|Name||Salisbury Manor Primary School|
|Ofsted Inspection Rating||Inadequate
This inspection rating relates to a predecessor school. When a school, converts to an academy, is taken over or closes and reopens as a new school a formal link is created between the new school and the old school, by the Department for Education. Where the new school has not yet been inspected, we show the inspection history of the predecessor school, as we believe it still has significance.
|Inspection Date||24 April 2018|
|Address||4 Burnside Avenue, LONDON, E4 8YJ|
|Number of Pupils||345 (55% boys 45% girls)|
|Number of Pupils per Teacher||24.0|
|Academy Sponsor||United Learning Trust|
|Local Authority||Waltham Forest|
|Percentage Free School Meals||20.8%|
|Percentage English is Not First Language||54.2%|
|Catchment Area Information Available||Yes, our catchment area data is FREE|
|Last Distance Offered Information Available||No|
Information about this school
The school became an academy within the Silver Birch Academy Trust in June 2012. The trust comprises four primary schools in Waltham Forest and Redbridge local authorities. There have been many changes in teaching staff over recent times. Governance arrangements consist of a board of trustees, an executive leadership team and a local governing body. Chingford Hall is larger than the average-sized primary school. There are two classes in each year group, apart from the current Year 3, Year 4 and Year 6, where there is only one class. The proportion of pupils eligible for the pupil premium funding is higher than for other schools nationally, as is the proportion of pupils who have an education, health and care plan. The proportion of pupils who receive SEN support is lower than for other schools nationally. The school meets the government’s current floor standards, which are the minimum expectations for pupils’ progress and attainment at the end of key stage 2.
Summary of key findings for parents and pupils
This is an inadequate school Leaders have not given pupils’ safety and well-being the highest priority. Their checks on safeguarding arrangements lack rigour. Leaders have not identified issues which are a potential risk to pupils’ safety, including in early years. Those responsible for governance have failed to hold leaders to account. They have not checked whether leaders are keeping pupils safe or challenged leaders to secure the best possible outcomes for all groups of pupils, including those who are disadvantaged. The school’s work to promote pupils’ personal development and welfare is undermined by ineffective safeguarding arrangements. Leaders have not ensured that pupils are kept safe. The provision for pupils who have special educational needs (SEN) and/or disabilities is of variable quality. Leaders do not have an accurate understanding of pupils’ needs or whether pupils receive the support they need. At key stage 2, the progress of current pupils is uneven across different subjects and classes. Teaching does not routinely deepen pupils’ knowledge in all areas of the curriculum. In early years, teaching has not been good enough to secure strong progress for current children in Reception Year. Children currently in Reception Year are not as well prepared for Year 1 as they should be. Leaders do not work together effectively to improve the quality of education. The school has the following strengths Effective teaching in key stage 1 ensures that pupils attain highly in phonics (letters and the sounds they represent) and in their end of key stage 1 statutory assessments. In Year 6 statutory reading, writing and mathematics assessments, pupils’ attainment was considerably above that of other schools nationally in 2016 and 2017. Pupils’ behaviour is good. Pupils try hard and are keen to do well. Overall, pupils’ attendance is broadly similar to that in other schools nationally. Leaders have taken effective steps to improve pupils’ punctuality over recent times.