INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS INSPECTORATE Bredon School Advice Note to DfE 9 th May 2014
INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS INSPECTORATE Full Name of School Bredon School DfE Number 885/6023 Address Bredon School Pull Court Bushley Tewkesbury Gloucestershire GL20 6AH Telephone Number 01684 293156 Fax Number 01684 298008 Email Address wardd@bredonschool.co.uk Headmaster Mr David Ward Proprietors Colegios Laude, Spain Age Range 4 to 18 Total Number of Pupils 242 Gender of Pupils Mixed Numbers by Age 4-11 23 11-18 219 Number of Day Pupils Total: 148 Number of Boarders Total: 94 Full: 57 Weekly: 37 Date of previous inspection 30th September 2013 Date of visit 9th May 2014
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SCHOOL Bredon School is a co-educational boarding and day school for pupils from the ages of 4 to 18; pupils may board from the age of nine. The school opened in 1962 at Pull Court, rebuilt in 1863 on the site of an original Tudor country house. This building is supplemented by other premises opened over the years in its extensive grounds near Tewkesbury. The founding ethos of the school was to cater for pupils who had failed or were unable to take the Common Entrance examination, and so expertise was developed in supporting pupils with special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND), alongside educating those with none. In 2008, the school was purchased by a Spanish company which also owns a number of schools in Spain. Governance is provided by the proprietors, supported in an advisory capacity by a local governing body. The current headmaster was appointed from September 2013. At the time of the inspection visit, 242 pupils were on the roll, none under the age of five. Twenty-three pupils were in Years 1 to 6, 154 were in Years 7 to 11 and 65 were in Years 12 and 13. Ninety-four pupils board at the school, 37 weekly and 57 full-time. One hundred and seventy-nine pupils have been identified with SEND, of whom 92 have a statement. Four pupils do not speak English as their first language and all are fluent English speakers. Very few pupils come from a minority ethnic background. Thirty pupils joined the school in 2013 due to the closure of a nearby specialist school and the school confirmed that none has arrived in similar circumstances since. PURPOSE OF THE VISIT This was an announced visit carried out at the request of the DfE to check that the school has fully implemented the action plan submitted following the inspection in September 2013, including the elements identified as still unsatisfactory in February 2014, and that it is fully meeting the standards and regulations required for continued registration as an independent school. The focus was on aspects of safeguarding, recruitment procedures, pupil behaviour, anti-bullying, e-safety, and the manner in which complaints are handled, as detailed below. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE The safeguarding policy and procedures, including the school recruitment policy, the policies to combat bullying and to promote good behaviour, and the complaints procedure were analysed in advance of the visit. Child protection records including those relating to potential concerns, the designated officer s training certificates, records of concerns about pupils, records of sanctions and of incidents of bullying, records of physical restraint used on pupils and of searches of pupils rooms, and a sample of records relating to complaints, were viewed on site. Records of the training given in child protection were checked. The single central register of appointments (SCR) and a sample of staff files were checked, and governors minutes, including findings of the annual review of the child protection policy and its implementation were scrutinised. Arrangements for personal, social and health education (PSHE) were scrutinised. Meetings were held with the headmaster, the chair of the proprietors, the chair of the local governing body and the local safeguarding governor on arrival; a number of senior staff including the designated person for safeguarding (DSP) and the deputy head, pastoral; with the senior deputy head and the secretary of the person in charge of staff recruitment; with the head of the junior school, the head of learning support, the co-ordinator for PSHE and assistant head of pastoral care; and with five teaching and non-teaching staff, chosen by inspectors, including boarding staff and the office manager. 1
A short tour of the school was undertaken with two Year 12 guides, including visits to the junior school and a boarding house. Feedback was given to the headmaster, the chair of the proprietors, the chair of the local governing body and the safeguarding governor at the end of the visit. INSPECTION FINDINGS Welfare, health and safety of pupils safeguarding [ISSR Part 3, paragraphs 7 and 8; NMS 11; EYFS requirements paragraphs 3.4-3.7] The school meets the regulation. The current safeguarding policy and procedures meet the requirements and are being implemented effectively. The policy requires staff to ensure that their behaviour and actions do not place pupils or themselves at risk of harm or of allegations of harm to a pupil. When interviewed, staff showed clear awareness of measures to meet this requirement and the area was covered during staff training in child protection in January 2014. During the visit the school was unable to produce the detailed written guidance to staff referred to in the policy. Shortly after the visit the school sent a comprehensive document which meets the most recent requirements of Keeping Children Safe in Education (KCSIE). When interviewed, staff showed awareness of other elements of the school s revised child protection policy and procedures, including who the designated senior person (DSP) for safeguarding is and his deputy, how to report any allegation made against staff or volunteers to the headmaster and procedures for child-on-child abuse. Those with responsibility in the junior school understand the EYFS setting s policy on use of mobile phones and cameras. Boarding staff understood that alternative accommodation will be arranged away from children in cases where a member of boarding staff is suspended pending an investigation of a child protection nature, but they could not recall being given clear training on this point. The school was unable to produce detailed notes of the child protection training given in January 2014. Since the previous visit the school has had one occasion to report a child who is likely to suffer significant harm to the local children s care services. This referral was made electronically within 24 hours to children s services and was recorded; notes of the causes for concern were made, although hand-written notes were not retained and no written evidence was kept of the response from children s services. No allegations have been made against members of staff since the previous visit but the headmaster understood, should this occur in the future, the responsibility to report to the LADO within 24 hours without any prior investigation to decide whether to report. The school has had no occasion to report to the DBS and NCTL any person whose services were no longer used because he or she was considered unsuitable to work with children and the headmaster showed understanding that this must be done within one month of them leaving the school. New staff confirmed they had received appropriate induction training which included child protection and showed appropriate understanding. The school has obtained assurance that appropriate child protection checks and procedures apply to any staff employed by another organisation and working with the school s pupils on another site, for example a local riding school attended by pupils. The school confirmed that they now ask more searching questions of schools from which pupils are transferring, for example, about whether pupils have any previous behavioural difficulties or other issues of which the school should be aware. Senior pastoral and teaching and non-teaching staff demonstrated the systems whereby this information is communicated to staff; initially via a written briefing from senior managers but with full 2
information available to those working closely with individual pupils, such as their tutor. This information is reinforced and updated through regular staff briefings, both verbal and in writing. It enables suitable assessments of any risk. The school made clear that it does not accept pupils with behavioural difficulties of a severity beyond the degree with which the school s structures are designed to cope. Electronic recording of information about pupils and any subsequent concerns is thorough and regular, and responsibilities for monitoring this information, and individual placement plans, are allocated clearly and carried out effectively. The proprietor and governors have established a system which ensures they have written evidence which clearly demonstrates how they evaluate child protection procedures when they carry out their annual review of safeguarding. The most recent review, in February 2014, used the report format used by the DSP to inform governors in writing of safeguarding matters and this formed the basis of recorded and minuted discussion. The school has responded quickly in making plans to meet recent changes in statutory guidance in safeguarding, for example that contained in KCSIE. The management of safeguarding has been implemented effectively, including through attendance at a course on KCSIE requirements by the designated governor, who passed advice to the DSP. Staff confirmed they have all been given a copy of Part 1 of KCSIE and that they were required to confirm that it has been read. They confirmed they were made aware of the requirements of KCSIE in training in April 2014. Required elements are included in the revised child protection policy although guidance on types of safeguarding and abuse do not yet contain all the elements required by KCSIE. Revision of the job descriptions of the DSP and his deputy are included in planning; update training regarding KCSIE is planned for the DSPs in June 2014 and DSPs were aware of the need to co-ordinate the school s child protection and recruitment policies. The guidance to staff was sent subsequent to the visit. 3 Welfare, health and safety of pupils behaviour [ISSR Part 3, paragraph 9; NMS 12; EYFS requirements paragraphs 3.50-3.52] The school meets the regulations. Staff showed understanding of changes made to the physical restraint policy. On the one occasion since September 2013 when physical restraint was used on a pupil records show this to have been justified and carried out in accordance with the published policy, and that parents were informed the same day. The changes still required in February 2014 to the behaviour policy have been made, including, for boarding, a clear statement of the procedures for searching pupils and their possessions. On the one occasion when this policy has been implemented the search was recorded methodically and carried out in accordance with the policy, e.g. by two staff, who signed the record. Records confirm that the search was justified, in that two arrows were found. The policy names the practitioner responsible for behaviour management in the EYFS. It includes the action to be taken against pupils who are found to have made malicious accusations against staff. Relevant staff showed awareness of these and other additional elements, including that corporal punishment must not be used or threatened in the EYFS, and the role of the Children s Rights Director in boarding.
Welfare, health and safety of pupils anti-bullying [ISSR Part 3, paragraph 10; NMS 12] The school meets the regulation. The school has included the three recommended elements to the anti-bullying and anti-cyber bullying policies. The policy states how it is made available to parents, and how it helps to create an environment of good behaviour and respect, including that it is expected that staff and sixth form students will behave in a manner which promotes good behaviour and prevents bullying. It confirms the role of celebrating success. The policy states that pupils are clear about the part they can play in preventing bullying, including when they find themselves as bystanders. It includes guidance for staff on the use of mobile phones throughout the school. Staff showed awareness of these and other elements added to the revised policy, including that it applies to all pupils in the school including those in the EYFS; that culture and religion or belief may be grounds for bullying; the existence of recent national guidance: Preventing and Tackling Bullying (2013). All the above elements have been implemented, together with arrangements to educate pupils about the part they can play in preventing bullying, including cyber-bullying. Recording of bullying is systematic and cross-referenced to behaviour logs and individual pupil welfare plans to enable patterns of behaviour for individual pupils or across groups of pupils to be identified. Any such information is communicated effectively to staff through verbal and written briefings, of which all staff interviewed were aware. Pupils receive guidance on how to guard against bullying and the part they can play in preventing bullying, including as bystanders, through a methodical PSHE scheme of work, amplified by assembly presentations. 4 Suitability of staff [ISSR Part 4, paragraphs 19-22; NMS 14] The school meets the regulations. The school has amended its recruitment policy to include, under references, that the school will make contact with the school at which the applicant last worked (which may be different from the last employer) making clear that a reference will be taken from the employer where the applicant last worked with children. The school has implemented this and other changes to the policy. The barred list check is stated as one of the pre-employment checks and appropriate procedures are provided for when the enhanced DBS disclosure is late. The school now ensures that all the required recruitment checks are made on staff, including peripatetic staff, before they begin work at the school. In all the most recent appointments (since the action plan was reviewed) DBS and other checks have been completed and seen by the school before appointment. In one case, prior to the review of the action plan, the DBS check was seen by the school after appointment. A check against the barred list was made before appointment and the member of staff s file contained a written assessment of risk which laid down suitable supervision arrangements. In a few cases, administrative errors placed dates of checks after appointment on the SCR, particularly medical checks. Checks of relevant staff files showed confusion between completion of a more detailed medical questionnaire, after appointment, and a declaration of medical fitness, which is made by applicants before appointment. Since the visit, this forms part of the school s application form. Administration of checks is thorough and records are kept generally efficiently in staff files, but reviewing the process in the absence of the member of staff responsible showed over-
reliance of that one figure to know exactly how processes work. The safeguarding governor agreed that it would be good practice to commence regular checks of the process, recorded by the governor s initialling of staff files checked. The manner in which complaints are handled [ISSR part 7, paragraph 25; NMS 18; EYFS requirements paragraphs 3.73-3.74 ] The school meets the regulation. The most recent complaints policy includes the two outstanding required amendments from the review of the action plan. It states that the record of complaints must be made available to Ofsted (and ISI) on request and gives the correct details of how to contact Ofsted (and ISI). These elements, together with other amendments already made, are implemented effectively and staff showed awareness of these. Parents have been made aware that the complaints policy is applicable to all pupils in the school including those in the EYFS through an item in the headmaster s newsletter. The policy makes clear that written complaints about the fulfilment of the EYFS requirements must be investigated and the complainant notified of the outcome of the investigation within 28 days, although no such complaint has been received recently. Pupils are made aware of external sources of support, including the Children s Rights Director, through that source being included to the list of those people who are there to listen to them, posted throughout the school. The policy has been implemented effectively in handling recent complaints from parents. Responses have been given within stated timescales. A central log of complaints indicates the dates when different stages of the complaints began and ended, the nature of the complaint, its resolution, and the stage of the procedure at which it was resolved. 5 ACTION POINTS No action is required to achieve compliance. It is recommended that the school: Keep more systematic records of the content of staff training in child protection and of responses to electronic referrals to the LADO. Initiate monitoring of staff recruitment procedures by a named governor with checks initialled in staff files. Implement proposed changes in safeguarding procedures to meet the requirements of KCSIE.