6 December 2006
St Margaret’s Primary School Nursery Class
Salmon Inn Road
Polmont
Falkirk
FK2 0XF
In carrying out this follow-through inspection, HM Inspectors take account of National Care Standards, Early Education and Childcare up to the age of 16, and The Child at the Centre. The following standards and related quality indicators were used in the recent inspection.
National Care Standard |
Child at the Centre Quality Indicator |
Standard 2 — A Safe Environment |
Resources |
Standard 4 — Engaging with Children |
Development and learning through play |
Standard 5 — Quality of Experience |
Curriculum |
Standard 6 — Support and Development |
Support for children and families |
Standard 14 — Well-managed Service |
Management, Leadership and Quality |
Evaluations made using HMIE quality indicators use the following scale, and these words are used in the report to describe the team’s judgements:
excellent |
excellent |
very good |
major strengths |
good |
important strengths with some areas for improvement |
adequate |
strengths just outweigh weaknesses |
weak |
important weaknesses |
unsatisfactory |
major weaknesses |
Introduction
St Margaret’s Primary School Nursery Class was inspected in September 2006 as part of a programme of follow-through inspections carried out by HM Inspectorate of Education. The nursery had been inspected by the Care Commission and HM Inspectorate of Education as part of a programme of integrated inspections in January 2004, and a report was published in May 2004. The education authority, working with staff, had prepared an action plan indicating how the recommendations identified in the integrated inspection report would be addressed. The purpose of this follow-through inspection is to evaluate the progress made by St Margaret’s Primary School Nursery Class in achieving improvements based on the recommendations set out in the integrated inspection report.
Recommendations |
Evaluation of progress |
|
1. |
The local authority should review the capacity of the accommodation used by the nursery class located in the school building. |
Very Good |
2. |
In the annexe at least one member of staff should have a first aid qualification, and appropriate mechanisms for recording fire drill and safety records should be established. |
Very Good |
3. |
Staff should improve the quality of their interventions with children and make more effective use of questioning to enable children to be more actively involved in their learning. |
Good |
4. |
Staff should further develop the procedures for planning the curriculum and for assessing and recording children’s progress. |
Good |
5. |
Staff should improve aspects of the programmes as described in this report and provide more challenging activities for some children. |
Good |
6. |
Senior management should improve the procedures for supporting children with additional needs and provide staff with relevant training as required. |
Very Good |
7. |
Senior management should be more actively involved in the nursery classes. They should develop more systematic and rigorous procedures for monitoring and evaluating. |
Adequate |
Overview of progress achieved
St Margaret’s Primary School Nursery Class had made good progress in overtaking the key recommendations set out in the report of May 2004. After consultation with the Care Commission, the capacity had been agreed as 20 children in the school building and 30 in the annex during each session. The Early Years Officer in the annex had obtained an appropriate qualification in first aid. Fire drills were arranged and recorded regularly in the annex.
Staff interacted well with children in the playrooms. In some instances, they used questions very well to extend children’s learning. For example, children were encouraged to predict what would happen when they poured soapy water through a water wheel. However, this practice was not yet consistent across the provision. Staff had developed their planning procedures including short-, medium- and long-term plans. Plans showed that staff took some account of children’s interests but needed further development to ensure consistency. Staff had worked hard to improve various aspects of the curriculum. Good use was made of labels and children used a range of writing materials in various contexts in the playroom. Children were developing knowledge of early number through rhyme and song. However, opportunities to use large play equipment were limited due to lack of space.
The headteacher, with support from the Principal Teacher Support for Learning, had improved the procedures for supporting children with additional needs. Staff consulted regularly with the Principal Teacher Support for Learning to identify needs and provide support for children. Staff worked with parents and other professionals to produce individualised educational programmes for specific children. Individualised programmes contained appropriate targets and were reviewed regularly.
The headteacher and depute headteacher visited the nursery regularly. The depute headteacher had started to carry out formal monitoring visits and provided staff with written and verbal feedback. However, the focus of these visits was not clearly related to specific aspects of the curriculum or to the development plan. Systems were in place to consult with parents, but a more focused approach was required to audit specifically the quality of the provision.
Other Issues - Response to recommendations or to requirements made at previous Care Commission inspection.
Play surfaces at the nursery class and ramp access at the annex must be completed to a safe and satisfactory condition as soon as possible.
This recommendation had not been met.
Conclusion
St Margaret's Primary School Nursery Class had made good progress in overtaking the key recommendations set out in the report of May 2004. As a result of the progress achieved, HM Inspectors will make no further visits in connection with the inspection report of May 2004.
Jacqueline Horsburgh
HM Inspector
HOW TO CONTACT US
If you would like an additional copy of this report
Copies of this report have been sent to the headteacher, staff and the education authority. Copies are also available on the Care Commission website: www.carecommission.com and HMIE website: www.hmie.gov.uk .
If you wish to comment about pre-school inspections
Should you wish to comment on any aspect of pre-school inspections, you should write in the first instance to Kenneth Muir, HMCI, at HM Inspectorate of Education, Denholm House, Almondvale Business Park, Almondvale Way, Livingston EH54 6GA.
Our complaints procedure
If you have a concern about this report, you should write in the first instance to Hazel Dewart, Business Management Unit, HM Inspectorate of Education, Second Floor, Denholm House, Almondvale Business Park, Almondvale Way, Livingston EH54 6GA. A copy of our complaints procedure is available from this office or by telephoning 01506 600 258 or from our website at www.hmie.gov.uk .
If you are not satisfied with the action we have taken at the end of our complaints procedure, you can raise your complaint with the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman is fully independent and has powers to investigate complaints about Government departments and agencies. You can write to The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, 4-6 Melville Street, Edinburgh EH3 7NS. You can also telephone 0870 011 5378 or e-mail enquiries@scottishombudsman.org.uk. More information about the Ombudsman’s office can be obtained from the website: www.scottishombudsman.org.uk.
Crown Copyright 2006
HM Inspectorate of Education
This report may be reproduced in whole or in part, except for commercial purposes or in connection with a prospectus or advertisement, provided that the source and date thereof are stated.