19 February 2008
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 Martha’s Primary School was inspected in September 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 representatives of the parent-teacher association (PTA) and a group of parents1.
The inspection also evaluated aspects of the school’s progress in implementing national recommendations related to improving aspects of school meals provision.
St Martha’s Primary School is a denominational school serving the area of Balornock in the north of Glasgow. At the time of the inspection the roll was 320. The proportion of pupils who were entitled to free school meals was well above the national average. Pupils’ attendance was below the national average, but had improved recently. A base for bilingual pupils was located within the school. English was an additional language (EAL) for around a quarter of pupils. The school was part of the All Saints New Learning Community.
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.
Overall, parents, staff and pupils were happy with the school. All parents felt that school reports gave them helpful information about their children’s progress and that staff made them feel welcome in the school. They thought that the school had a good reputation in the community and that the school dealt well with any concerns they had. Pupils reported that they enjoyed school and that teachers listened to what they said. They also felt that teachers expected them to work hard, and checked their homework. All staff were very positive about almost all aspects of the school. All indicated that they enjoyed working in the school and that pupils were enthusiastic about their learning. Around a quarter of support staff felt that communication amongst staff could be better.
Pupils’ learning experiences and achievements
Overall the structure of the curriculum was adequate. Not all pupils experienced an appropriately balanced curriculum. Several areas of the curriculum, including listening, talking, enterprise and health education, did not provide sufficient continuity and progression in pupils’ learning. The school had recently improved the programme for writing in English language and the range of resources for reading. Teachers had allocated substantial additional time to the teaching of English language and mathematics. They were not yet effectively monitoring the impact of this initiative, although pupils’ attainment in reading, writing and mathematics had improved in the last year. Pupils did not yet undertake two hours of physical education (PE) each week, in line with national recommendations. Their skills in information and communications technology (ICT) were not being developed systematically. The quality of teaching was good. Almost all teachers shared learning intentions with pupils and most involved pupils appropriately in reviewing lessons. They gave helpful explanations, clear instructions and used questioning well. However, they did not always extend their questioning to provide pupils with opportunities to develop their thinking and responses. Teachers did not always make lessons a sufficiently active experience for pupils. All staff had established very good working relationships with pupils. They made effective use of praise to motivate and encourage pupils to contribute to class discussions and answer questions. Appropriate homework linked to classwork was given regularly.
Pupils’ learning experiences had some strengths. Almost all pupils, including those pupils in the bilingual base, were motivated and worked hard on the tasks set for them. At the early stages, active learning through play was not fully developed. At P2, pupils supported each other well when solving problems in mathematics, but across the school, in other areas of the curriculum, pupils had too few similar opportunities to work collaboratively. Overall, pupils were not given enough responsibility to organise their own learning. They did not know what they had to do to improve their work. The pace in the majority of lessons was appropriate, but in some cases this was not sufficiently brisk to challenge all pupils.
The school took successful steps to help all pupils develop wider achievements. At all stages, pupils displayed a high level of confidence and self-esteem. Older pupils looked after younger ones and acted as buddies and leaders in the playground and dining hall. An attractive display of photographs, certificates and articles from local newspapers at the school entrance recorded pupils’ successes. Pupils participated in a wide range of musical and sporting activities during, and outwith, the school day. They had gained a sense of success from performing musical concerts to other classes and to parents and friends. Pupils had improved their presentation and communication skills by working with a media company to produce a DVD that celebrated the cultural diversity of the community. The school had won a diamond award for enterprise education. Pupils demonstrated good citizenship skills in their roles as members of the pupil council and eco committee. Through health promoting school activities, pupils were encouraged to make healthy choices at meal and snack times.
English language
The overall quality of pupils’ attainment in English language was adequate. Pupils’ attainment in reading and writing had improved in recent years. Across the school, most pupils were achieving appropriate national levels of attainment in reading, and the majority were doing so in writing. Pupils with EAL were making good individual progress in reading, writing and listening. Their progress in talking required further development and closer monitoring. Most pupils listened attentively and a majority could speak confidently about a range of personal interests. Their group discussion skills required further development. Pupils were not yet given sufficient scope to develop their personal reading and the use of non-fiction texts, for example, for research. At the middle and upper stages, pupils could write, and talk with confidence about, stories and non-fiction texts. The majority of pupils understood main features of how stories are put together. However, they were less clear about how writers developed character, plot and atmosphere in stories and poems. Overall, there were insufficient opportunities for pupils to develop their extended writing skills.
Mathematics
The overall quality of pupils’ attainment in mathematics was good. Over the last three years, pupils’ attainment in mathematics had shown some improvement. However, at all stages, their progress across national attainment levels was variable. Most pupils were achieving appropriate national levels of attainment. Most at P2 and at P5 were achieving these levels earlier than might normally be expected. Overall, pupils were progressing well in their coursework. Pupils in the bilingual base were making steady progress in their understanding of mathematical language. In a few classes, pupils used ICT and mathematical games well to consolidate their learning. Across the stages, most pupils were confident in handling and displaying data. Pupils at the early stages were developing successfully their skills and knowledge of early number processes. From P2 to P7, pupils were able to perform mental and written calculations effectively using a variety of methods. Those at P5 were able to use money well in practical situations and answer related questions effectively. In most classes, most pupils worked successfully on their own and in small groups. Across the stages, they showed a good understanding and knowledge of shape, were able to solve problems well and explain the strategies they had used.
Overall, there were important weaknesses in the school’s approaches to meeting pupils’ learning needs. Teachers planned suitable learning tasks and activities in a few curricular areas to meet the needs of groups and individuals. However, across the curriculum, teachers did not consistently provide an appropriate level of challenge for all pupils. The network support teacher gave well-targeted assistance to a few pupils with specific additional support needs. Staff needed to ensure that progress records of pupils requiring additional support were maintained more effectively. Overall, planning for pupils’ next steps in learning did not take sufficient account of prior learning. Helpful information relating to pupils’ progress from nursery to P1 was not being used effectively at the early stages. As yet, no detailed plans had been drawn up to identify the support for learning requirements for pupils who were looked after and accommodated. Pupils acquiring EAL received an effective level of support within the bilingual unit and were making good progress in their acquisition of English. However, outwith the bilingual base and across the stages, only a majority were being supported effectively.
Aspect |
Comment |
Pastoral care |
The quality of pastoral care in the school was very good. All staff knew the school’s procedures for dealing with child protection, racism and the safe administration of medicine. Pupils were confident that staff would take appropriate action if they had concerns. Staff knew pupils very well and were responsive to their social and emotional needs. The school promoted healthy living effectively through a number of initiatives such as the breakfast club and free fruit. School lunches provided pupils with nutritional choices, were well presented and of good quality. Arrangements for supporting pupils’ transfer from P7 to All Saints Secondary School were well planned and effective. However, arrangements for pupils transferring from nursery to P1 required further development. |
Quality of accommodation and facilities |
Overall, the quality of accommodation was adequate. A few classrooms had recently been redecorated. However, other areas required further attention, including corridors and pupil and staff toilets. The assembly hall was used effectively for learning and teaching activities, including PE and school assemblies. Attractive displays of pupils’ work enhanced the learning environment around the school. The school was very well maintained by cleaning and janitorial staff. The large playground areas provided pupils with sufficient space to play energetically. Appropriate security arrangements were in place, but access for users with restricted mobility was limited to parts of the ground floor. |
Climate and relationships, expectations and promoting achievement and equality |
Relationships across the school were very good. Pupils, staff and parents identified strongly with the school. Staff and pupil morale was high. Pupils were polite and courteous. Staff worked effectively as a team. They used praise well to encourage and reward pupils in their classwork. Staff had high expectations for behaviour, but expectations of what children were capable of achieving needed to be higher. Pupils’ attendance had improved in recent years. Pupils’ achievements were recognised and celebrated at school assemblies. Most pupils felt that they were treated fairly. Commendably, the school had set up a mentoring system to support younger pupils. This initiative involved using all the languages spoken by older pupils to provide classroom support for children at the early stages. Staff provided pupils with regular opportunities to worship together. Whilst the school was celebrating diversity, it now needed to promote this aspect more systematically across the curriculum. As yet, not all staff had received appropriate training in race equality. |
Partnership with parents and the community |
The school had established good partnerships with parents and the wider community. The PTA and parents supported the school well and some members were involved directly in the work of the school. The headteacher consulted parents effectively on sensitive health education materials. The school communicated well with parents through informative newsletters and well-attended parents’ evenings. Helpful annual reports kept parents informed about their child’s progress. The headteacher and staff were developing approaches to encourage parents to support further their child’s learning and to help improve their child’s performance. There were good links with external agencies, community organisations and the local parish. |
Appendix 1 provides HM Inspectors’ overall evaluation of the work of the school.
St Martha’s Primary school provided a caring and supportive learning and teaching environment for its pupils. Pupils were enthusiastic, keen to learn and worked well on the tasks they were given. Staff and pupil relationships were very positive. Pupils’ attainment in mathematics was good and in English language was adequate overall. There was a need for greater pace and challenge across the curriculum.
Leadership of the school had some strengths. Since his appointment two years ago, the headteacher had improved aspects of the school’s work. These included reviewing the timing of pupil assessments, improving pupils’ attainment and ensuring staff reviewed their current learning and teaching practices. He was approachable, committed to school improvement and had gained the confidence and respect of pupils and parents. He had involved staff appropriately in curricular developments and delegated some responsibilities to the depute headteacher and principal teachers. However, he had not yet ensured sufficient impact on the quality of learning and teaching. Leadership across the school was adequate. The depute headteacher supported the headteacher in ensuring that the school was well organised. The principal teachers carried out their remits well and provided appropriate advice and guidance to staff. Overall, senior managers were not sufficiently focused on leading improvements in learning and teaching. The management team had visited classrooms informally to observe learning and teaching. The headteacher had started to track pupils’ attainment and had recently established a monitoring calendar. However, staff did not always use assessment information effectively to plan pupils’ next steps in learning. Teachers and pupils were not sufficiently involved in self-evaluation to improve learning. The headteacher and management team now needed to ensure that approaches to monitoring the work of the school and evaluating the quality of learning and teaching were more systematic and rigorous. Overall, the school’s arrangements for self-evaluation were weak. The school required continuing support and assistance from the education authority to develop its capacity for improvement.
Main points for action The school and education authority should take action to improve learning and meeting needs. In doing so they should take account of the need to:
|
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.
Hakim Din
HM Inspector
19 February 2008
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 |
adequate |
The teaching process |
good |
Pupils’ learning experiences |
adequate |
Pupils’ attainment in English language |
adequate |
Pupils’ attainment in mathematics |
good |
How well are pupils’ learning needs met? |
|
Meeting pupils’ needs |
weak |
How good is the environment for learning? |
|
Pastoral care |
very good |
Accommodation and facilities |
adequate |
Climate and relationships |
very good |
Expectations and promoting achievement |
good |
Equality and fairness |
good |
Partnership with parents and the community |
good |
Leading and improving the school |
|
Leadership of the headteacher |
adequate |
Leadership across the school |
adequate |
Self-evaluation |
weak |
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 with 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 and Communications Team, 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 2008
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.