Skip to content

Help us get it right

Sign in (free) to send feedback, so we can tell you when it's fixed.

Other · Ofsted report

Setting

Inspected — · published 16 Jul 2012

Help us get it right

Sign in (free) to send feedback, so we can tell you when it's fixed.

Original PDF ↗

Summary

No overall grade in this framework

Joan Davis

What we read, and from where

Click a reading to see it highlighted in the report.

  • Inspectorssingle source

    Joan Davis

  • Postcode verified

    BL3 4BG

Page 1 of 3
Page 1 of the report

Deep dive

What this report says

In plain English

Join free to get a short, plain-English summary of any report.

Tone of the report

How positive or critical the inspectors' language is, from the words they chose. No AI involved.

+53Positivemore positive than 53% of reports of this type

In line with other reports of this type.

Praiseexcellenteffectivelyenjoyhigh expectationsmake good progressclearlywell plannedconfidently
Criticisminsufficientinsufficientlymissedlimitedvariablenot robustnot improving

How the report reads, start to finish

Every paragraph in order, sized by length. Tap one to see it on the page.

FindingsLeadershipWhat needs to improve positive critical
  • Findings545w+67
  • Leadership102w+8
  • What needs to improve106w+43

Strengths

Quoted from the report. Tap to see it on the page.

Concerns

Quoted from the report. Tap to see it on the page.

Next steps

Quoted from the report. Tap to see it on the page.

What the report dwells on

Topics by how often they come up, coloured by how they are described. Open one for an example.

Anatomy of the report

How the report is built, against others of the same type and grade.

Pages
3
Words of findings
737
shorter than usual (typical 1049)
Reading level
Hard
Flesch 40, typical 45
Average sentence
18 words
Next steps
4
typical 5
Hedged sentences
5%
“some”, “not always”, “most”…

Where the words go

Findings 72%Leadership 14%What needs to improve 14%

Full report text

Aviation House 125 Kingsway London WC2B 6SE T 0300 123 1231 F 020 7421 6855 enquiries@ofsted.gov.uk www.ofsted.gov.uk

p.1

Mrs R Jones Headteacher Brandwood Primary School Brandwood Street Bolton Lancashire BL3 4BG

p.1

languages (ML)

Thank you for your hospitality and cooperation, and that of your staff and pupils, during my visit on 28 June 2012 to look at work in ML.

p.1

languages (ML)

The visit provided valuable information which will contribute to our national evaluation and reporting. Published reports are likely to list the names of the contributing institutions but individual institutions will not be identified in the main text without their consent.

p.1

languages (ML)

The evidence used to inform the judgements included: interviews with staff and pupils; scrutiny of relevant documentation; analysis of pupils’ work; and observation of three lessons.

p.1

languages (ML)

The overall effectiveness of ML is good.

p.1

Achievement in ML

 Pupils make good progress in their language lessons as they move through the school. They clearly enjoy learning French and can give many reasons why it is useful to do so.  Pupils have access to an interesting variety of books in French, which they can borrow from the school library and take home. Pupils are encouraged to write creatively and they apply grammatical rules effectively. By the end of Year 6, they can write at length in French, using a wide range of vocabulary and structures.  Pupils listen well to their teacher and speak confidently, fluently and with good pronunciation and intonation. Pupils spoke enthusiastically about the listening centre, where they can listen with headphones to stories such as Goldilocks and the Three Bears in French.

p.1

Quality of teaching in ML

 The subject teacher demonstrates passion for learning languages and this is communicated effectively to pupils. Pupils work hard in French lessons as the teacher has high expectations and uses French throughout. She provides an excellent model of spoken French for pupils to imitate. Classroom teachers also demonstrate enthusiasm for the subject and learn alongside their pupils.  Lessons are engaging and activities are well planned to encourage language acquisition. However, opportunities are sometimes missed to allow pupils to practise skills independently of the teacher.  Information and communication technology is used effectively to bring lessons to life. Props are also used well to stimulate pupils’ imagination and make lessons memorable. For example, in a Year 3 lesson, pupils clearly enjoyed guessing what was in a sack containing objects from the tale of Jack and the Beanstalk such as golden coins, magic beans and a

p.2

Quality of teaching in ML

harp.  Assessment is conducted in all four skills. However, records refer only to attainment and not to individual pupils’ progress. In addition, there is insufficient use of assessment information to inform lesson planning; therefore sometimes activities are not appropriately pitched at the needs and abilities of all pupils.

p.2

Quality of the curriculum in ML

The quality of the curriculum in ML is good.

p.2

Quality of the curriculum in ML

 The curriculum is broad and balanced, encouraging progression across all skills and connections are made with other aspects of the curriculum, such as literacy and numeracy.  Pupils spoke highly of French Days that have been organised in the past, when they had the opportunity to eat French food, dress up and play French games.  The school works highly effectively in celebrating other languages, however pupils’ understanding of broader aspects of French culture is rather limited, given their stage of development.

p.2

Effectiveness of leadership and management in ML

The effectiveness of leadership and management in ML is satisfactory.

p.2

Effectiveness of leadership and management in ML

 Leadership is of variable quality. Senior leaders have shown vision and commitment in fully implementing the entitlement to learning a foreign language and have made excellent progress in doing so.  Languages enjoy an increasingly high profile in the school and senior leaders clearly recognise the contribution that learning a language can make to pupils’ broader education.  However, subject leadership has lacked rigour. Procedures to monitor and evaluate provision are insufficiently robust and development planning is not sharply focused on improving outcomes for pupils in order to raise achievement further.

p.2

Areas for improvement, which we discussed, include:

 improving procedures to monitor and evaluate provision and ensuring that development planning is focused on improving outcomes for pupils  establishing clear procedures for the assessment and monitoring of pupils’ progress and ensuring this information informs lesson planning, so that activities better meet the needs and abilities of all pupils.

p.3

Areas for improvement, which we discussed, include:

I hope that these observations are useful as you continue to develop ML in the school.

p.3

Areas for improvement, which we discussed, include:

As explained previously, a copy of this letter will be published on the Ofsted website. It may be used to inform decisions about any future inspection. A copy of this letter is also being sent to your local authority.

p.3

Discuss this inspection

Members compare notes on inspectors and inspections here. Join free to read and post.

Join the discussion