The leadership team has maintained the good quality of education in the school since the previous inspection. The school has gone through a number of changes since the previous inspection. First, the school entered into an informal partnership with another local school, Ditchingham Church of England Primary Academy. The school then became an academy itself, sponsored by the Diocese of Norwich Education and Academies Trust (DNEAT). The partnership between the two schools was then formalised and you are now the executive headteacher of what is known as the Kingfisher Partnership. The partnership’s leadership capacity has been strengthened by the appointment of a head of school on each site. The school building has also changed since the previous inspection. The school has grown from two to three classes. An additional classroom was built to accommodate this. A new library was built at the same time. The classrooms and communal areas are bright and attractive, providing a good-quality learning environment. Gillingham St Michael’s is a welcoming and friendly school, with happy pupils and staff. The school’s very small size means that everybody knows everybody, and pupils like this family feel. This also means that staff know pupils well as individuals. Relationships between pupils and staff are strong. This helps to ensure that classrooms are happy and productive places where pupils behave well and try hard. You are supported and challenged well by the multi-academy trust (DNEAT). You work closely with the executive principal for the region that the partnership is part of. She knows the school well and has an accurate view of its strengths and weaknesses. You and the rest of the staff are supported in a range of ways by the multi-academy trust. The trust offers a wide range of professional development opportunities such as courses, meetings and workshops. Challenge is regular and effective. For example, the termly review meeting, involving school and trust leaders as well as governors, focuses well on ensuring that expectations are high and that the school continues to improve. Governance is strong. The chair of the governing body is a national leader of governance and her experience and expertise are clear. Other governors have a range of skills and experience, enabling the governing body to fulfil its functions well. Governors also work closely with the multi-academy trust, and with the executive principal in particular. This helps them to have a clear and accurate view about the school’s strengths and weaknesses, and to hold you to account fully. Leaders, governors and the multi-academy trust all agree on the school’s current priorities for further improvement. While good progress has been made in improving outcomes in reading, you know that there is still work to do in this area. Safeguarding is effective. Pupils feel safe at Gillingham St Michael’s. Their strong relationships with staff mean that there is always someone to talk to if they are worried about anything. Pupils say that there is little bullying and that staff sort problems out when they do occur. You have ensured that strong systems are in place so that only suitable people are employed to work with children. The school’s single central record of preemployment checks is particularly well kept, reflecting the school’s methodical approach. You have also ensured that staff are vigilant in noticing and reporting possible signs of abuse and neglect. The school’s designated safeguarding leads have been fully trained to carry out this vital role effectively. Inspection findings I followed a number of lines of enquiry to check whether the school remains good. First, I looked at how well reading is taught and whether current pupils are making good progress in this area. I chose to look at reading because results of the 2017 national tests showed that pupils’ progress, between Year 2 and Year 6, was among the lowest in the country. There were 14 pupils in last year’s Year 6. Although this was a much bigger cohort than is typical for the school, it remains a very small group of pupils. This means caution is required when considering the published data as the result for each individual pupil has a disproportionate impact on the result for the group as a whole.