student described them as being “stricter”.

The learning walk through the Art Department reflected an excellent learning environment with a warm and positive approach to learning. All staff had been observed in September and on triangulation of evidence 50% are considered to be good or better. Action plans are being developed to improve this figure.

KEY ISSUE To ensure a consistent implementation of an assessment, marking and feedback policy to ensure students make progress and know what they need to do further.

LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT This was impressive. The improvement plans, evaluation and understanding of the strengths and weaknesses as well as the quality assurance process were thorough. These documents were verified by the professional discussion with the Principal, Associate Headteacher and Associate Deputy Headteacher.

Expectations were being raised across a wide and varied range of activities. They were well supported by the MAT which provided adviser support as well as ensuring that expertise is seconded in, as required, to move the School forward.

The small Governing Body, on the evidence of discussion with the Chair, gave the impression that they were willing to learn and develop the challenge required to move the School forward.

The whole school approach to improving teaching and learning through TEEP (Teacher Effectiveness and Enhancement Programme) is an ideal action and already, from the evidence of the learning walk and discussions, teachers are responding.

Initial meetings with the Head of Science and Head of English suggested that there may be some middle leadership colleagues who need developing or convincing of the “can do” philosophy.

The Principal was appointed in June 2014, and the Associate Deputy Headteacher is on secondment from Shireland Academy, (until Easter 2015) the Associate Headteacher is an Education Central appointment (and an ex-Head).

There are plans for the restructuring of the senior staff. On the evidence of this visit the three key SLT leaders are working incredibly hard and this exercise should be completed as rapidly as is reasonable to ensure there is sufficient capacity at the senior level to drive and secure sustained improvements Agreed Actions

Owner

Deadline

1. Continue with the appropriate actions identified in the improvement plan

Principal

Ongoing

2. Prepare and implement a whole school assessment marking and feedback policy

Principal

Send document to the Education Adviser by end of November 2014

3. Execute senior leadership restructuring to ensure extra capacity at this level

MAT

Easter 2015

DfE

Ongoing

DfE

Ongoing

4.Provide half termly score card to update student achievement 5.Recommended no further intervention required as new Principal needs time to implement actions and strategies Evidence and sources

Attendees: Hannah Copp, Anthony Dunne, Andrew Marson and Christine West Meetings with: Principal, Associate Vice Headteacher, Head of Mathematics, Head of English and SENCO Observations: Learning walk and observation of four lessons Scrutiny: Examination data, quality assurance and improvement plan