23 October 2007
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?
St Albert’s Primary School was inspected in June 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 and staff. Members of the inspection team also met the chairperson of the School Board, and a group of parents1.
St Albert’s Primary School is a denominational school serving an area in the south of Glasgow. The school is part of the Holyrood New Learning Community. At the time of the inspection the roll was 268. Around four-fifths of pupils did not have English as their first language. The proportion of pupils who were entitled to free school meals was above the national average. Pupils’ attendance was below the national average.
HM Inspectors identified the following key strengths.
|
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 happy with most aspects of the school’s work. They felt that their children enjoyed being at school and staff gave them helpful information about their children’s progress. A significant minority would have liked more information about the work of the school and its plans for improvement. Most pupils enjoyed school and thought that their teachers expected them to work hard. However, around half felt that they did not have enough say in making decisions about how to make the school better. Around a quarter of pupils felt that they did not get enough homework. Staff felt that pupils were enthusiastic about learning. They felt that communication in the school was poor and that they did not have enough discussions about how to improve the school. None of the teaching staff felt that the school was well led. They felt that the senior management team did not work well as a team.
Pupils’ learning experiences and achievements
The overall quality of the curriculum was weak. Commendably teachers had allocated additional time to the development of pupils’ literacy skills, in particular, at the early stages. As yet, this had had limited impact on pupils’ attainment. Overall, the curriculum did not provide pupils with a suitably balanced experience. Pupils’ skills in information and communications technology (ICT) and enterprise were not being systematically developed. In several classes, pupils’ experiences in expressive arts were too limited. The school had not yet made plans to provide pupils with two hours of quality physical education (PE) each week, in line with national advice. Within classes, pupils were making good progress developing their personal and social skills. However, overall, pupils were not able to build effectively on their prior learning experiences across several curricular areas. Teaching had some important strengths. Most teachers provided clear explanations. They made effective use of questioning to check pupils’ understanding, but did not always use questions to challenge and develop pupils’ thinking. Teachers involved pupils actively in the majority of lessons. Across the school there were not yet sufficiently consistent approaches to teaching and learning. Homework was used well in most classes to support pupils’ learning.
The quality of pupils’ learning was adequate. Almost all pupils were well motivated and keen to learn. When given the opportunity they worked well together. However, there were insufficient opportunities provided for this across the school. At the early stages, pupils had some opportunities to be active in their learning. However, teachers needed to provide more planned opportunities to develop pupils’ learning through play. At P5, pupils worked well together learning about how to keep themselves healthy. Overall, the pace of learning across the stages was too slow.
Staff had created some opportunities for pupils to develop their wider achievements. Senior pupils were able to develop their fitness through participating in the after-school athletics and netball clubs. There were a number of opportunities, particularly in the summer term, for pupils to participate in educational trips. For example, pupils in P4/5 were enthusiastic about their trip to the Glasgow Science Centre and those in P6 enjoyed learning about farm animals on their outing to the local Queen’s Park. Those pupils in P7 who attended the annual residential experience at an outdoor centre developed self-confidence and learned how to work together. Pupils at all stages were aware of the needs of others and regularly raised money for a number of charities. At P7, pupils had some opportunities earlier in the school session to be responsible for others when they acted as buddies for younger pupils. Pupils had few opportunities to be involved in making decisions to improve aspects of the life of the school. There was no pupil council. Overall, the school had yet to develop systematically pupils’ wider achievements.
English language
The overall quality of pupils’ attainment in English language was adequate. The school’s statistics for attainment were generally unreliable. For this reason, it was not possible to provide an indication of trends in pupils’ attainment over time. The majority of pupils achieved appropriate national levels of attainment in listening, talking, reading and writing. Pupils for whom English was an additional language were making adequate progress. A large number of pupils, at all stages, were capable of achieving higher standards. Pupils with additional support needs were making progress with support. There was insufficient attention given to assessing and developing pupils’ skills in listening and talking. At all stages, pupils listened well to their teachers and to each other. They responded appropriately to teachers’ questions and instructions. Pupils’ skills in group discussion were not sufficiently well developed. At the early stages, pupils had made a good start to developing reading and writing skills. Those at P7 could extract information from texts. Overall, across the stages, pupils did not read regularly for pleasure. Across the school, pupils wrote for a variety of purposes, but did not always write at length. Standards of presentation of written work were variable.
Mathematics
The overall quality of attainment in mathematics was adequate. The school’s statistics for attainment were generally unreliable. It was therefore not possible to provide an indication of trends in pupils’ attainment over time. The majority of pupils were achieving appropriate national levels. A very small number of pupils were achieving these levels early. Significant proportions were capable of achieving higher standards of attainment. With support, those pupils who had not achieved appropriate national levels were making progress. Across the stages, pupils were able to present information in simple graphs. By P7, most pupils could gather and present data in graphs and tables. They had not had experience of using ICT to organise and display data. At the early stages, pupils were developing an understanding of simple addition and subtraction. By P7, the majority of pupils were competent in written and mental calculations and had a sound grasp of units of measurement. However, a number of pupils would benefit from a greater level of challenge, in particular in their mental mathematics. Pupils at all stages were able to identify two- and three-dimensional shapes and discuss their properties. The majority of pupils were able to solve straightforward problems, often with support. They were not always able to take a systematic approach to solving mathematical problems.
Support for pupils’ learning needs was adequate. In most lessons, teachers took some account of pupils’ prior learning in planning tasks for them. Pupils performed well in tasks set by teachers. In some aspects of the curriculum, teachers relied too heavily on commercially produced materials to meet the differing needs of groups of pupils. Pupils were not always sure what they had to do next to improve their learning. Two full-time teachers and one visiting teacher provided considerable extra teaching to pupils with a range of additional support needs including English as an additional language. Although the quality of this teaching was good, the support provided was not based on a careful assessment of the needs of groups of pupils across the school. Teachers set clear learning targets for a few pupils with individualised educational programmes (IEPs) and regularly reviewed their progress. Pupils were making steady progress towards their targets. However, other pupils who needed IEPs did not have them. Parents and pupils were not sufficiently involved in setting and reviewing learning targets in IEPs.
Aspect |
Comment |
Pastoral care |
The quality of pastoral care was good. Staff knew pupils well and were responsive to their individual social and emotional needs. They liaised well with external agencies and gave good support to potentially vulnerable pupils. Immediately prior to the inspection, staff had received updated training in child protection procedures. All staff were now aware of their responsibilities in this area. The few incidences of misbehaviour were deal with appropriately. Throughout the school, pupils were encouraged to adopt healthy lifestyles. There were good arrangements in place to support the transition of pupils at P7 to a range of secondary schools. The arrangements for pupils moving into P1 were very good. |
Quality of accommodation and facilities |
The quality of accommodation was adequate overall. Most classrooms were spacious and teachers made effective use of additional teaching areas. Classrooms displays were attractive and the school was well maintained by cleaning staff. Pupils benefited from attractive outdoor play areas and a large pitch for games. The roof leaked in a number of areas and the school became uncomfortably warm during hot weather. Pupils’ toilets required to be upgraded. The school had a secure entry system, but aspects of its use required review. There was access to the lower floor of the school for people with disabilities. |
Climate and relationships, expectations and promoting achievement and equality |
Teachers and pupils enjoyed good relationships. The atmosphere in classrooms was positive. Pupils were well behaved and polite. Teachers supported each other and worked well together. However, morale among teaching staff was low. They lacked confidence in the leadership of the headteacher and felt unsupported. Teachers had high expectations of pupils’ behaviour and used a range of strategies in their classrooms to recognise and reward good behaviour. However, these were not consistently applied throughout the school. Staff’s expectations of pupils’ attainment were not sufficiently high. Similarly, there had been a lack of initiatives to improve pupils’ attendance. Daily prayers and regular assemblies were used for religious observance. Some use was made of assemblies to recognise pupils’ achievements. However, awards presented at weekly assemblies were, on the whole, not well valued by pupils. Pupils showed respect for each other and for each other’s faiths. They were treated with equality and fairness in classes. The school did not sufficiently promote cultural diversity through the curriculum. |
Partnership with parents and the community |
There were important weaknesses in the quality of the school’s partnerships with parents and the community. Parents were provided with a copy of the school handbook and received information about school events. The headteacher’s newsletters lacked detail and were often too brief. Teachers provided parents with useful information about their children’s progress through annual written reports and parents’ evenings. However, not all parents chose to attend parents’ evenings. Parents of new P1 pupils were involved in very helpful workshops to support their children’s move into primary school. There were few opportunities for parents to be involved in their children’s learning beyond this stage. Parents had limited information about the school’s priorities for improvement and had not received a copy of the school’s Standards and Quality report. The current School Board was supportive of the school. The school had good links with other schools in the New Learning Community and with agencies to support the needs of more vulnerable pupils. The parish priest visited the school and contributed to an assembly each month. |
Appendix 1 provides HM Inspectors’ overall evaluation of the work of the school.
St Albert’s Primary School provided a caring environment where staff engaged positively with pupils. Pupils were well behaved and hard working. However, there were significant areas for improvement. Staff morale was low. There was considerable headroom to improve pupils’ attainment in English language and mathematics. The curriculum lacked balance and pupils were not consistently provided with sufficient challenge in their learning or opportunities to develop their wider achievements.
The headteacher’s leadership was unsatisfactory. There was no leadership for learning in the school and no vision for improving the school. The school had not had an appropriate improvement plan for a number of years. The headteacher had lost the confidence of teaching staff. Pupils were not sufficiently involved in decision making within the school. Most parents expressed confidence in the school. However, they were not sufficiently encouraged to be part of the life of the school. The two depute headteachers worked hard to support teachers and pupils. They did not have sufficiently clear areas of responsibility. The education authority had provided support to the school over a number of years to bring about improvements in leadership. However, only a few of the identified action points had been acted upon. Teachers did not have sufficient opportunities to take leadership roles. They were not actively involved in bringing about improvements and had few opportunities to influence how the school budget was used to purchase resources for agreed priorities. The quality of leadership across the school was weak. Self-evaluation was unsatisfactory. The headteacher did not monitor the impact of the curriculum on pupils’ learning. She did not monitor pupils’ progress or teachers’ planning. Senior managers did not visit classes to monitor learning and teaching. Teachers had made some recent use of quality indicators developed nationally. However, this had not resulted in improvement. The school did not have the capacity to improve without significant intervention from the education authority.
Main points for action The school and education authority, in liaison with HM Inspectors, should take action to ensure improvement in:
|
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 engage with the school and the education authority to monitor progress. They will publish an interim report on progress within one year of the publication of this report. Thereafter, 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 another report to parents, within two years of the publication of this report, on the extent of improvement that has been achieved.
Morag Gunion
HM Inspector
23 October 2007
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.
How good are learning, teaching and achievement? |
|
Structure of the curriculum |
weak |
The teaching process |
adequate |
Pupils’ learning experiences |
adequate |
Pupils’ attainment in English language |
adequate |
Pupils’ attainment in mathematics |
adequate |
How well are pupils’ learning needs met? |
|
Meeting pupils’ needs |
adequate |
How good is the environment for learning? |
|
Pastoral care |
good |
Accommodation and facilities |
adequate |
Climate and relationships |
good |
Expectations and promoting achievement |
adequate |
Equality and fairness |
adequate |
Partnership with parents, the School Board, and the community |
weak |
Leading and improving the school |
|
Leadership of the headteacher |
unsatisfactory |
Leadership across the school |
weak |
Self-evaluation |
unsatisfactory |
This report uses the following word scale to make clear judgements made by inspectors:
excellent |
outstanding, sector leading |
very good |
major strengths |
good |
important strengths, some areas for improvement |
adequate |
strengths just outweigh weaknesses |
weak |
important weaknesses |
unsatisfactory |
major weaknesses |
Important features of responses from the various groups which received questionnaires are listed below.
What parents thought the school did well |
What parents think the school could do better |
|
|
What pupils thought the school did well |
What pupils think the school could do better |
|
|
What staff thought the school did well |
What staff think the school could do better |
|
|
If you would like an additional copy of this report
Copies of this report have been sent to the headteacher and school staff, the Executive Director of Education and Social Work 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, Europa Building, 450 Argyle Street, Glasgow, G2 8LG or by telephoning 0141 242 0100. 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.
1 Throughout this report, the term ‘parents’ should be taken to include foster carers, residential care staff and carers who are relatives or friends.