Ancrum Road Primary School
Dundee City Council

25 September 2007

Contents

1. Background
2. Key strengths
3. What are the views of parents, pupils and staff?
4. How good are learning, teaching and achievement?
5. How well are pupils’ learning needs met?
6. How good is the environment for learning?
7. Leading and improving the school
Appendix 1 Indicators of quality
Appendix 2 Summary of questionnaire responses
How can you contact us?

1. Background

Ancrum Road Primary School was inspected in April and May 2007 as part of a national sample of primary education. The inspection covered key aspects of the work of the school at all stages. It evaluated pupils’ achievements, the effectiveness of the school, the environment for learning, the school’s processes for self-evaluation and innovation, and its capacity for improvement. There was a particular focus on attainment in English language and mathematics.

HM Inspectors examined pupils’ work and interviewed groups of pupils, including the pupil council, and staff. Members of the inspection team also met the chairperson of the School Board, representatives of the parent-teacher association (PTA) and a group of parents¹.

The school serves an area of west Dundee. At the time of the inspection the roll was 376. The proportion of pupils who were entitled to free school meals was above the national average. Pupils’ attendance was below the national average.

2. Key strengths

3. What are the views of parents, pupils and staff?

HM Inspectors analysed responses to questionnaires issued to a sample of parents, P4 to P7 pupils, and to all staff. Information about the responses to the questionnaires appears in Appendix 2.

Parents were very pleased with the school overall. They felt the school was well led and had a good reputation in the local area. They were positive about their children’s experiences at school and found most staff welcoming and helpful. Some wanted more information about the school’s priorities for improvement. Pupils liked many aspects of the school and spoke very positively about their teachers. Nearly half of them felt that pupils’ behaviour could be better. Some felt that staff were not always fair and consistent in promoting positive behaviour. Staff liked working in the school. They felt that communication amongst staff was effective, and that pupils were well looked after. Nearly half of staff wanted more effective approaches to dealing with indiscipline. About a third of them felt that school leadership and teamwork amongst senior managers required improvement.

4. How good are learning, teaching and achievement?

Pupils’ learning experiences and achievements

The curriculum was good overall, with some very good features. Almost all areas of learning were well developed to enable pupils to make steady progress. Health education and ICT were particular strengths. Staff’s commitment to developing pupils’ literacy skills through the education authority’s Learning Together in Dundee programme had improved the quality of pupils’ experiences and attainment. The emphasis given to enterprise activities was uneven across the school. Further time required to be given to physical education. Opportunities for pupils to learn through play were well developed at P1, with plans to extend them to other stages. Teaching was good overall, but varied too widely in quality across classes. Teachers worked hard to establish a positive atmosphere for learning. Most varied lessons appropriately to engage and maintain pupils’ interest. They often shared effectively with pupils what they expected them to learn. In most cases, teachers gave clear instructions and explanations. Some used open-ended questions skilfully to check pupils’ understanding and develop their thinking. Quite often, teachers involved pupils effectively in helping to present lessons. In a few lessons, teachers over-directed pupils’ activities or did not engage in sufficient dialogue with pupils. Teachers issued regular homework which, in some classes, was varied, interesting and challenging.

The overall quality of pupils’ learning was good. In most lessons, pupils were well motivated and hardworking and made steady progress in learning. Most of them behaved well and, when required, could work well with minimal supervision. In most lessons, pupils had good opportunities to develop independent learning skills. They collaborated effectively and responsibly during paired and group activities. This happened, for example, as pupils practised basketball and badminton skills and, at P6, when they rehearsed political speeches for a mock election. Pupils at P5 discussed potential risks in everyday situations very responsibly as part of health education. In a few lessons, pupils became restless when activities were insufficiently varied to hold their interest. In some drama and physical education lessons taught in the hall and gymnasium, pupils’ learning was frequently interrupted by the passage of other classes through the area.

The school took very good steps to promote pupils’ wider achievements. School teams achieved high levels of success at local level in a variety of sports, including athletics, football and swimming. Staff gave importance to developing pupils’ skills of citizenship. For example, pupils learned first-hand about democracy by participating in a mock election. Twelve pupils served responsibly as library monitors. Pupils at P5, P6 and P7 assisted younger pupils with reading and other aspects of classwork. Across the school, pupils were involved in raising funds for charity. Most notably, they were supporting two schools in Malawi. In the process, they developed some valuable enterprise skills through organising fundraising events for parents and the community, and by making artefacts for sale. The school choir and pipers entertained residents in a local care home for the elderly. Pupils learned a very broad range of skills in using ICT, including creating simple computer games and controlling robotic models. Pupils in the Web Club had developed an attractive and very informative website for the school intranet, updated regularly with ‘blogs’.

English language

The overall quality of attainment in English language was good and improving. Most pupils attained appropriate national levels in reading, listening and talking. The majority did so in writing. Increasing numbers of pupils were attaining these levels earlier than might be expected, particularly at P2. Pupils who were unable to reach national levels were making good progress in work suited to their needs. At all stages, pupils listened attentively to their teachers and to each other. They took part in lively group and class discussions. Across the school, pupils read regularly for pleasure and spoke readily about their favourite books and authors. At P7, pupils could discuss the main ideas and language features of challenging poems confidently and with good understanding. Pupils wrote regularly for a variety of purposes and presented their work well at all stages. Their research-based writing was well structured and interesting to read. Pupils at the early stages shared their stories well with older pupils by reading them aloud or compiling them in ‘big books’ for the class library. At P7, pupils wrote very moving poetry and diary entries on a World War II theme.

Mathematics

The overall quality of attainment in mathematics was adequate. It had decreased in the last three years. Most pupils attained appropriate national levels in key aspects of mathematics. At the early stages, almost all were making steady progress in working with numbers. Progress slowed as pupils progressed through the school, with some weaknesses evident in attainment by P7. At the middle stages, pupils showed effective skills in carrying out surveys and had good experience of using computers to process and present data. Most pupils were good at carrying out written and mental calculations. They coped well with the majority of tasks involving measurements of area, length, time, volume and weight. At the upper stages, too many pupils lacked understanding of fractions and decimals. They had learned to use computers to handle data, but had not maintained and applied this learning enough. At these stages, some pupils lacked care in reading graph scales. In problem-solving and enquiry, the majority of pupils could solve problems systematically.

5. How well are pupils’ learning needs met?

The school’s arrangements for meeting pupils’ learning needs were adequate. On the whole, teachers used their knowledge of pupils well to focus support on individuals and groups. They advised pupils effectively on planning and organising their work, and had made a good start to helping pupils to set their own learning targets. Well-planned paired and group activities enabled pupils to support one another. In English language, teachers usually matched tasks and resources effectively to pupils’ differing learning needs. Their approaches were less consistent in other areas of the curriculum. In around a third of lessons, pupils’ differing needs were not met sufficiently. Sometimes teachers relied on worksheets which did not challenge higher-attaining pupils enough. In mathematics, weaknesses in pupils’ understanding had not always been sufficiently identified and addressed. Specialist learning support teachers provided a wide and sensitive range of assistance for pupils with additional support needs. Most often, pupils attended the well-organised support for learning base. Pupils would benefit from more in-class learning support alongside their peers. Support assistants worked very well with teachers and pupils and provided valuable assistance in lessons. Visiting staff helped pupils with specific additional needs, including English as an additional language and visual impairment, to make very good progress.

6. How good is the environment for learning?

7. Leading and improving the school

Appendix 1 provides HM Inspectors’ overall evaluation of the work of the school.

Staff at Ancrum Road Primary School provided a good overall standard of education for pupils. They provided a high level of pastoral care for pupils and adequately met their learning needs. Most areas of the curriculum were well developed. Teaching was good overall but varied too widely in quality. In lessons, pupils were mostly well behaved, motivated and hardworking. They achieved good standards in English language although their progress in mathematics was less consistent. The school strongly promoted pupils’ broader achievements outwith the classroom. It was striving effectively to provide parents with greater insight into their children’s learning experiences at school.

The headteacher was enthusiastic, committed to pupils’ welfare, and well regarded by parents. She engaged positively with staff and encouraged their professional development. She had responded appropriately to the views of staff, pupils and parents by improving communication in the school and initiating a review of the school’s ethos. However, the headteacher had not yet won the confidence of all staff. She had not conveyed to staff a clearly focused view of what required to be done to take the school forward. Leadership, both by the headteacher and across the school as a whole, was adequate. The headteacher had worked hard to develop the capacity and teamwork of the senior management team. Senior managers were becoming more experienced and increasingly effective. The two depute headteachers contributed significantly to the ethos of the school. They led school improvement projects effectively, for example in the areas of literacy and health promotion. Their remits did not include sufficient responsibilities which spanned all stages P1 to P7. Senior managers overall were not sufficiently proactive in ensuring high standards of learning and teaching. Unpromoted teachers improved the school by serving on working groups, running clubs for pupils and mentoring less experienced colleagues. One managed the ICT programme very effectively. Teachers had collaborated well to effect improvements in English language. However, teamwork was restricted and tensions arose because a few teachers were reluctant to give full support to school improvement plans. Approaches to self-evaluation were weak, but improving. Staff evaluated and improved curricular programmes effectively, but were less reflective about learning and teaching. Senior managers evaluated teachers’ plans systematically and discussed the needs of individual pupils with their teachers. They had just begun to monitor the quality of learning and teaching and pupils’ attainment. The school’s capacity for improvement was not yet fully developed.

What happens next?

The school and the education authority have been asked to prepare an action plan indicating how they will address the main findings of the report, and to share that plan with parents. Within two years of the publication of this report parents will be informed about the progress made by the school.

Tom Straiton
HM Inspector
25 September 2007

Appendix 1 Indicators of quality

The sections in the table below follow the order in this report. You can find the main comments made about each of the quality indicators in those sections. However, aspects of some quality indicators are relevant to other sections of the report and may also be mentioned in those other sections.

This report uses the following word scale to make clear judgements made by inspectors:

Appendix 2 Summary of questionnaire responses

Important features of responses from the various groups which received questionnaires are listed below.

How can you contact us?

If you would like an additional copy of this report

Copies of this report have been sent to the headteacher and school staff, the Director of Education, local councillors and appropriate Members of the Scottish Parliament. Subject to availability, further copies may be obtained free of charge from HM Inspectorate of Education, 1st Floor, Endeavour House, 1 Greenmarket, Dundee DD1 4QB or by telephoning 01382 576700. Copies are also available on our website www.hmie.gov.uk.

HMIE Feedback and Complaints Procedure

If you wish to comment about primary inspections

Should you wish to comment on any aspect of primary inspections, you should write in the first instance to Chris McIlroy, HMCI, at HM Inspectorate of Education, Denholm House, Almondvale Business Park, Almondvale Way, Livingston EH54 6GA.

If you have a concern about this report, you should write in the first instance to our Complaints Manager, HMIE Business Management Unit, Second Floor, Denholm House, Almondvale Business Park, Almondvale Way, Livingston, EH54 6GA. You can also e-mail HMIEComplaints@hmie.gsi.gov.uk. A copy of our complaints procedure is available from this office, by telephoning 01506 600200 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 (SPSO). The SPSO is fully independent and has powers to investigate complaints about Government departments and agencies. You should write to the SPSO, Freepost EH641, Edinburgh EH3 0BR. You can also telephone 0800 377 7330 (fax 0800 377 7331) or e-mail: ask@spso.org.uk. More information about the Ombudsman’s office can be obtained from the website: www.spso.org.uk.

Crown Copyright 2007

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.

Footnotes

1. Throughout this report, the term ‘parents’ should be taken to include foster carers, residential care staff and carers who are relatives or friends.