Schools requiring special measures and schools with serious weaknesses

230. The picture is very mixed. The 230 schools that improved sufficiently to be removed from special measures during this year demonstrate that considerable improvement is possible given the right conditions. However, the number of schools failing their second inspection and being put into special measures is a significant cause for concern. During the year all schools, except a very few new schools, were being inspected for the second time. A little over a quarter of these schools had been brought forward in the inspection programme because of their previous weak performance. A total of 193 schools were put into special measures either as a result of a Section 10 inspection or a follow-up inspection by HMI.

231. As in previous years, the primary schools requiring special measures differ in size, type and socio-economic circumstances. Many were found to have unacceptably low standards of achievement, with pupils attaining lower levels in National Curriculum tests than those found in schools in similar socio-economic circumstances. Almost all of the primary schools which were put into special measures had poor progress by pupils, serious shortcomings in teaching and weak leadership. These schools had not remedied the weaknesses exposed at the time of their first inspection. Some had declined further. In about one-third of schools the pupils' behaviour had deteriorated. Although some schools had declined rapidly, others had drifted into special measures because managers and governors had failed to take decisive action on key issues.

232. In most cases, the schools which had previously been placed in special measures made rapid progress. The OFSTED report Lessons Learned from Special Measures identified the key features behind the improvement in the schools removed from special measures. Above all, these schools faced up to their shortcomings and kept their eyes firmly on improving achievement. Two-thirds of the primary schools removed from special measures during 1998/99 had achieved this improvement within two years of the initial inspection. Of the remaining third there were delays in appointing headteachers or teaching staff in some cases, so the improvements took longer to secure. All these schools had improved the levels of pupils' attainment by the time special measures were removed, but the need for further improvement remained a key issue in many schools, especially at Key Stage 2. Most schools had successfully concentrated on raising pupils' skills and competences in English, especially reading, and in mathematics, with particular emphasis on mental arithmetic and numeracy. Many primary schools taught the pupils in sets according to their attainment and often established additional study groups for pupils in Years 2 and 6. These strategies were especially effective in raising the pupils' fluency and accuracy in reading.

233. Secondary schools that were placed in special measures this year had similarly made too little progress on the key issues from their first inspection. They often had very significant weaknesses to deal with and had not taken sufficient, rigorous action. The reasons for failure included significant weaknesses in the quality of teaching, low standards - with pupils making unsatisfactory progress - and, in half of the schools, regular disruptive behaviour and poor quality leadership and management. In the middle deemed secondary schools the most common reasons for being placed in special measures were poor progress in improving the curriculum and inadequacies in teachers' subject knowledge.

234. The shortcomings in the quality of teaching were widespread and included low expectations of what pupils could achieve, inadequate lesson planning and too limited a range of classroom activities. In those schools with unsatisfactory leadership, there was no clear direction to the work of the school, work was not monitored effectively and there was too little, if any, evaluation of the impact of any changes that had been implemented. Having been placed just above the threshold for special measures at the time of their first inspection, too many of the schools gave insufficient attention to tackling key weaknesses and failed to demonstrate a commitment to improvement. Where the quality of leadership was not a major reason for failure, the headteacher was usually new in post and had not yet dealt with the weaknesses left by the previous regime.

235. One secondary school remained in special measures for less than two years, but most take a little more time to reach an acceptable standard of education. The size and complexity of many secondary schools slow the rate of progress compared to most primary schools. Almost all the secondary schools made progress in raising some pupils' levels of attainment, but were still not reaching national levels, nor was there a significant improvement in the percentage of pupils achieving five or more A*-C grades. The percentage of pupils gaining one or more A*-G and five or more grades in GCSE improved during the period of special measures. Most schools had used a variety of measures to improve pupils' basic approaches to learning, often through homework and study groups held after the school day. To bring about improvement in Key Stage 4, schools appointed mentors for pupils in Year 11, who were responsible for strengthening the pupils' study skills and commitment to work and ensuring that coursework and homework were completed on time. However, pupils' poor reading skills, coupled with a backlog of underachievement over several years, had prevented the schools from making significant improvements in the levels of achievement in the upper ability range.

236. Some schools have introduced planning diaries for pupils' use and encouraged the pupils to develop independent working habits. To improve literacy, many have concentrated on the younger pupils, introducing reading partners, computer programs, additional literacy time in Year 7 and a focus on key words in all subjects. Some have taken part in summer schools with the local primary schools for pupils in Year 6 who were thought to need particular improvement. These measures have generally helped the pupils who attend school regularly. On removal of special measures, most of the schools still had a disaffected minority of pupils who had been excluded from one or more other schools, and continued to have a hard core of truants. However, all schools had made at least satisfactory progress in improving the levels of attendance, although in two-thirds of the secondary schools, attendance remained below 90 per cent.

237. Special schools that were placed in special measures during the year showed similar weaknesses to primary and secondary schools, poor progress by pupils, unsatisfactory teaching and weak leadership being key factors. A fall in the standard of behaviour was noted in a small number of schools. Far too little action had been taken since the first inspection. The schools' action plans had often covered all the key issues but the action to be taken was superficial and the timescales lacked urgency. The criteria for measuring success were poorly defined and the procedures for monitoring and evaluating improvements were weak.

238. On average, special schools remained in special measures for slightly under two years. In most of these schools, the progress made by the pupils had improved and was satisfactory or better in between 90 and 100 per cent of lessons. In almost all the schools a weak or inadequate curriculum had been a key issue in the initial inspection. Schools had claimed to be providing full coverage of the National Curriculum but were not, and there were limited opportunities for the pupils to take accredited courses. Too often, planned teaching time was insufficient to deliver a broad curriculum. Improving the curriculum in these special schools was a significant factor in the increased rate of pupils' progress and in raising their levels of achievement.

239. The role of governors is critical when a school is placed in special measures. Governors in most of these schools have had additional training, emphasising their part in monitoring and evaluating progress. This has often led to their becoming more effective. Governing bodies have also been strengthened by the appointment of additional governors, some with particular expertise in areas such as finance. The governors' ability to probe and support the headteacher's efforts to raise standards was at times a significant factor in effecting the required improvement.

240. While schools are in special measures they usually receive well-focused support. They typically have a link adviser who has an important role in providing or organising appropriate training for staff, including the managers. In schools where there is an initial high level of consistent, well-directed support from the same advisers, progress is generally secured. But not all schools receive the support they need. Progress is slow when local education authority staff do not ensure that schools prioritise what needs to be done and then concentrate on those priorities. Too often the local education authority does not take swift enough action when the leadership of the school is weak. A further weakness is excessive monitoring, for example of the quality of teaching, without providing any help that results in better practice in the classroom.

241. Some schools, mostly primary schools, successfully involve parents in helping the school to improve. They have played an important part in improving the appearance of the school and have helped in the classroom. However, some schools have an uphill struggle to encourage parents to ensure that their children attend regularly and punctually and complete homework. For many primary and secondary schools, there remain parents who continue to take term-time holidays and condone regular absence; this was a constant problem for those schools which still had poor levels of attendance when special measures were removed.

242. Schools formally designated in 1997/98 as having serious weaknesses have been monitored by HMI during 1998/99. Most of the schools visited were making satisfactory progress in addressing their weaknesses. In the schools that had made most progress the headteacher, senior managers and governors improved communication within the school, clarified staff roles, identified training needs, used test data to monitor pupils' progress, and planned appropriate programmes of work for pupils who were underachieving. As with schools in special measures, deficiencies in curricular provision were remedied. Many schools had weaknesses in the provision for the pupils' spiritual development and also for their cultural development. The provision was strengthened through the content of subjects taught and visits and visitors to the school, for example using art, music and literature from a wide range of cultures in assemblies. In many of these schools, the parents are active in supporting the school and staff in implementing new policies. The schools keep parents involved through curriculum meetings and regular newsletters.

243. About 10 per cent of the schools with serious weaknesses made too little progress in addressing their weaknesses and were made subject to special measures. Sometimes the headteacher, senior managers and governors failed to establish a clear direction and priorities for action. Staff training was not linked to the priorities for the school, teachers' planning for lessons lacked consistency and the curriculum had continuing weaknesses. Attendance in secondary schools was often too low, and the provision for pupils with special educational needs was often poor. The schools had not tackled the matters for improvement with sufficient urgency or rigour. Neither had the local education authorities responsible for such schools ensured that effective action was taken, for example to improve the quality of teaching or of leadership and management. Such a lack of rigorous action stopped pupils making satisfactory progress.

244. Since September 1998, the action plans of schools with serious weaknesses and the statements of action written by local education authorities have been scrutinised and comments provided for the schools and local education authorities. The good plans and statements set demanding but achievable targets and are costed in terms of finance and time. The school and local education authority are both clear about what help is needed and what support will be provided. In the weak plans (about 15 per cent) and statements (about 10 per cent) it is not clear who will do what, by when or how, and in some cases there is no clear statement of how the School Improvement Grant of the Standards Fund will be used. As has been reported previously, the existence of a good plan does not guarantee success, but a poor plan almost always hinders progress.

We welcome your comments on this site. Prepared 8 February 2000