St Thomas’s RC Primary School
Addiewell
West Lothian Council

4 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

St Thomas’s RC 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 a group of parents¹. There was no School Board.

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

St Thomas’s is a denominational school serving the village of Addiewell and the surrounding rural area. It shared a building and playground with Addiewell Primary School. At the time of the inspection the roll was 40. The proportion of pupils who were entitled to free school meals was above the national average. Pupils’ attendance was above the national average.

2. Key strengths

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

HM Inspectors analysed responses to questionnaires issued to all parents, P4 to P7 pupils and to all staff. Information about responses to the parental and pupil questionnaires appears in Appendix 2. However, as there were fewer than five respondees in each of the teacher and support staff groups, in order to retain confidentiality, the analysis is not provided. The following is an analysis of the views expressed through questionnaire returns and HM Inspector interviews with staff, parents and pupils.

Parents, staff and pupils were positive about the school. All parents felt that staff set high standards and treated children fairly, but some expressed concerns about bullying. Several commented favourably about how the school had helped children with additional support needs. Pupils were very positive about the school. They liked the staff and thought they were well taught. Most felt that standards of behaviour were good. They did not currently have concerns about bullying and felt that teachers had handled past incidents well. All staff enjoyed working in the school and thought that pupils had positive attitudes. They felt that they had good relationships with pupils. They thought that joint working between themselves and the staff of Addiewell Primary School, which shared the school building, was developing well. All staff and almost all parents thought the school was well led.

4. How good are learning, teaching and achievement?

Pupils’ learning experiences and achievements

The school’s curriculum was broad and well balanced. Teachers allocated additional time to aspects of the language programme and collaborated with staff from Addiewell Primary School to give lessons to groups of pupils from both schools with similar attainment levels. This approach was leading to effective learning and helping improve levels of attainment. Programmes of work were carefully designed to take account of the composite classes by having three and four year cycles of topics in environmental studies, science, religious and moral education, and health education. Pupils benefited from almost two hours per week of quality active exercise through physical education lessons and daily health and fitness sessions. Visiting teachers of French and art and design from St Kentigern’s Academy enhanced pupils’ learning at P7. Overall, however, the programmes for these curricular areas required to be improved. A number of planned activities such as the recent Lenten lunch appeal had enabled pupils from P4 to P7 to develop citizenship and enterprise skills. There was scope for these skills to be developed elsewhere in the curriculum on a more regular basis. The quality of teaching was good with some lessons being of high quality. Teachers used questioning well to involve pupils and built up their confidence through appropriate use of praise. Lessons were frequently enhanced and made more relevant through the use of ICT, including effective use of interactive whiteboards using appropriate material from the Internet. Teachers sometimes shared lesson objectives with pupils and summarised main points, but these approaches were not consistently used. At all stages, teachers made very thorough arrangements for homework.

Classes were calm and purposeful with well motivated pupils on-task almost all of the time. Pupils showed interest in their work and participated actively in lessons. They responded well to questions, enjoyed class discussion and debates and performed set tasks well. Pupils worked in pairs to discuss teacher questions and collaborated in joint tasks in music, physical education and other curricular areas. Their involvement in personal learning planning helped them work towards agreed targets and take responsibility for their own learning. So too did their work in enterprise activities and research on the Internet. However, learning tasks across the curriculum needed to be planned to develop further their skills in learning independently. At the early stages, there was not enough use of planned play activities.

The school put high priority on helping pupils develop their wider achievements. There were regular school excursions, including a residential week for P6 pupils and a joint visit to France for P7 pupils along with pupils from other cluster schools. These were much appreciated by pupils, gave them new challenges and helped broaden their experience. Pupils regularly took part in several sporting activities including football and badminton, with valued input from the authority’s active schools’ coordinators. Senior pupils’ understanding of citizenship was encouraged through giving them appropriate responsibilities. These included helping incoming P1 pupils, weekly paired reading with younger children and helping organise playground games. Pupils at all stages had taken part in fund raising for charity. Members of the pupil council had been active in promoting school improvement, for example in supporting the introduction of a new system of peer mediation, with suitable training for P5 and P6 pupils. Staff adopted a good range of measures to build up pupils’ confidence in themselves. Pupils regularly gave presentations at school assemblies and the school had systems to reward pupils and recognise success.

English language

The overall quality of attainment in English Language was good. Attainment in reading showed an improving trend. Levels of attainment in writing had fluctuated but there were encouraging signs of improvement in the current session. Overall, almost all pupils were attaining appropriate national levels in reading and most in listening, talking and writing. In reading, around a third of pupils attained these levels earlier than might normally be expected. Pupils with additional support needs were making steady progress towards agreed targets. At the early stages, pupils were making good progress in developing their literacy skills. Across the school, pupils developed their listening and talking skills well through group and class discussions. At the upper stages, pupils were confident in taking different roles within discussion groups. However, their skills in reporting back conclusions needed to be developed further. Pupils read with understanding and were able to talk well about books they had enjoyed. Pupils were benefiting from an increased emphasis on the development of writing skills but at the upper stages, their choice and use of language and sentence structure needed to be improved. Standards of handwriting and presentation were variable.

Mathematics

Overall, the quality of attainment in mathematics was good. Levels of attainment had improved steadily and most pupils now attained appropriate national levels. Around a quarter of pupils from P2 to P7 attained these levels earlier than might normally be expected. Those pupils not attaining expected levels were making good progress towards agreed targets. Across the school, pupils showed confidence in interpreting information and had been able to construct their own graphs. At the early stages, pupils were making very good progress in their understanding of counting and basic number facts. From P4 to P7, pupils’ skills in written and mental calculation continued to develop well, and pupils could give clear explanations of their reasoning in performing calculations. However, at P6 and P7, some pupils’ understanding of fractions and percentages required further consolidation. Pupils had a good knowledge of the properties of two- and three-dimensional shapes. At all stages, pupils had experience of tackling a range of types of mathematical problems. However, their knowledge of problem solving strategies was not secure.

5. How well are pupils’ learning needs met?

The school met the learning needs of pupils very well. Teachers planned lessons to employ appropriate whole class, group and individual learning approaches. They often took advantage of favourable staff-pupil ratios to enable teachers and classroom assistants to work with groups of pupils of similar attainment. For aspects of language work, teachers from St Thomas’s and Addiewell primary schools had collaborated to form attainment groups across both schools. As a result of these approaches, pupils were making good progress from levels of prior attainment and worked at a good pace. For some tasks in other curricular areas, teachers formed appropriate multi-stage groups and this allowed pupils to build up confidence by helping each other. Staff had a very good understanding of individual pupils’ strengths and development needs and used this knowledge well to help them overcome learning difficulties. A small number of pupils with specific additional support needs received appropriate and well-targeted support. All the pupils concerned benefited from the commitment of teachers and classroom assistants to giving them the support necessary to participate fully in the work of their class. Their progress was carefully monitored and parents were fully involved in agreeing the next steps in their learning. They received regular and effective input from staff from a range of agencies to support them with specific learning difficulties.

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 Thomas’s Primary School provided a good quality of education. Teachers and support staff worked together very well to provide a settled learning environment and pupils responded well, working purposefully and showing interest in their learning. Teachers were extending interactive teaching styles and made effective use of ICT to enhance pupils’ learning. Staff ensured the learning environment was inclusive and supportive. Standards of attainment were good but there was headroom for further improvement and challenge for pupils. Recent curriculum development in mathematics, and in English in collaboration with Addiewell Primary School, had improved the quality of pupils’ learning and confirmed the school’s capacity for continued improvement.

The headteacher provided good leadership. Following an unsettled period for the school, she had successfully re-established a stable learning environment for pupils. She had given good advice on teaching approaches and had promoted effective teamwork amongst the recently appointed teaching staff. She had also begun to collaborate well with the headteacher of Addiewell Primary in joint curriculum development. She worked regularly alongside teachers in classes and had built up a sound knowledge of their work. She had also put in place an appropriate range of other approaches to self-evaluation, including examining pupils’ written work, and monitoring class programmes of work. An annual standards and quality report gave a clear evaluation of the school’s overall performance. More rigorous approaches to the use of quality indicators and evaluation of progress in improvement plan objectives would help further strengthen the school’s approach to self-evaluation.

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.

Grant Mathison

HM Inspector

4 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. Where any one group had five or less respondees then, in order to maintain confidentiality, the analysis is not provided.

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 and Cultural 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, Denholm House, Almondvale Business Park, Almondvale Way, Livingston EH54 6GA or by telephoning 01506 600384. 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 the above address.

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.

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