......

School

DfE Number

EDUCATION & EARLY INTERVENTION

Risk Analysis for Good/Outstanding Schools

2014-2015

Head Teacher
Chair of Governors
School Intervention Leader (SIL)/Reviewer
Date sent to Headteacher and Chair of Governors
Date discussed by governing body

Last Ofsted inspection

Date completed: / Grade
Overall Ofsted judgement
Leadership and management
Behaviour and safety
Quality of Teaching
Achievement
What does the school need to do to improve further?

Objective analysis of how well pupils are doing, taking account of any variation, based on recent end of Key Stage data:

Pupils’ academic achievement over time, taking attainment and progress into account:
Provide a brief summary evaluation of attainment and progress using nationally collected and comparative data from EYFS Profile (include percentage reaching a GLD), KS1 SATs (include phonic outcomes for Y1 and Y2 pupils) and KS2 SATs (include GPS outcomes, RWM percentages 4+ & 5+ , percentages making two or more levels of progress and three or more levels and VA measures). Comment on outcomes for each key stage separately; look for significance, drawing attention to strengths and weaknesses for each cohortand any differential performance by specific groups. Where possible, analyse by gender, ethnicity, EAL, FSM, SEN, lower, middle and the most able(defined as those achieving 2a+ at KS1). Comment specifically on whether or not gaps are narrowing for pupil premium pupils and SEND.Comment on trends over time by comparing year on year outcomes. For smaller schools and some specific groups where very few children are involved, you may need to consider three year averages to identify significance. Consider progress across the whole of key stage 2 in some detail. Use the Transition Matrices to evaluate how well pupils from differing starting points have done and how this compares with the national picture. It may help to highlight in green any sig+ indicators, in orange attainment or progress measures that are only average or satisfactory and red any sig – indicators before making your final judgement (taking note of any relevant Ofsted guidance).Note from September 2013 there is a definition of minimum expected progress from end of EYFS to end KS1. Children achieving a good level of development in prime areas at end of Early Years Foundation Stage MUST achieve a minimum 2b at the end of KS1
Also consider carefully if there is clear evidence that the issues raised by Ofsted when the school was last inspected have been addressed?
Source data is likely to include RAISEonline, FFT, autumn package and other relevant LA data.
Evaluation based on EYFS Profile outcomes
Evaluation based on KS1 SAT outcomes
(plus Year 1 and Y2 phonic outcomes if available)
Evaluation based on KS2 SAT outcomes
(including GPS, RWM, progress and VA etc.)
Overall evaluation of risk based on the external data available

School’s analysis of current performance (if provided):

What does the school say about pupils’ academic achievement over time, taking attainment and progress into account?
Provide a brief summary of the school’s evaluation below, stating what evidence the school draws upon - this may include additional internal data and/or information about cohorts and mobility for example. In reaching judgements, is it apparent that the school has a secure evidence base and is taking sufficient account of differential performance between specific groups? Indicate where the school’s evaluations seem to be at odds with the end of key stage analysis above. Does the school provide evidence for this difference in evaluation? Is the evidence compelling? Where a difference in evaluation remains unexplained, the school will be at risk in an inspection. It may be helpful to highlight unexplained differences in red. Comment on each key stage separately.
Source data may include the SEF summary, school’s internal tracking summary and additional evidence the school provides related to impact for specific groups such as Pupil Premium and SEND pupils. A greater emphasis is being placed on the quality of PE and its impact on raising achievement and pupils’ well-being. Heads and governors will need to provide a brief evaluation of the quality of PE, pupils’ participation in school sport and how they have used new funding to make improvements.
Points noted from school’s evaluation of EYFS Profile
Points noted from school’s evaluation of KS1
Points noted from school’s evaluation of KS2
Evaluation of risk based on school’s own evaluation of achievement overall

Brief evaluation of the rest of the summary SEF:

What does School Self Evaluation say about the quality of teaching, behaviour and safety of pupils, the quality of leadership and management and overall effectiveness?
State judgements made and indicate whether or not the evidence provided is compelling. Do the judgements reflect the outcomes the school is securing in terms of achievement for pupils? Is the school clear about next steps? Is there evidence of continuing improvement? Are there any indicators of risk of slippage that need to be highlighted?
Quality of teaching
Behaviour and safety of pupils
Quality of leadership and management
Overall effectiveness?
Evaluation of risk based on the SEF

Other factors:

Recent changes, pointed out by the school, that might have an impact on the school’s current Ofsted grading
Include here any additional factors that the school has raised that may lead to the school being vulnerable to an inspection downgrade – for example, difficulty in appointing a Headteacher, prolonged illness of the Headteacher, high staff mobility, high exclusion rates, sudden change of intake, declining attendance etc.
Alternatively, the school may provide additional information that makes a risk of a downgrade less likely – for example evidence that end of key stage outcomes have been skewed by a recent influx of pupils for whom English is a second language.
For many schools, there may be no known additional factors to consider

Summary

Having considered nationally collected data and the information provided by the school, it is the reviewer’s opinion that there are currently no/some/substantial indicators within this material that the school may be at risk of slipping back from its Ofsted grade.

Key points to note:

(Summarise key findings in no more than four bullet points)

Health Warning: This desktop review cannot be as thorough as a full inspection. It does not include on-site, first-hand evidence gathering and monitoring of teaching. It does not take into account the views of pupils, parents and staff or the capacity leaders’ display on a day-to-day basis. School leaders and governors must take into consideration all these other aspects when forming a view about risk overall.

(Add the following paragraph only if there is substantial indicators of risk)

A School Intervention Leader (SIL) will contact schools where there are substantial indicators of risk identified in order to arrange an on-site meeting to discuss this and, where appropriate, agree next steps.

1

Risk Analysis for Good/Outstanding Schools 2014/15