|Name||Waterside Primary Academy|
|Ofsted Inspection Rating||Inadequate|
|Inspection Date||14 June 2016|
|Address||Black Horse Avenue, Chesham, Buckinghamshire, HP5 1QU|
|Religious Character||Does Not Apply|
|Number of Pupils||165 (46% boys 54% girls)|
|Number of Pupils per Teacher||20.6|
|Academy Sponsor||Red Kite Schools Trust|
|Percentage Free School Meals||36.5%|
|Percentage English is Not First Language||11.5%|
|Catchment Area Information Available||Yes, our catchment area data is FREE|
Information about this school
There is currently an acting headteacher and deputy headteacher as the substantive headteacher is on long-term sick leave. Both the acting headteacher and acting deputy headteacher will be leaving at the end of this summer term. A permanent member of staff from Buckinghamshire Learning Trust is currently working as a consultant leader at the school on a part-time basis. The school is a smaller than average-sized primary school. Since the previous inspection, there have been significant staffing changes, including a new headteacher who took up post in September 2014 and three different chairs of the governing body. The current incumbent took up her post in November 2015. Children in the early years attend on a part-time basis in the Nursery, in the morning. Children in the Reception class attend full time. Almost three quarters of the pupils are White British, with the rest coming from a wide range of other ethnic heritages. About one in 10 pupils do not speak English as their first language, which is below average. The proportion of pupils with special educational needs and/or disabilities is below average. However, the proportion of pupils with a statement or with an education, health and care plan is slightly above average. The school does not meets requirements on the publication of governors’ business and financial interests and their roles in other schools, and in addition on details of the school’s access facilities for pupils who have educational needs and/or disabilities (including an accessibility plan in compliance with schedule 10 of the Equality Act 2010) on its website. The school met floor standards in 2015, which are the government’s minimum standards for progress and attainment. The proportion of disadvantaged pupils who are supported by pupil premium funding is above average, with just over one third of pupils being eligible. The pupil premium is extra government funding to support the education of pupils who are known to be eligible for free school meals, and children who are looked after by the local authority.
Summary of key findings for parents and pupils
This is an inadequate school A period of instability both in governance and leadership at all levels has led to a deterioration in the quality of education the school provides. Leaders and governors have not improved areas identified in the previous inspection report. There is insufficient capacity in leadership to sustain very recent improvements. Outcomes in key stage 1 and 2 tests and examinations were too low in 2015 and are set to be even lower in some subjects in 2016. The achievement of disadvantaged pupils is too low and gaps are wide between disadvantaged pupils’ attainment in school and nationally. Pupils with special educational needs and/or disabilities do not make enough progress. Leaders have not sufficiently catered for their needs. Teaching over time has failed to ensure the strong outcomes that pupils, especially the most able, are capable of achieving. Teachers have not fully implemented the changes necessary to enable pupils to succeed in the new curriculum. Leaders did not identify this soon enough. Safeguarding is not effective. Weaknesses in leadership have led to some areas of safeguarding receiving insufficient attention. Leaders do not manage pupils’ behaviour well enough. Their understanding of how well pupils behave is not accurate. Exclusions have been too high, although they have reduced recently. Gaps between the attendance of disadvantaged pupils and others have not narrowed sufficiently. The early years provision has not been monitored rigorously enough. Play activities do not make a big enough contribution to children’s learning and development. The governing body, until recently, failed to provide the direction, support and challenge required because : governors did not work collegiately. The school has the following strengths Leaders with temporary additional responsibilities have stabilised the school. They have worked well with the authority’s consultants, and with governors to develop effective improvement plans. The new chair of the governing body has made changes to improve its efficacy. Some parents are very appreciative of the way the school nurtures its youngsters. The family links worker has improved relationships with parents. Some pupils, including in early years, are engaged by their learning and this has led to improved outcomes in Year 1 in phonics (the sounds letters make) and in Reception.