11 February 2003
1. Introduction
2. The school
3. How well are pupils achieving?
4. How good is the curriculum?
5. How good is learning and teaching?
6. How well are pupils supported?
7. How well is the school managed?
8. How well does the school perform
overall?
Key strengths
Main points for action
Appendix (1)
Indicators of quality
Quality of lessons observed
Appendix (2)
Councils funding the placement of day and
residential pupils in the school at the time of the inspection
How can you contact us?
Glebe School was inspected in October 2002 as part of a national sample of provision for pupils with special educational needs.
The inspection covered key aspects of the work of the school at all stages. HM Inspectors evaluated learning, teaching and attainment, examined pupils’ work and interviewed staff and pupils. The subjects included in the inspection were communication and language, mathematics, personal and social development and music. HM Inspectors evaluated the quality of support for pupils, including arrangements for the care and welfare of day and residential pupils and child protection. They also inspected aspects of guidance and support for learning. In evaluating how well the school and departments were managed, HM Inspectors assessed the school’s processes for self-evaluation and development planning.
Members of the inspection team analysed responses to questionnaires issued to all parents. They met the chair of the parents-staff association and a group of parents.
Glebe School provides secondary education for pupils with a wide range of special educational needs from Perth & Kinross. At the time of the inspection one other education authority had placed a pupil in the school. Pupils were organised into seven classes including one class for pupils with autism and one class for pupils with severe and complex difficulties. The other pupils, all of whom had a range of moderate to severe learning difficulties, were grouped in five classes. In total there were 39 pupils, aged 12 to 18 on the roll. Three pupils who attended the school part-time were also either on the roll of another school or the local college. A further two pupils attended the school on a part-time basis. All pupils had a Record of Needs. Attendance was in line with the national average.
Parents’ views
Just over half of the parents responded to the questionnaire. Most of those who responded were generally positive about the school. In particular, parents felt that:
Some parents would have appreciated more information from the school and the associated support services showing them how they could support their children at home.
Ethos
Staff had established good relationships with pupils and had created a generally happy and caring environment. Pupils indicated that they enjoyed attending school. During the inspection almost all pupils behaved well. Teachers and support staff worked well together. The pupil council gave opportunities for some pupils to take responsibilities. Good links with a voluntary agency and with senior pupils from a secondary school had helped pupils develop useful discussion skills. Praise and encouragement were used to build pupils’ confidence and self-esteem. However, steps needed to be taken to ensure that a sense of equality and fairness was embedded in the work of the school. The system for rewarding effort and achievement was not implemented consistently throughout the school. Some senior pupils would have benefited from more opportunities to take responsibility and to develop more independence. All pupils would have benefited from the experience of staying overnight in the residence from time to time. Staff generally did not have high enough expectations of attainment. Weekly assemblies were attended by the school chaplain. They provided some opportunities for celebrating pupils’ successes and for religious observance.
School and community
The school’s links with parents, other schools, support agencies and the community were fair. Positive features included:
Curricular links with mainstream schools were generally poor and links with other schools which made provision for pupils with special educational needs were at an early stage. Initial steps had been taken to develop useful partnerships with therapists. The education authority had acted on concerns about the quality of the school’s provision and, in the current session, had developed more effective arrangements to support the school.
Accommodation
The quality of the accommodation was unsatisfactory. It was not easy for pupils using wheelchairs or with mobility difficulties to gain access. Several pupils had to travel some distance outside the school in wheelchairs to get to particular classes. Specific problems concerning pupils’ health and safety included:
The building was not well maintained. Paintwork and window frames were badly in need of repair and walls in toilet areas were damaged. There were no classrooms for art and design, science or music, and there was no library. Storage facilities were very limited and many items of furniture were in poor repair. The education authority was committed to upgrading part of the playground within the extensive grounds. The school had recently raised a considerable amount of money to purchase equipment for a new sensory room. Some classrooms had attractive and informative displays.
Staffing and resources
There were major weaknesses in the provision of staffing. Until very recently the headteacher had been the only promoted member of staff. The post of assistant headteacher had only recently been filled, and this was a temporary arrangement until June 2003. Less than half the teachers held qualifications for teaching pupils with special educational needs. Support for learning assistants were effective members of teaching teams. Speech and language therapists and a physiotherapist provided valuable support for some pupils. Current provision of occupational therapy was limited although plans were being made to increase it. A part-time janitor and kitchen staff provided a good service. Clerical support had been insufficient during a considerable period, but current support was of a very high standard.
In relation to staffing and other issues, the education authority and the school needed to clearly identify criteria for admission to the school.
The quality of provision of resources was fair. A greater variety of materials was needed to support the diverse needs of pupils. In English language there was no coherent reading scheme and there were few resources to extend skills in reading for understanding. Information and communications technology (ICT) resources and materials for mathematics were in limited supply. Provision of resources for music was unsatisfactory. There was a useful range of reference materials for health education and personal and social development. The headteacher had consulted staff about budget priorities but resources subsequently purchased had not been in line with their requests and did not meet the changing needs of pupils.
Overall quality of achievement
The overall quality of pupils’ attainment was fair. Pupils were making slow but steady progress. Weaknesses in the quality of the curriculum meant that tasks set were often not sufficiently demanding. Targets set within pupils’ individualised educational programmes (IEPs) were not always challenging enough. Teachers’ plans were insufficiently clear for progress to be measured effectively. Individual targets set for pupils were generally appropriate but sometimes were not specific enough. Pupils were not achieving fully to their potential within nationally certificated units.
English language/Communication and language
Overall, the quality of pupils’ attainment in communication and language was fair. All pupils had individual targets within their IEPs but these were set without reference to national expectations. While most pupils coped well with tasks they were set, many could achieve better standards if teachers set higher targets and provided more structured support.
At S1/S2, most pupils were able to listen well to adults. They could follow simple instructions and take turns when listening and talking in groups. Some pupils were able to express opinions. Some pupils were achieving good standards in reading but others required further challenge. Pupils’ skills in writing were generally limited.
In S3 to S5, most pupils could read and answer relevant questions about simple texts. Presentation skills were generally good and pupils had a good awareness of simple punctuation. Very good use was made of ICT in one class to motivate pupils in their use of language. There was scope for more pupils to achieve a greater range of nationally accredited units.
Pupils with complex needs were at an early stage in learning how to communicate using photographs, symbols and signing. Pupils with autism were responding well through good use of symbols. Reading skills were developing well.
Mathematics/Understanding and relating to the environment
The overall quality of pupils’ attainment in mathematics and understanding and relating to the environment was fair. Pupils were performing well in their coursework but targets set within IEPs were not always clearly stated, nor were they sufficiently challenging for most pupils. Some pupils were making good progress in recognising simple shapes and numbers. Others could read the time and correctly interpret bar graphs from surveys they had carried out with assistance from the teacher. Several pupils showed good number skills in home economics and effectively followed pictorial instructions.
Most pupils who had been presented for nationally certificated units had gained awards. Some were capable of attempting a greater number of nationally certificated units. Pupils with complex special educational needs were able to engage in simple activities and had an awareness of daily routines.
Music
The overall quality of attainment in music was unsatisfactory. The lack of a teaching programme and appropriate resources meant that pupils were unable to achieve appropriate standards. Pupils participated enthusiastically in most of the musical activities they were given. Some could recognise the sounds of different percussion instruments. A few individual pupils could play the recorder and the piano, and sight read music well but more generally the quality of musical performance and pupils’ creative skills required much improvement. Insufficient progress had been made towards improving pupils’ attainment and the school’s expectations about pupils’ musical potential were too low. The school did not enter pupils for national certification in music.
The music therapist provided very good opportunities for some pupils to develop confidence and skills of interaction through a range of musical activities.
Personal and social development
Pupils were making good progress in important aspects of their personal and social development (PSD). They treated each other with respect and showed sensitivity to each others’ needs. At S1/S2, pupils showed a good awareness of aspects of road safety. Some pupils in S3/S4 were able to talk well about caring for others and about issues of responsibility. Others had very good awareness of personal safety in relation to bonfire night. All pupils were becoming aware of the benefits of a healthy diet and were offered fruit for snacks on a daily basis. However, there was no coherent approach to
assessing pupils’ progress and very few pupils at S3/S4 had achieved nationally certificated units. Overall attainment in PSD was good.
The curriculum had major weaknesses. The length of the school day was significantly shorter than that normally provided in mainstream schools and pupils did not have a suitably broad and balanced experience. The school had not taken sufficient account of national and local advice on the curriculum, particularly at S1 and S2. Several aspects, including the study of a modern language or European culture, science, craft, design and technology, religious and moral education and drama had received insufficient attention. There was a lack of clear guidelines for staff, and the curriculum did not provide clear progression in learning.
English language/ Communication and language
The programme for communication and language was unsatisfactory. At S1 and S2 staff had insufficient knowledge of the abilities of their pupils in relation to national expectations. The programme did not provide balanced coverage of all aspects of communication and language. At S3 to S5 staff had developed nationally certificated units but the school had not yet started to use them. At all stages some teachers made very good use of ICT to develop language skills. The lack of a school library was a constraint in extending pupils’ skills in reading for enjoyment. The programme for pupils with complex needs using symbols should be further developed. The curriculum in the class for pupils with autism was broad and balanced and gave appropriate emphasis to the development of communication skills.
Mathematics/ Understanding and relating to the environment
The programme for mathematics and understanding and relating to the environment was unsatisfactory. It did not give enough attention to information handling or problem solving and enquiry. The targets set for most pupils were not sufficiently demanding. At all stages, the lack of a coherent approach to course design meant that programmes were not well enough organised to ensure pupils made appropriate progress. The programme for pupils with autism was based on a good range of practical activities. The programme for pupils with severe and complex needs was at an early stage of development.
Music
The programme for music was unsatisfactory. The school did not provide appropriate opportunities for pupils to develop skills in performing, inventing and listening. The teacher was working hard to develop aspects of the programme and approaches to assessment, and offered pupils a range of enjoyable activities. However, she received little support and guidance from senior promoted staff in developing a suitably challenging programme.
Personal and social development
Teachers had worked together to develop a programme of relevant topics which included bullying, drugs education and responsible personal relationships. At all stages, the programme supported the development of pupils’ self-awareness and the promotion of personal safety. At S3 to S5, the school was preparing pupils for the world of work through work experience and enterprise skills. However teachers did not have sufficient guidance to ensure that pupils were able to build on previous learning. Pupils’ skills were not developed systematically. Overall, the programme for personal and social development was fair.
Staff in the residence took very good account of pupils’ targets for personal and social development and supported pupils in practising skills for independent living.
Learning and teaching
The quality of classroom teaching was good. Teachers generally worked hard to motivate pupils and to provide a range of activities. Most teachers questioned pupils effectively to check their understanding. However the lack of effective programmes prevented teachers from providing consistent learning experiences for pupils. In some classes there was too much reliance on the completion of worksheets. Features of learning and teaching were as follows.
Care and welfare, including residential provision
The school had some good arrangements for promoting the care and welfare of pupils. All staff knew their pupils well as individuals. There were very good arrangements for the administration of medication and satisfactory procedures for recording incidents and fire drills. However, with the exception of staff in the residence, very few members of staff were aware of the school’s policy on child protection. Procedures and policies within the residence were exemplary and all staff were very knowledgeable about the needs of each child. Pupils who had stayed in the residence were very positive about their experience.
Support for learning
The school took some good steps to support pupils’ learning. All pupils had IEPs and their targets had been discussed with parents, but pupils had not yet been involved in setting targets. The quality of IEPs varied too much across the school. The school received good support from the educational psychologist. Annual review meetings involving parents, pupils and representatives of relevant agencies were well organised. These meetings were helpful in ensuring that pupils’ progress was monitored and that the future needs of senior pupils were assessed. Pupils’ Records of Needs were updated as a result of annual reviews.
Overall management and leadership
The headteacher had been in post for 21 years. She valued the residence as providing additional opportunities for pupils’ personal and social development. She had developed good relationships with parents and had worked to make sure that pupils enjoyed attending school. Over the years, during which the needs of pupils had changed substantially, the headteacher had not been able to lead and support staff systematically through these changes. She had not openly consulted with staff and had not developed the curriculum appropriately. The quality of provision was inconsistent throughout the school. The aims of the school were broadly appropriate but they were not implemented effectively. Overall the quality of leadership provided by the headteacher was unsatisfactory.
The temporary assistant headteacher, who had been in post for four months, provided the headteacher with good support and had made a very good start to developing the curriculum. She had quickly gained the respect of staff by working alongside colleagues in classes to support learning and teaching. The officer in charge of the residence provided a very high standard of care for pupils.
Staff review and development
Approaches to staff review and development were fair overall. The work of the headteacher had been reviewed and some areas for improvement had been identified. She had put in place a system of reviews for teaching staff. However, teachers’ development needs had not been met consistently following reviews. Further attention should be given to ensuring that teachers acquire qualifications relevant to teaching pupils with special educational needs. The work of support for learning assistants within the school had not been reviewed and until recently there had not been a systematic response to their training needs. The work of all care staff in the residence had been reviewed by the officer-in-charge. All teaching staff required further training on issues of child protection. There was also a need for staff to have training in gentle restraint of pupils with challenging behaviour.
Planning for improvement
The headteacher and staff had used national quality indicators to evaluate provision in the school, but there were important weaknesses in planning for improvement. The process had not been rigorous enough to accurately determine key priorities for development. The school development plan did not provide a sound basis for making improvements within the school. A recent action plan developed by the education authority had identified some appropriate targets but was not linked to the school plan.
Approaches to improving quality
The school had yet to develop effective approaches to evaluating the quality of its provision. The headteacher and assistant headteacher monitored the quality of learning and teaching by working in classes, but they did not as yet provide sufficient oral or written feedback to teachers on their planning or assessments. Pupils’ progress was not formally monitored to ensure consistent challenge. Overall, approaches to self-evaluation were unsatisfactory.
The school provided a caring and happy environment for pupils. It made good provision for learning in a few areas of the curriculum. The residence offered valuable opportunities for some pupils. There were, however, a number of important weaknesses in the quality of education. In most classes the pace of lessons needed to be improved. The lack of programmes of work did not allow pupils to reach their full potential or prepare them well enough for life beyond school. The increased range of special educational needs of pupils being enrolled had several implications for the school. These included an increase in the demands on the skills of staff, necessary improvements in the accommodation, and the need for a clear admissions policy to be agreed by the education authority and the school.
The school and the education authority should act on the following recommendations.
HM Inspectors will return between one and two years after the publication of this report to assess progress in meeting these recommendations. The school and the education authority have been asked to prepare an action plan indicating how they will address the main points for action in the report and to share that plan with parents and carers.
Lorna Walker
HM Inspector
on behalf of HM Chief Inspector
Northern Division
11 February 2003
See Performance Indicator data below.
Indicators of quality
We judged the following to be very good
We judged the following to be good
We judged the following to be fair
We judged the following to be unsatisfactory
HMI also evaluated the quality of the lessons observed. The overall quality of lessons was very good in 10% of cases, good in 53%, fair in 27% and unsatisfactory in 10%.
Councils funding the placement of day and residential pupils in the school at the time of the inspection.
Angus Council
Copies of this report have been sent to the headteacher and school staff, the Director of Education & 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, Wellgate House (Level 5), Wellgate Centre, Dundee, DD1 2DB or by telephoning 01382 224155. Copies are also available on our web site: www.hmie.gov.uk
Should you wish to comment on or make a complaint about any aspect of the inspection or about this report, you should write in the first instance to Bill Maxwell, HMCI at the above address. A copy of our complaints procedure is available from that office and on our website.
If you are still dissatisfied, you can contact the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman directly or through your member of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman is fully independent and has powers to investigate complaints about Government Departments and Agencies. She will not normally consider your complaint before the HMIE complaints procedure has been used. Instead, she will usually ask you to give us the chance to put matters right if we can.
Complaints to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman must be submitted within 12 months of the date of publication of this report.
The Ombudsman can be contacted at:
Professor Alice Brown
The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman
23 Walker Street
Edinburgh
EH3 7HX
Telephone number: 0870 011 5378
e-mail: enquiries@scottishombudsman.org.uk
More information about the Ombudsman’s office can be obtained from the website: www.ombudsmanscotland.org.uk
Crown Copyright 2003
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.