Coppice Junior School Ofsted Report

Full report

What does the school need to do to improve further?

• Improve the quality of leadership and management by ensuring that:
  • the evaluation of the school’s performance is accurate, enabling clear identification of priorities for improvement and swift action to improve progress for all groups of pupils
  • leaders use the findings from monitoring activities more precisely to help teachers improve the quality of their teaching leaders check and review how successful the school’s strategies are in improving outcomes for disadvantaged pupils
  • governors hold the headteacher to account more rigorously for the impact of the school’s actions on improving pupils’ outcomes.
• Improve the quality of teaching to strengthen pupils’ progress by ensuring that:
  • all teachers have consistently high expectations of what pupils can and should achieve
  • activities are well matched to the needs of all pupils so that they are appropriately challenged and make more rapid progress, particularly in writing and mathematics.
• Improve standards of behaviour and personal development by ensuring that:
  • teachers have consistent expectations about the presentation of pupils’ work
  • teachers eliminate low-level disruption by making activities more engaging so that pupils maximise their time for learning.
• Develop a deeper culture of safeguarding by ensuring that there is better identification and management of potential risks to pupils in relation to the school grounds. An external review of governance should be undertaken in order to assess how this aspect of leadership and management may be improved. An external review of the school’s use of the pupil premium should be undertaken in order to assess how this aspect of leadership and management may be improved.

Inspection report: Coppice Junior School, 9–10 March 2017

Page 2 of 12

Inspection judgements

Effectiveness of leadership and management Requires improvement

• Leaders and governors have been overgenerous in their evaluation of the quality of education provided by the school. Consequently, they have not identified weaknesses precisely enough and put in place appropriate actions to address the inconsistent progress pupils make across the curriculum.
• Senior leaders have not done enough to increase rates of pupils’ progress since the last inspection. They have not acted quickly enough to improve teaching and develop a culture of ambition and determination to get the best from all pupils.
• Leaders’ evaluations of teaching are not always sufficiently rigorous. Leaders do not consistently use the information they gather about the quality of teaching to identify specific areas that are weaker. As a result, development plans do not focus sharply enough on improving the aspects of teaching that need most attention.
• The school’s assessment system, while very comprehensive, is not used effectively to pinpoint and understand the specific issues which hinder pupils’ progress. Consequently, leaders’ actions to improve teaching and learning are not sufficiently well targeted and progress has not been quick enough.
• The curriculum is broad and balanced, although some topics are not covered in enough depth to allow pupils to achieve well across all subjects. For example, science work across year groups is stronger than history and geography, which are more variable in quality. The curriculum is supplemented by a range of extra-curricular activity clubs, including table tennis, cooking and computing. These clubs are well attended and contribute well to pupils’ wider development.
• Senior leaders have enabled subject leaders to contribute to the school’s monitoring and evaluation cycle. They are involved in observing lessons, scrutinising teachers’ planning and reviewing pupils’ work. This gives subject leaders a good oversight of the quality of teaching and learning. However, their monitoring lacks evaluation and makes little reference to the amount of progress pupils make. While leaders provide feedback to teachers, there is little specific guidance about the next steps for teachers to tackle any weaknesses in pupils’ outcomes.
• The local authority provides a half-day termly visit to support the school’s self-evaluation processes. At the most recent visit, an adviser worked alongside leaders to carry out a joint evaluation activity on the provision for pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities. The findings matched those of the school and confirmed that the actions leaders were taking were the right ones. However, the local authority’s judgement about pupils’ current rates of progress and the 2016 outcomes is overgenerous. As a result, leaders have not focused sharply enough on improving pupils’ rates of progress in core subjects.
• Leaders spend the pupil premium funding largely on extra staffing to enable small-group working or teaching groups with a lower pupil-teacher ratio. However, leaders have not identified precisely the barriers to learning for disadvantaged pupils, therefore leaders and governors are unclear about how effective the support has been.

Inspection report: Coppice Junior School, 9–10 March 2017

Page 3 of 12

Disadvantaged pupils’ progress remains variable overall due to variations in the quality of teaching.

• More recently, some senior leaders have effectively supported teachers to help them improve their teaching. For example, leaders’ guidance and advice to support the teaching of mathematics are helping pupils to make better progress, although the full impact of their work has yet to be realised.
• Leadership of special educational needs is strong. The additional funding for pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities is used well to improve their progress over time. The special educational needs coordinator knows these pupils and their identified needs, and monitors their progress well. Detailed intervention maps provide good evidence of the support given to pupils and its positive impact.
• School sports funding is used well to extend the range of sporting opportunities for pupils, including access to sports such as rugby, golf and hockey. The funding also pays for a play leader to run activities during lunchtimes, helping pupils to develop their social skills.
• The large majority of parents are supportive of the school and its work. They say that their children are happy and get on well at school. A few parents feel that communication between home and school could be better, with more notice given about events.

Governance of the school

• Governors are beginning to ask the right questions of leaders in relation to the school’s performance, although they are not always probing enough about the actual impact of leaders’ work on pupils’ progress. They rely too heavily on the headteacher to evaluate the work of the school. Consequently, governors do not hold the headteacher fully to account for pupils’ outcomes.
• Governors are actively involved in the work of the school and have clearly defined roles and responsibilities. They visit the school regularly to gain an oversight of how leaders check on the school’s work. However, they do not yet have a completely accurate understanding of the quality of provision that the school offers its pupils. For example, governors do not have a clear assessment of the impact of additional funding on targeted disadvantaged pupils.
• The school’s website does not comply with the Department for Education guidance on what schools should publish about the pupil premium funding. As a result, parents are not as informed as they should be.
• Subject leaders provide governors with useful overviews of their subject areas at the start of each governors’ meeting. This helps governors to have an awareness of the wider curriculum offered by the school.
• Governors show a commitment to improving governance so that they can strengthen the support and challenge that are offered to the school. They are reflective of their practice. For example, they carried out a self-evaluation and identified some actions to improve their overall effectiveness.

Inspection report: Coppice Junior School, 9–10 March 2017

Page 4 of 12

Safeguarding

• The arrangements for safeguarding are effective.
• Staff show a good understanding of the school’s safeguarding policies and procedures because they receive periodic training to keep them informed. For example, staff have a good knowledge of child sexual exploitation as a result of training delivered by the police. Staff are clear about when to refer any concerns about a pupil to the designated safeguarding lead.
• The school’s reporting of safeguarding matters has recently moved to a new electronic system for logging concerns. This is bringing about greater consistency and orderliness in the recording of child-protection concerns. Staff share any worries or concerns about pupils with others at the weekly ‘concerns meeting’, enabling everyone to remain vigilant.
• Pupils say that they feel safe in school. They are taught effectively about how to stay safe in a range of situations through a comprehensive personal, social and health education programme. For example, pupils learned about escalator safety and had their work displayed in the school hall so that others could be informed about the risks of using an escalator.
• Staff put in place appropriate risk assessments for visits and other school activities. However, leaders do not always identify carefully enough the potential risks associated with the school grounds.
• Leaders ensure that appropriate checks are in place for all staff and volunteers who work with children. Several governors are trained in safer recruitment practices.

Quality of teaching, learning and assessment Requires improvement

• The quality of teaching is not consistently good across the school. As a result, too many pupils do not achieve as well as they could from their different starting points.
• Teachers’ use of time in lessons is not always effective. Some spend an unnecessarily lengthy period of time giving instructions or explaining an activity and do not leave sufficient time for pupils to apply and deepen their learning.
• Teachers do not always take into account pupils’ prior knowledge and understanding when planning new learning. As a result, pupils sometimes have gaps in their knowledge and understanding which prevent them from making good progress. For example, older children were unable to confidently solve problems involving fractions of an amount of money because they did not have a secure grasp of notation for money and place value.
• The teaching of writing is not always effective because some pupils are not being given the guidance they need to improve their work. Pupils do not have a secure grasp of punctuation and the quality of some handwriting is quite poor. In some pupils’ books, inspectors saw a deterioration in the quality of written work over time.
• Teachers’ expectations of pupils are often not sufficiently high enough to ensure that all groups of pupils are challenged and produce work which is at least of a good standard. This is because teachers sometimes set work which is not well matched to

Inspection report: Coppice Junior School, 9–10 March 2017

Page 5 of 12

the differing abilities in the class. Too often, pupils are not stretched in their learning. Pupils’ typical comments in their books include, ‘I would like to be challenged’ and ‘I found this easy-peasy.’ At other times, teachers set a level of challenge for pupils that is too difficult.

• The teaching of mathematics is improving and the work in pupils’ books shows that some pupils are making good progress. However, there is still further work to be done to ensure consistency in teaching. For example, in some classes, teachers are working hard to develop pupils’ reasoning skills so that they can explain their thinking. In other classes, there are still too few opportunities for pupils to apply their reasoning skills.
• In the most effective lessons, pupils have a clear sense of purpose about what they are learning to do. For example, in a mathematics lesson linked to work on the Amazon rainforest, pupils successfully planned a visit to Brazil and applied their mathematical skills to working out costs within a set budget. Pupils showed enjoyment in their work and most achieved well.
• Teachers use effective questioning to draw out pupils’ understanding and help them progress in their learning. For example, in an engaging English lesson which used the poem ‘The Listeners’ by Walter De La Mare, the teacher skilfully challenged pupils through open questions to understand why imagery is used in poetry.
• In some year groups, pupils effectively develop their literacy skills across the curriculum. For example, pupils apply and improve their skills of diary writing through their history work on the Victorians. In another class, pupils produced a rainforest display including art and poems which were of a good standard.
• Teachers use interventions and focused teaching well to support the achievement of pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities. Leaders track the progress of these pupils, ensuring that there is rapid identification followed by a programme of appropriate support.
• Where teaching is effective for lower-attaining pupils, teachers build up learning gradually in sequential steps and provide clear, succinct instructions. As a result, pupils make faster progress.
• Typically, relationships between adults and pupils are positive. Staff nurture and encourage pupils, celebrating their achievements, which makes them feel valued.
• Teaching assistants work in close partnership with teachers to effectively support the progress of pupils, especially those who are low attaining or who have special educational needs and/or disabilities. They encourage pupils’ good attitudes to learning.

Personal development, behaviour and welfare Requires improvement

Personal development and welfare

• The school’s work to promote pupils’ personal development and welfare requires improvement.
• Pupils’ attitudes to learning vary because teachers do not consistently provide stimulating, challenging activities for all pupils to develop pride and enthusiasm in their

Inspection report: Coppice Junior School, 9–10 March 2017

Page 6 of 12

work. Sometimes this results in pupils going off-task and low-level disruption goes unchecked.

• Pupils’ presentation varies widely across the school because leaders have not secured a consistent approach to expecting the best from pupils.
• The school provides an effective weekly programme of personal, social and health education lessons which enable pupils to explore a range of issues in a safe environment. For example, pupils discuss what racism means and have a clear understanding of why it is wrong.
• Teachers promote pupils’ cultural development with varying degrees of success. Pupils are taught about a range of religions in religious education, including Hinduism and Sikhism. However, their knowledge and understanding of different faiths are quite limited.
• Pupils say that bullying sometimes happens, although it is always sorted out quickly by adults. Pupils have a good understanding of the different types of bullying, including racist bullying and cyber bullying. They know how to stay safe when online, for example by having strong passwords and not sharing personal information. School leaders actively promote an anti-bullying culture within the school. Pupils create ‘Power for Good’ anti-bullying posters and display these in school.
• Pupils show a reasonable understanding of British values. Teachers promote democracy well through school elections, enabling pupils to take up positions such as school council members and house captains. However, pupils found it difficult to articulate the difference they make. Pupils understand how laws are created and appreciate why it is important that we abide by rules. Pupils are given opportunities in school to demonstrate responsibility. For example, older pupils operate the technical equipment during assembly.

Behaviour

• The behaviour of pupils requires improvement.
• Some pupils are unable to fully access the learning in a lesson because it is too hard. This leads to these pupils sometimes becoming inattentive and going off-task. Pupils told inspectors that there is quite a lot of chatting in lessons. Pupils understand the school’s behaviour system well and know the sanctions. They enjoy being rewarded with ‘golden time’.
• Pupils’ attendance has fallen since the last inspection. However, in 2016, pupils’ attendance was broadly in line with the national average. Rates of absence were higher than the national average for disadvantaged pupils and pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities. Attendance for this academic year is beginning to improve. Leaders are very aware of the attendance issue and are trying everything possible to stem the decline.
• Pupils are polite and courteous to each other, staff and visitors. They have a clear sense of right and wrong, which is usually supported through clear and effective behaviour management. Pupils are aware of the consequences of their actions.
• Most pupils work well with others in class and at less structured times, such as play.

Inspection report: Coppice Junior School, 9–10 March 2017

Page 7 of 12

Pupils behave well during the lunch period. This is a social occasion where they are not rushed, but have time to relax and talk.

Outcomes for pupils Requires improvement

• Outcomes for pupils require improvement because progress in reading, writing and mathematics is not yet consistently good across the school. Not all leaders have sufficiently high expectations of what pupils should achieve, which leads to an unambitious culture within the school.
• For a number of years, pupils’ progress in mathematics at key stage 2 has been consistently well below the national average. In 2016, too few pupils in Year 6 made enough progress from their different starting points in reading and mathematics. The most able disadvantaged pupils’ outcomes were particularly poor.
• Work in pupils’ books and visits to lessons confirm that the progress of current pupils, including those who are disadvantaged, is inconsistent. In some books, there is evidence of pupils making good progress over time in core subjects. However, in some books, pupils demonstrate limited progress, especially in writing. Work is insufficiently challenging and does not move pupils on quickly enough to harder work, or pupils spend too long on tasks that they can already do.
• The school’s use of the pupil premium funding is not targeted specifically enough to enable all disadvantaged pupils to make good progress and attain well.
• By the end of key stage 2, the proportion of pupils who attain the expected standards in reading, writing and mathematics is broadly in line with national averages. Prior to 2016, attainment in reading had been well above the national average for a few years.
• The most able pupils are not challenged well enough in their learning. Their progress is not as rapid as it should be because teachers do not routinely expect enough of them.
• Despite pupils’ progress in writing by the end of Year 6 being well above the national average, the current work in books varies considerably. In some books, handwriting is weak and letters are not formed correctly. Pupils’ spelling and punctuation are also sometimes inaccurate.
• Pupils’ achievement in other curriculum subjects, including science, history and geography, is variable. The work produced is not always of a good standard.
• Most pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities achieve well due to the effective leadership of provision for these pupils. This is due to pupils’ needs being quickly identified and addressed through effective interventions.

Inspection report: Coppice Junior School, 9–10 March 2017

Page 8 of 12

School details

Unique reference number Local authority Inspection number 104041 Solihull 10025375 This inspection was carried out under section 8 of the Education Act 2005. The inspection was also deemed a section 5 inspection under the same Act. Type of school Junior School category Age range of pupils Gender of pupils Maintained 7 to 11 Mixed Number of pupils on the school roll 264 Appropriate authority The governing body Chair Headteacher Telephone number Website Email address Russell Bryant Julie McCarthy 0121 705 3504 www.coppicejuniorschool.co.uk/ office@coppice.solihull.sch.uk Date of previous inspection 6–7 December 2012

Information about this school

• The school does not meet requirements on the publication of information about the pupil premium on its website.
• This school is an average-sized junior school.
• The proportion of pupils from minority ethnic groups has been steadily rising for the last three years and is broadly similar to the national figure.
• A smaller-than-average proportion of pupils speak English as an additional language.
• The proportion of pupils supported with a statement of special educational needs, an education, health and care plan or through special educational needs support is above the national average.
• The proportion of disadvantaged pupils is below the national average.

Inspection report: Coppice Junior School, 9–10 March 2017

Page 9 of 12

• The school meets the government’s current floor standards, which set the minimum expectations for pupils’ attainment and progress.

Inspection report: Coppice Junior School, 9–10 March 2017

Page 10 of 12

Information about this inspection

• The inspection team observed learning in all year groups, including carrying out joint observations with senior leaders. Inspectors reviewed a wide range of pupils’ work in books and on classroom walls.
• Inspectors talked to pupils during lessons, around school and during planned meetings to gather their views.
• Inspectors held meetings with the headteacher, other leaders, school staff and a representative from the local authority. An inspector also met with members of the governing body.
• Responses from 52 parents and carers to the Ofsted online questionnaire (Parent View) were analysed. Inspectors also gathered the views of parents at the beginning of each school day.
• Inspectors heard pupils read during lessons.
• The inspection team looked at a wide range of information including the school’s website, the school development plan, assessment information from its pupil tracking system and anonymised performance management documentation. Inspectors reviewed documentation relating to safeguarding, as well as the minutes of governing body meetings.

Inspection team

Tim Hill, lead inspector Michael Appleby Justine Lomas Janet Satchwell Her Majesty’s Inspector Ofsted Inspector Ofsted Inspector Ofsted Inspector

Inspection report: Coppice Junior School, 9–10 March 2017

Page 11 of 12