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 letter

Setting

Inspected — · published 17 Apr 2009

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

John Paddick

What we read, and from where

Click a reading to see it highlighted in the report.

  • Inspectorssingle source

    John Paddick

  • Postcode verified

    DL14 6HW

Page 1 of 2
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.

+33Mostly positivemore positive than 68% of reports of this type

In line with other reports of this type.

Praisestrongly

How the report reads, start to finish

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

FindingsAbout the inspectionWhat needs to improve positive critical
  • Findings34w0
  • What needs to improve132w+33

Strengths

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

No standout praise found.

Concerns

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

No strong criticism found.

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
2
Words of findings
164
shorter than usual (typical 963)
Reading level
Fairly hard
Flesch 52, typical 48
Average sentence
18 words
Next steps
7
typical 2
Hedged sentences
0%
“some”, “not always”, “most”…

Where the words go

Findings 6%What needs to improve 22%About the inspection 72%

Full report text

Alexandra House 33 Kingsway London WC2B 6SE T 08456 404040 F 020 7421 6855 enquiries@ofsted.gov.uk www.ofsted.gov.uk

p.1

Mr F Thirling Headteacher Cockton Hill Junior School McIntyre Terrace Cockton Hill Bishop Auckland County Durham DL14 6HW

p.1

Ofsted survey: good practice in capturing the user voice

Thank you for your hospitality and co-operation, and that of your staff, during my visit on Tuesday 24 March 2009 to look at work on capturing the user voice.

p.1

Ofsted survey: good practice in capturing the user voice

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

Ofsted survey: good practice in capturing the user voice

The evidence used to inform the judgements made included the initial meeting with you, further meetings with staff and pupils, observations of assembly and circle time, and a scrutiny of relevant documentation.

p.1

Features of good practice observed

 The school uses a good range of effective strategies to capture the views of its pupils. These include class councils and the school council, end of term reviews, satisfaction surveys, working groups on major topics such as healthy eating, and an involvement in the process of appointment of teachers.  The personal, health, social and citizenship programme provides a secure setting for pupils to give their views about what is right and wrong whilst at the same time exploring their feelings on a wide range of current topics. Regular features are opportunities for older pupils to chair discussions with younger ones and circle time which enables pupils to talk about their experiences and explain how they feel about them.  The school gives its pupils many opportunities to volunteer to take responsibility and fully involves them in the planning for these. Pupils say that they feel good about being trusted in this way. They are keen to talk about what they have done

p.1

Features of good practice observed

and do so with confidence and enthusiasm. An example is the buddy system where older pupils look after the younger ones on the yard and in the garden. Younger children feel reassured by the buddies and know that they can approach them for assistance if they have any concerns.  Strategies for capturing the views of the more vulnerable pupils are excellent. Members of staff are very good at engaging these children in conversation so that barriers to progress, either academic or personal, can be carefully removed. Frequently, this results in the rapid development of personal skills and an increase in confidence and self-esteem. At the same time there are often big increases in the ability to read and write as the children start to believe in themselves. The quality of this work is reflected in the published academic statistics for the school which show that all groups of pupils do better than might be expected.

p.1

Areas for development

 The system of reviewing the progress that pupils make each term could be strengthened. Teachers could check more rigorously the extent to which they meet the targets that they set for themselves during this process.  The management plan could more strongly recognise the high profile that user voice has in the school. For example, it might indicate where pupils’ views are to be sought as part of the procedures for reviewing the relative success of curriculum changes.

p.2

Areas for development

I hope these observations are useful as you continue to develop the user voice in the school.

p.2

Areas for development

As I explained previously, a copy of this letter will be sent to your local authority and will be published on Ofsted’s website. It will also be available to the team for your next institutional inspection.

p.2

Discuss this inspection

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

Join the discussion