St John’s RC Primary School and Nursery Class
Perth
Perth and Kinross Council

11 December 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

St John’s RC Primary School and Nursery Class were inspected in September 2007 as part of a national sample of primary and nursery education. The inspection covered key aspects of the work of the school at all stages. It evaluated nursery children’s and 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 the quality of the children’s experience in the nursery, 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 in post at the time of the inspection, representatives of the parent-teacher association (PTA) and a group of parents¹.

The inspection team also evaluated aspects of the school’s progress in implementing national recommendations related to improving aspects of school meals provision.

St John’s RC Primary School is a denominational school serving the city of Perth and the surrounding area. At the time of the inspection, the roll was 406 with 30 children in the nursery class. The proportion of pupils who were entitled to free school meals was below the national average. Pupils’ attendance was in line with the national average. The school had gained a silver award as an Eco School. At the time of the inspection, the school had an interim headteacher. The school was due to move to new accommodation in 2011.

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.

Almost all parents of nursery children were very positive about all aspects of the nursery. They felt that their children enjoyed being in nursery. Parents of children in the primary stages were positive about most aspects of the school. They thought the school was well led and parents’ evenings were helpful and informative. Pupils enjoyed being at school. All staff liked working in the school. Support staff wanted more opportunities to contribute to school decisions.

4. How good are learning, teaching and achievement?

The quality of the curriculum was adequate. In the nursery class, staff gave children purposeful opportunities to learn through play. In the primary school, teachers had started to update programmes in English language and mathematics but this had still to improve pupils’ attainment. Visiting specialists provided quality experiences in physical education (PE), music and art. Pupils had a balanced range of science experiences. Teachers had started to involve pupils in enterprise activities. Pupils received almost two hours of quality PE. The quality of teaching was adequate overall. Most teachers gave clear explanations and regular appropriate homework. The majority of teachers made effective use of questioning to develop pupils’ understanding. Several effectively shared and reviewed planned learning with pupils. Teachers made increasing use of information and communications technology to help pupils focus on key aspects of their learning. These good practices had yet to be fully extended across the school.

The quality of learning was adequate. Most children in the nursery class responded enthusiastically to activities that encouraged them to work independently. They had explored aspects of growth by talking about themselves as babies and observing a new baby who visited the nursery class. At P1 and P2, staff involved pupils in learning through play in order to build on their earlier pre-school experiences. Pupils from P1 to P7 responded well to tasks and activities which allowed them to be independent and creative. Across the school, pupils did not have enough opportunities to work with others and engage in challenging tasks at a brisk pace.

The school had taken a number of appropriate steps to promote wider achievements. Most children in the nursery class were confident and enjoyed choosing learning activities. They were making good progress in expressing themselves in art and music and participating in energetic outdoor play. Across the primary stages, pupils took part enthusiastically in sporting activities such as netball, football, tennis and curling. The P3 to P7 pupil council had helped raise pupils’ awareness of their responsibilities for others. For example, council members had helped to organise school activities to raise funds for local and international charities and developing a healthy tuck shop. An annual residential experience at an outdoor centre encouraged P7 pupils to develop their self-confidence and initiative. Pupils in P7 acting as ‘playground monitors’ had a positive influence on younger pupils.

English language

In the nursery class, children were making progress in communication and language. Children listened carefully to instructions and contributed confidently in group discussion. Staff encouraged them to tell stories, show an interest in books, and on occasion to write through their play. At the primary stages, attainment was weak. There was no evidence of improving standards of attainment. In recent years, a small but significant proportion of pupils with English as an additional language (EAL) had entered the school. A significant minority of pupils, including those with EAL did not make enough progress in their learning. By the end of P3, most pupils achieved or exceeded appropriate national levels in reading and in writing. From P4, most pupils achieved appropriate levels or better in reading and the majority had achieved this in writing. The school was not yet able to provide reliable assessments of pupils’ progress in listening and talking. Across the primary stages, pupils listened well to teachers but lacked skill in group discussion. At P4, the majority of pupils could read appropriate books with understanding but were unsure how different authors created their effects. Almost all pupils at P7 read regularly for enjoyment but were hesitant when reading unfamiliar texts. From P1, the standard of pupils’ handwriting and presentation of written work was high. Pupils could write for a variety of purposes but were unsure how to improve their writing.

Mathematics

In the nursery class, children were making good progress in developing skills in number and mathematics. Almost all children could name colours, make simple patterns and recognise shapes. From P1 to P7, attainment was adequate. Levels of attainment had recently fallen slightly. Almost all pupils at the early stages were achieving appropriate national levels of attainment. At P6 and P7, most pupils were achieving and a few were exceeding national levels. Across the school, the pace of progress was sometimes too slow for pupils to achieve their potential. Pupils at P7 could interpret a range of graphs. However, at all stages pupils lacked confidence in using tables and graphs to organise and display information. Across the school, the majority of pupils could calculate well, although a few were unsure of number bonds and tables. The majority of pupils were developing appropriate skills in their written calculations. Pupils had a sound understanding of different shapes and could use analogue and digital clocks to tell the time. Throughout the school, pupils lacked confidence in identifying problem solving strategies.

5. How well are pupils’ learning needs met?

Overall, arrangements for meeting needs were weak. Staff received sound advice on managing challenging behaviour. Nursery staff made sound observations of children’s needs. At the primary stages, teachers adapted activities in areas such as reading and mathematics to meet the needs of the majority of pupils. An EAL teacher and community worker provided useful support to individuals and families. Support for learning staff worked well with individuals and small groups of pupils. However, teachers did not do enough to adapt class activities to include pupils requiring a high level of support, such as those with EAL. Higher attaining pupils did not receive enough challenge.

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.

St John’s RC Primary School provided a secure environment for learners. Staff had positive relationships with children in the nursery class and pupils in the primary. Overall, pupils were very well behaved and proud of their school. Attainment was weak in English language and adequate in mathematics. A significant minority of pupils were capable of learning at a faster pace and achieving better standards. Arrangements for supporting pupils with additional support needs, particularly those with EAL, needed to be improved. Weaknesses in accommodation impaired pupils’ learning

The overall quality of leadership was adequate. The interim headteacher was approachable, and had helped bring stability to the school after a period of change. As a result, she had gained the respect of parents, pupils and staff. She and her two supportive depute headteachers were knowledgeable about the school’s strengths and needs. They had not as yet given sufficiently strong enough direction to staff to improve learning, teaching, and attainment. Several staff had started to contribute appropriately to school developments.

The school’s approaches to evaluating the quality of its work were adequate. Senior promoted staff visited classrooms. They sampled pupils’ classwork and tracked their progress. However, they did not use information from such monitoring activities rigorously enough to improve provision. With enhanced support from the education authority, the school could move forward.

Nursery staff were aware of the implications of the Scottish Social Services Council’s Codes of Practice and registration requirements.

The school had taken appropriate action to address the previous three requirements and two recommendations arising from the Care Commission’s safer recruitment audit undertaken on the 20 April 2007. These had been met satisfactorily.

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. HM Inspectors will continue to engage with the school and the education authority in monitoring progress, and will undertake a follow-through inspection. This will result in a report to parents, within two years of the publication of this report, on the extent of improvement that has been achieved.

Sarah Cushley
HM Inspector

11 December 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 interim headteacher and school staff, the Interim Executive Director of Education and Children’s Services, 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, T1 Saughton House, Broomhouse Drive, Edinburgh EH11 3XD or by telephoning 0131 244 8426. Copies are also available on our website www.hmie.gov.uk.

HMIE Feedback and Complaints Procedure

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.