18 October 2006 Mr D Tristram Headteacher The ... - Ofsted

Alexandra House
33 Kingsway
London
WC2B 6SE
18 October 2006
Mr D Tristram
Headteacher
The Kingswood School
Gainsborough Road
Corby
Northamptonshire
NN18 9NS
Dear Mr Tristram
Ofsted survey inspection programme – Modern languages (ML)
Thank you for your hospitality and co-operation and that of your staff and
students during my visit on 4-5 October 2006 to look at work in modern
languages.
As outlined in my initial letter, as well as looking at key areas of the subject,
the visit had a particular focus on how speaking skills are developing, as well
as how information communication technology (ICT) is being used to support
the development of languages generally. It also looked at where you are in
reaching the benchmarks for provision in Key Stage 4.
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. All feedback letters will be published on the Ofsted website at the
end of each half-term.
The evidence used to inform the judgements made included: interviews with
staff and students, scrutiny of school and departmental documentation,
analysis of students’ work and observation of five lessons.
The overall effectiveness of ML was judged to be good.
Achievement and standards
Achievement is good.
T 08456 404045
F 020 7421 6644
www.ofsted.gov.uk
� Standards at the end of Key Stage 3 improved in 2006 although they
remain somewhat below the national expectations for the number of
students gaining a Level 5 plus. However, there was a marked

improvement in the numbers of students gaining a Level 6, particularly
for boys where the figure was broadly average. Standards by the end
of Key Stage 4 improved in 2006 in both French and German. GCSE
results in German were above the national average. In French they
were still below the national average but with a marked improvement
on 2005. Standards reached in AS and A level were mixed but there
are too few entries to make a comparison with national averages.
� Students made good progress in all four skills in the lessons observed.
In one lesson progress in understanding German was outstanding.
� Students’ personal development in ML is good. Students support each
other well in lessons and they show respect for each other and their
teachers. ML contributes very well to students’ enjoyment in learning.
They show some awareness of how language learning can contribute
to their economic well-being but this is not as strong as it could be.
Quality of teaching and learning of Modern languages
The quality of teaching and learning is good with some that is outstanding.
� Teachers’ planning to meet the objectives of lessons is excellent. A
variety of interesting and motivating activities is used which involve
students in learning actively. As a consequence students enjoy learning
a language. Those students to whom the inspector spoke were fulsome
in their praise.
� Good use is made of the Secondary Strategy for ML for structuring
lessons and integrating grammatical knowledge.
� Good examples of peer and self assessment are built into lessons and
plenary activities help both teachers and the students to know what
they have learned in a lesson. More formal assessments are regular
and marking is mostly very helpful with good comments and targets for
next steps clearly written down. This is slightly inconsistent with a few
examples of less helpful marking.
� The use of ICT was not observed during this visit. It is generally
limited, particularly on the Upper School site where there is no access
for students during ML periods.
Quality of curriculum
The provision for languages in the curriculum is good.
� Pupils study one language in Year 7 and two in Years 8 and 9. In Key
Stage 4 they have a choice of French and German GCSE and a
vocational qualification in Spanish. There is a small group of students
who take two languages and a small group study Latin before school in
Year 9 with the opportunity to continue this in curriculum time in Key
Stage 4.

� Schemes of work for Key Stage 3 are generally good. The department
is in the process of redrafting them to include interesting activities and
active learning. Currently they lack sufficient opportunities for students
to use ICT to enhance their language learning. Schemes of work for
Key Stage 4 follow the examination syllabuses.
Leadership and management of subject
Leadership and management are good.
� The senior leadership team is very supportive of ML. The head of
department provides good leadership and manages the department
well. The development plan is good demonstrating both vision and
practicality. Data is used to track underachievement.
� The head of department is aware of what is needed to make languages
interesting in students’ eyes, and, despite a turbulent period with
staffing since her appointment, she, along with current staff, are
succeeding in ensuring that students enjoy it.
How close the school is to reaching the benchmarks for language
take-up in Key Stage 4
� The school’s curriculum in Key Stage 4 has been expanded to meet a
broad range of student needs and this has resulted in a recent decline
in take-up of languages to 33% in Key Stage 4 in 2006, despite the
relatively good range of language options. Whilst there are no firm
plans in place to redress the situation and meet the initial benchmark,
it is under discussion, in particular with regards to introducing a
vocational option lower down the school.
� The school does not provide formal input on the usefulness of
languages to support students with their options, for example through
careers work.
The development of speaking skills
� Lessons observed provided planned opportunities for students to speak
within the context of the lesson and most students willingly did so.
� However, teachers did not always take the opportunities that
presented themselves to develop speaking skills further, beyond the
content of the lesson, or provide consistently good role models. This
might have been done, for example, by praising students consistently
in the target language, or by teaching them the basic, generic
language of playing a game during a starter activity.

Inclusion
� Although no differentiated materials were used in lessons observed,
teachers generally made sure that students were supported adequately
according to need.
� All students who wish to take at least one language in Key Stage 4
have the opportunity to do so.
Areas for improvement, which we discussed, included:
� increase the opportunities for speaking in all lessons beyond the scope
of the lesson content
� provide opportunities for all students to use ICT to improve their
language skills, particularly in writing through drafting and redrafting,
speaking through oral cues for presentations, and reading through
research and authentic texts
� formally plan to improve the take-up of languages in Key Stage 4 and
ensure that students know why it is useful to learn a language for their
future careers and economic well-being.
I hope these observations are useful as you continue to develop modern
languages in the school.
As I explained in my previous letter, a copy of this letter will be sent to your
local authority/Local Learning and Skills Council and will be published on
Ofsted’s website. It will also be available to the team for your next
institutional inspection.
Yours sincerely
Pam Haezewindt
Her Majesty’s Inspector