boarding school - find an ofsted inspection report centre for sixth-form studies...

Cambridge Centre for Sixth-form Studies DS0000015280.V287610.R01.S.doc

Version 5.1

BOARDING SCHOOL

Cambridge Centre for Sixth-form Studies

1 Salisbury Villas Station Road Cambridge CB1 2JF

Lead Inspector Jacqui Barry

Key Announced Inspection13th June 2006 09:00


Version 5.1

The Commission for Social Care Inspection aims to:

• Put the people who use social care first • Improve services and stamp out bad practice • Be an expert voice on social care • Practise what we preach in our own organisation

Reader Information Document Purpose Inspection Report Author CSCI Audience General Public Further copies from 0870 240 7535 (telephone order line) Copyright This report is copyright Commission for Social

Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI

Internet address www.csci.org.uk


Version 5.1

This is a report of an inspection to assess whether services are meeting the needs of people who use them. The legal basis for conducting inspections is the Care Standards Act 2000 and the relevant National Minimum Standards for this establishment are those for Boarding Schools. They can be found at www.dh.gov.uk or obtained from The Stationery Office (TSO) PO Box 29, St Crispins, Duke Street, Norwich, NR3 1GN. Tel: 0870 600 5522. Online ordering: www.tso.co.uk/bookshop Every Child Matters, outlined the government’s vision for children’s services and formed the basis of the Children Act 2004. It provides a framework for inspection so that children’s services should be judged on their contribution to the outcomes considered essential to wellbeing in childhood and later life. Those outcomes are:

• Being healthy • Staying safe • Enjoying and achieving • Making a contribution; and • Achieving economic wellbeing.

In response, the Commission for Social Care Inspection has re-ordered the national minimum standards for children’s services under the five outcomes, for reporting purposes. A further section has been created under ‘Management’ to cover those issues that will potentially impact on all the outcomes above.

Copies of Every Child Matters and The Children Act 2004 are available from The Stationery Office as above.


Version 5.1

SCHOOL INFORMATION

Name of school

Cambridge Centre for Sixth-form Studies

Address

1 Salisbury Villas Station Road Cambridge CB1 2JF

Telephone number

01223 716890

Fax number

01223 517530

Email address

Provider Web address

Name of Governing body, Person or Authority responsible for the school

Cambridge Centre for Sixth Form Studies

Name of Head

Mr Neil Roskilly

Name of Head of Care Mr Rizvan Ail

Age range of boarding pupils

15-19+

Date of last welfare inspection

9th February 2004


Version 5.1

Brief Description of the School:

Cambridge Centre for Sixth-Form Studies (CCSS) was formed in 1981 and offers tuition in a wide range of subjects at GCSE and A-Level. CCSS occupies a number of sites close to Cambridge City Centre. There are three academic buildings and six boarding houses, all within close proximity of one another. Each boarding house had designated house-managers, with their own private accommodation on site. All boarders’ bedrooms were single occupancy, some with en-suite facilities. Boarders At the time of the inspection, there were 94 boarders in total, 10 of whom were weekly boarders. Boarders were aged between 15 and 19+ years.


Version 5.1

SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection.

The inspection of CCSS took place on 13th and 14th June 2006. The inspection team comprised of two Regulation Inspectors. The purpose of the inspection was to monitor the school’s compliance in meeting the National Minimum Standards for Boarding Schools.

Time was spent interviewing key staff and inspecting a wide range of records and pupil files. Boarder group discussions were held in which a selected sample participated. Breakfast and an evening meal was taken with the boarders and there was a full tour of the school and boarding houses.

Prior to the inspection, boarders completed a questionnaire, issued by the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) asking their views on the school. Parents were also asked their views in relation to the school; specific comments will be fed-back to the Head when they are received.

What the school does well: CCSS had a clear vision in terms of how academic and boarding staff related to boarders. Relationships were mature and yet relaxed, an approach that helped to create an open culture in which boarders felt valued. The standard of support to boarders was very good. Activities organised by the school were varied and boarders had good access to a wide range of local recreational resources. The quality of the food provided was also very good. What has improved since the last inspection? All of the advisory recommendations made during the last inspection had been successfully addressed; see the main body of this report for full details. What they could do better: Ten new recommendations have been made, the most pressing of which relate to staff recruitment checks and window restrictors in the boarding houses; refer to pages 11 and 12 of this report for full details. Please contact the Head for advice of actions taken in response to this inspection.

The report of this inspection is available from [email protected] or by contacting your local CSCI office.

Cambridge Centre for Sixth-form Studies DS0000015280.V287610.R01.S.doc Version 5.1

DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS

CONTENTS

Being Healthy

Staying Safe

Enjoying and Achieving

Making a Positive Contribution

Achieving Economic Wellbeing

Management

Scoring of Outcomes

Recommended Actions identified during the inspection


Being Healthy The intended outcomes for these standards are:

• Boarders’ health is promoted. (NMS 6) • Safeguarding and promoting boarders’ health and welfare are supported

by appropriate records. (NMS 7) • Boarders’ receive first aid and health care as necessary.(NMS 15) • Boarders are adequately supervised and looked after when ill.(NMS 16) • Boarders are supported in relation to any health or personal

Problems.(NMS 17) • Boarders receive good quality catering provision (NMS 24) • Boarders have access to food and drinking water in addition to main

meals.(NMS 25) • Boarders are suitably accommodated when ill. (NMS 48) • Boarders’ clothing and bedding are adequately laundered.(NMS 49)

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 6, 7, 15, 16, 17, 24, 25, 48 & 49 The quality outcome in this area was good. Health education and promotion were taken seriously and boarders had good access to health and medical advice. EVIDENCE: The school had a policy on dealing with drugs and alcohol. This was under review by the student council at the time of this inspection. The school had a firm but balanced approach to dealing with students who encountered problems with drugs and alcohol. There was a PSHE (Personal, Social and Health Education) programme in place for GCSE and lower sixth-form students although staff recognised that there was a need to expand this area. It is recommended that consideration be given including sexual health education as part of the PSHE programme. The school had tightened the security of the welfare office in line with the advisory recommendation made during the last inspection. Academic and welfare records were held in two separate locations. The academic files held some health and welfare information and the separately held welfare information was a consisted of form completed by parents and included very basic health information. The school did not have welfare plans in place for students with specific health or social needs. At the last inspection, an advisory recommendation was made regarding the monitoring of boarders self-medicating. The school had reviewed their ‘medical


procedures’ policy and this continued to be under review. This policy refers to students needing to keep the welfare officer informed of medication they might be using, and although this is unlikely to happen in practice, the school have demonstrated their commitment as far as possible to monitoring boarder’s prescribed medication. There were designated first aiders in each boarding house. The vast majority of boarders were registered at the local GP surgery and boarding staff knew their responsibilities to secure urgent medical attention when necessary. The school were considering appointing a fulltime nurse and the inspection team would support this. There was a system in place for monitoring unwell-boarders, which involved the welfare officer visiting students who were unable to attend lessons. Some students commented that they had not been able to access staff when they were off ill. The school were considering creating a sanatorium, which would enable boarders to summon assistance when ill. There were no welfare plans in place for boarders with specific identified welfare needs. However, evidence available from talking to staff and boarders indicated that student’s were well supported with their personal problems by the house managers and tutors. Students spoke very positively about the support they received. The food served in the cafeteria of a very good quality. 60 out of 80 students who completed a questionnaire issued by the CSCI prior to the inspection reported that the food was average, good or very good. Lunchtime meals were not provided although there were many local eateries students could access. Some students commented that they would prefer to be able to use their luncheon vouchers in a wider variety of food outlets. Menus were extremely well managed and the catering manager happily received requests from students to vary menus. Drinking water was available throughout the academic buildings. It was difficult to determine within the boarding houses, which taps were drinking water and which were not. The availability of snacks varied across boarding houses. It is recommended that all boarders have access to food/snacks within the boarding houses at all times and that suitable drinking water taps are well signposted. Outside contractors were employed to launder bedding and towels twice a week and boarders laundry facilities in the boarding houses were satisfactory. Boarders did not raise any concern about the laundry facilities at Scholars; an issue raised during the last inspection.


Staying Safe The intended outcomes for these standards are:

• Boarders are protected from bullying.(NMS 2) • Boarders are protected from abuse.(NMS 3) • Use of discipline with boarders is fair and appropriate.(NMS 4) • Boarders’ complaints are appropriately responded to.(NMS 5) • The operation of any prefect system safeguards and promotes boarders’

welfare (NMS 13) • Boarders’ welfare is protected in any appointment of educational

guardians by the school.(NMS 22) • Boarders are protected from the risk of fire. (NMS 26) • The welfare of any children other than the school’s pupils is safeguarded

and promoted while accommodated by the school.(NMS 28) • Boarders’ safety and welfare are protected during high risk

activities.(NMS 29) • Boarders’ personal privacy is respected.(NMS 37) • There is vigorous selection and vetting of all staff and volunteers working

with boarders.(NMS 38) • Boarders are protected from unsupervised contact at school with adults

who have not been subject to the school’s complete recruitment checking procedures and there is supervision of all unchecked visitors to the boarding premises.(NMS 39)

• Boarders have their own accommodation, secure from public intrusion. (NMS 41)

• Boarders are protected from safety hazards.(NMS 47) JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 2, 3, 4, 5, 26, 29, 37, 38, 39, 41 & 47 The quality outcome in this area was good. The arrangements in place for dealing with complaints, bullying and behaviour management were handled very well to ensure that boarders felt listened to and protected. Improvements should be made to staff recruitment checks. EVIDENCE: The vast majority of boarders who completed the CSCI questionnaire reported that they were never or hardly ever bullied. Boarders identified a number of boarding and academic staff they could approach if they were being bullied. They also had the details for agencies they could contact with any concerns, including that of the CSCI; meeting the advisory recommendation made during


the last inspection. The anti-bullying policy was in the process of being updated (with a draft of the revised policy seen). It is recommended that the anti-bullying policy include details of the preventative measures in place to deter bullying manifesting. The school had implemented the advisory recommendation made during the last inspection in relation to all staff having written guidance on child protection protocols. Inset training covering child protection had been booked for the start of the new academic year and this was a positive development. Of the 80 boarders who completed the CSCI questionnaire, 51 felt that punishments were fair or very fair and 17 thought they were average. Clear records were maintained of sanctions, which usually consisted of ‘gating’, and of major punishments for more serious misdemeanours, meeting the advisory recommendation made during the last inspection. Punishments were balanced and proportionate. The school had and followed an appropriate policy on responding to complaints made by students and parents. Evidence seen during the inspection confirmed that the complaints procedure had been accessed and there was a full audit trail of the school’ response. There were no reported concerns over the level of privacy afforded to boarders. The sample of boarding house records seen during the inspection revealed that there had been an adequate number of fire alarm tests, fire drills and emergency lighting tests. The practice within the school was that fire alarm tests were conducted at least monthly. There was a good system in place for assessing the potential dangers associated high-risk activities. The records available were clearly written and well maintained. The school reported that appropriate enquiries were made in relation to staff working within off site facilities used by the school in terms of vetting, meeting the advisory recommendation made during the last inspection. The school was in the process of implementing a new recruitment process for all staff. The new policy on recruitment was robust. A sample of staff files seen during the inspection revealed that there were gaps in the recruitment and vetting since the previous inspection. Criminal Records Bureau checks were not always in place when the relevant personnel began working in the school or boarding houses. Written references were also not in place for all staff. Outside contractors were seldom used by the school, although those that were, were reported to be closely supervised by house managers, prohibiting unsupervised access to boarders accommodation. There were good security measures in place in each of the boarding houses and this issue was frequently discussed in boarding house managers’ meetings.


Boarder’s had their own accommodation, secure from public intrusion as far as possible. As a city school, some of the boarding houses were in busy areas and the issue to installing CCTV was a real consideration. The inspection team would support this where the need is greatest. There were risk assessments in place for boarding houses that were regularly updated by the health and safety officer. Academic areas had not been risk assessed since 2004. An issue that came up in the house manager’s meeting attended by the inspectors related to window restrictors in boarding houses. Students had a tendency to tamper with these causing some concern about safety. The inspectors noticed that in some boarding areas windows opened widely, causing potential hazards and it is strongly recommended that restrictors be in place.


Enjoying and Achieving The intended outcomes for these standards are:

• Boarders have access to a range and choice of activities.(NMS 11) • Boarders do not experience inappropriate discrimination.(NMS 18) • Boarders’ welfare is not compromised by unusual or onerous

demands.(NMS 27) • Boarders have satisfactory provision to study.(NMS 43) • Boarders have access to a range of safe recreational areas.(NMS 46)

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 11, 18, 27, 43 & 46 The quality outcome in this area was good. Boarders were supported to develop, achieve and prepare for their futures. EVIDENCE: Evidence from notice boards in boarding houses listed the activities available to boarders, which included sports and social events, usually twice weekly. 61 of the 80 boarders sampled felt that the range of activities was good or very good. There were two dedicated sports, recreation and extra circular activity coordinators who responded to student’s choice activities very well. The coordinators were also responsible for ensuring the student council meetings were conducted and this facilitated very good communication between the school and student body in terms of sport and recreation. Boarders did not complain about the amount of free time they were allowed outside of their timetable. The school had a clear work ethic, but combined this with encouraging boarders to be responsible for their learning, with the right support. This system appeared to work very well, with good results. The last inspection report advised the school to consider developing guidance on internet-access. A leaflet covering many aspects of internet-access had been produced in a reader-friendly manner advising on, amongst other things internet-safety, meeting the advisory recommendation. The school responded very well to the diverse, multi national student population. There were no reports of any inappropriate discrimination within the school. Further, there was evidence no evidence of any onerous demands placed on boarders. Studying facilities within each of the student’s bedrooms were sufficient.


The off site recreation areas used by the school were usually maintained by the local authority and therefore subject to there own risk assessments. Boarders’ common rooms varied in size and style. It is recommended that further seating is purchased for Batim House.


Making a Positive Contribution The intended outcomes for these standards are:

• Boarders are enabled to contribute to the operation of boarding in the school.(NMS 12)

• Boarders receive personal support from staff.(NMS 14) • Boarders can maintain private contact with their parents and

families.(NMS 19) • New boarders are introduced to the school’s procedures and operation,

and are enabled to settle in.(NMS 21) • Boarders have appropriate access to information and facilities outside

the school.(NMS 30) • There are sound relationships between staff and boarders.(NMS 36)

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12, 14, 19, 21, 30 & 36 The quality outcome in this area was excellent. Boarders enjoyed positive relationships with house-managers and identified individuals they could approach with any concerns. EVIDENCE: Regular student council meetings were held and attended by boarding house representatives, senior staff members and the sports and recreational coordinators. There were occasional boarding house meetings. The schools approach to securing boarders views was very effective. Students were enabled either formally or informally to discuss issues relating to their school life and these were acted upon in a balanced and robust way. One boarder who completed the CSCI questionnaire commented, “ I think our school has the greatest, most supportive tutors one could possibly have”. Another reported; “We live as a big family and if you need help you always get it”. These views, together with observations and comments by boarders during the inspection confirmed that the school provided excellent support to boarders tailored to their individual needs. Boarders had a telephone line in their bedrooms, in addition to pay phone access. Most boarders also had their own mobile telephones. The boarder’s survey revealed that only two boarders didn’t think they had telephone access.


The student council discussed very positively the induction process for boarders. The induction included providing boarders with information about the school whilst also having an opportunity to enjoy recreation and social events. As a centrally located school, boarders had excellent access to local shops and facilities including gyms, swimming pool, cinema and food outlets. Boarders commented that they wanted broadband internet-access, and wireless internet-access had been successfully trialled in one boarding house. There were plans to extend wireless internet-access to all other houses. Staff and boarder relationships were observed to be excellent. Both groups approached one another in a respectful, yet relaxed and mature way. One student who completed the CSCI questionnaire stated the following: “CCSS has helped me change my life around. Due to the care and attention I have received from my teachers and all other staff, I finally have an aim. Everyone is friends with everyone and this helps to keep the pupils happy and enjoy their time as well as receiving good grades”.


Achieving Economic Wellbeing The intended outcomes for these standards are:

• Boarders’ possessions and money are protected.(NMS 20) • Boarders are provided with satisfactory accommodation.(NMS 40) • Boarders have satisfactory sleeping accommodation.(NMS 42) • Boarders have adequate private toilet and washing facilities.(NMS 44) • Boarders have satisfactory provision for changing by day.(NMS 45) • Boarders can obtain personal requisites while accommodated at

school.(NMS 50) JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 20, 40, 42, 44 & 45 The quality outcome in this area was good. Accommodation was clean, comfortable and safe from obvious hazards EVIDENCE: There were no ongoing problems in relation to the safety of boarder’s possessions. Previous concerns had been dealt with effectively. Boarders were encouraged to be responsible for their own security. It was pleasing to note that safety deposit boxes were being sourced for all boarders. Boarder’s accommodation was arranged over several sites. The standard of accommodation varied and there were plans to update older accommodation or specific furniture over time. Carpets had been replaced at St Barbabas meeting the previous advisory recommendation. Boarding houses were adequately lit. Ventilation in some boarding house bathrooms was inadequate and a full audit of the problems should take place, followed by the appropriate remedial action. It is acknowledged that boarding houses were seen on a particularly hot summers day, but fans should be considered for the Stables building. Each boarding house had adequate toilet and washing facilities All boarders had their own bedrooms and those seen by the inspectors were adequately furnished. Linen was laundered twice weekly by outside contractors. There were no specific changing facilities available to boarders on the academic sites although there were changing facilities available at off site leisure facilities.


Management The intended outcomes for these standards are:

• A suitable statement of the school’s principles and practice should be available to parents, boarders and staff (NMS 1)

• There is clear leadership of boarding in the school.(NMS 8) • Crises affecting boarders’ welfare are effectively managed.(NMS 9) • The school’s organisation of boarding contributes to boarders’

welfare.(NMS 10) • Risk assessment and school record keeping contribute to boarders’

welfare.(NMS 23) • Boarders are adequately supervised by staff.(NMS 31) • Staff exercise appropriate supervision of boarders leaving the school

site.(NMS 32) • Boarders are adequately supervised at night.(NMS 33) • Boarders are looked after by staff with specific boarding duties, with

adequate induction and continued training.(NMS 34) • Boarders are looked after by staff following clear boarding policies and

practice.(NMS 35) • The welfare of boarders placed in lodgings is safeguarded and

promoted.(NMS 51) • The welfare of boarders is safeguarded and promoted while

accommodated away from the school site on short-term visits (NMS 52) JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 1, 8, 9, 10, 23, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 & 52 The quality outcome in this area was good. Boarding arrangements were well managed to support the needs of boarders. EVIDENCE: Written information available to boarders and parents about boarding principles and practice provided an accurate description the current arrangements. The inspection team would support the school’s view that the current guidance could be improved if brought together in one document. The head of boarding provided clear and highly effective leadership of boarding arrangements, with an obvious keenness to further develop practices. At the last inspection, an advisory recommendation was made in respect of BSA training for boarding staff. On this occasion, the head of boarding confirmed


that that he was undertaking a NPQH and the deputy head of boarding was doing the BSA. A crisis management plan was in place defining the procedure to be followed in the event of a major incident. The plan clearly defined roles and responsibilities of the members of the crisis management team. The organisation of boarding houses was conducive to supporting boarder’s welfare. There was good evidence to support that the majority of boarders enjoyed and benefited from the boarding experience. The head and deputy head of boarding were responsible for monitoring boarding house records. Evidence seen during the inspection confirmed that monitoring arrangements were working effectively. The ‘boarding review team’ were looking at developing the boarding provision further. Students were able to come and go from boarding houses with relative freedom although there were established curfews in place within the boarding houses that were monitored at least twice daily by boarding managers. The school should consider adopting a signing in and out system for boarders and especially for visitors. Night time supervision within the boarding houses was good. A designated responsible was on duty at all times and accessible to boarders. Good support mechanisms were in place for boarding house managers from the head and deputy head of boarding. Communication between boarding staff was excellent. Job descriptions were in place for house managers and their duties were well understood. There were no formal supervision or appraisal systems in place for boarding staff, although an appraisal system was being introduced later in 2006. There was good written guidance available to house managers on boarding practices and satisfactory arrangements for arranging suitable and safe accommodation for boarders whilst on a residential trip away from the school.


SCORING OF OUTCOMES

This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Boarding Schools have been met and uses the following scale. 4 Standard Exceeded (Commendable) 3 Standard Met (No Shortfalls) 2 Standard Almost Met (Minor Shortfalls) 1 Standard Not Met (Major Shortfalls)

“X” in the standard met box denotes standard not assessed on this occasion “N/A” in the standard met box denotes standard not applicable

BEING HEALTHY ENJOYING AND ACHIEVING

Standard No Score Standard No Score 6 3 11 3 7 3 18 3

15 3 27 3 16 3 43 3 17 3 46 3 24 4 25 3 MAKING A POSITIVE 48 3 CONTRIBUTION 49 3 Standard No Score

12 4 STAYING SAFE 14 3

Standard No Score 19 3 2 3 21 3 3 3 30 4 4 3 36 4 5 3

13 X ACHIEVING ECONOMIC 22 X WELLBEING 26 3 Standard No Score 28 X 20 3 29 3 40 3 37 3 42 3 38 2 44 3 39 3 45 3 41 3 50 X 47 3


SCORING OF OUTCOMES Continued

MANAGEMENT Standard No Score

1 3 8 3 9 3

10 3 23 3 31 3 32 3 33 3 34 3 35 3 51 X 52 3


Are there any outstanding recommendations from the last inspection?

NO

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

This section sets out the actions that must be taken so that the proprietor meets the Children Act 1989, Inspection of Schools and Colleges Regulations 2002 and the National Minimum Standards.

No. Standard Recommendation Timescale for action (Serious welfare

concerns only)

1 BS2 It is recommended that the anti-bullying policy include details of the preventative measures in place to deter bullying manifesting.

2 BS6 It is recommended that consideration be given to including sexual health education as part of the PSHE programme.

3 BS17 It is recommended that ‘welfare plans’ be developed for boarders with specific ‘welfare needs’.

4 BS25 It is recommended that all students have access to food/snacks within the boarding houses at all times and that suitable drinking water taps are well signposted.

5 BS32 It is recommended that a system be introduced in each boarding house in which boarders sign in and out.

6 BS34 It is recommended that boarding staff receive one-to-one supervision at least termly.

7 BS38 It is strongly recommended that staff recruitment and vetting checks be improved without delay.

01/09/06

8 BS41 It is recommended that CCTV be considered for external use only, on boarding houses where the need is considered the greatest.

9 BS46 It is recommended that further seating be


purchased for Batim House. 10 BS47 It is strongly recommended that window

restrictors be in place on boarding house windows.

30/11/06


Commission for Social Care Inspection Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Area Office CPC1 Capital Park Fulbourn Cambridge CB1 5XE National Enquiry Line: 0845 015 0120 Email: [email protected] Web: www.csci.org.uk © This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI

boarding school - find an ofsted inspection report centre for sixth-form studies...

Documents