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 Andrew's Primary School and Nursery Class were inspected in October 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 representatives of the 'Family and Friends' committee and the former chair of the School Board. There was no Parent Council.
The headteacher and a class teacher were seconded to the education authority at the time of the inspection and an acting headteacher was in post.
The inspection team also evaluated aspects of the school's progress in implementing national recommendations related to improving aspects of school meals provision.
St Andrew's Primary School and Nursery Class serve the Whinhall and Burnfoot areas of Airdrie. At the time of the inspection the roll was 260, including 60 children in the nursery class. The proportion of pupils who were entitled to free school meals was well 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 of children in the nursery were happy with the provision. A few stated they would like more information about their children’s progress. Overall, parents expressed a high level of satisfaction with almost all aspects of the school. Parents felt that the acting headteacher led the school well and that staff showed concern for the care and welfare of their children. They thought the school was held in high esteem in the community and that their children enjoyed going there. Parents thought the school provided helpful reports on their children’s progress. Pupils were satisfied with most aspects of the school. They said that they supported one another well and enjoyed learning. They thought they were treated fairly and teachers knew them well. A significant number felt behaviour could be improved. Staff also expressed a high degree of satisfaction. They felt that they communicated effectively as staff and maintained very good relationships. They enjoyed working at the school and celebrated pupils’ achievements. Support staff were very satisfied with their contribution to the work of the school.
Pupils’ learning experiences and achievements
In the nursery class, children chose from an interesting range of activities. There was a good balance between activities that children could select independently and those led by adults. However, play sessions did not always ensure a sufficiently broad range of experiences for example, in expressive and aesthetic and physical development. Children in the nursery would benefit from more opportunities for energetic activity. The quality of the school’s curriculum was adequate. Staff had made a good start to developing early literacy approaches at P1. The school had successfully developed aspects of pupils’ personal and social development through its approaches to citizenship and enterprise. Spanish was taught across all stages, including the nursery. Teachers had implemented successful initiatives to promote healthy lifestyles. The school had made good progress towards increasing the time allocated for physical education (PE) in line with national guidance. Some programmes had not been developed systematically. Some areas of the curriculum had been planned and developed well to ensure pupils’ progression in learning. In particular, the programme for listening and talking was not clearly defined. In the nursery class, staff used praise well to develop children’s confidence. They made effective use of questions and talked helpfully with children to support or extend their learning. The overall quality of teaching in the school was good, with some aspects of very good practice. In most lessons, teachers gave clear instructions and explained well what they wanted the pupils to learn. They used an appropriate range of approaches for teaching groups and individuals. Many used questioning effectively and checked pupils’ understanding. Although interactions were generally of a high quality, teachers did not always use praise consistently to motivate pupils. In the best lessons, teachers set high expectations of behaviour and pupils’ work. They provided pupils with effective feedback on how to improve. Homework activities were well organised, varied and issued regularly.
Most children in the nursery were secure in nursery routines, making friends and learning to share. Overall, children in the nursery class were making very good progress in developing communication and language skills. They were developing ICT skills and were enthusiastic about role play and painting. However, they were insufficiently skilled in expressing their own ideas using a range of art and craft materials. Children experimented with musical instruments to make sounds. The quality of learning in the school was good. Overall, pupils were hardworking and motivated by their interesting tasks. Most lessons were successful at holding pupils’ attention. However, a few lessons were not sufficiently challenging and the pace of learning was sometimes too slow. There were some very good examples of pupils at P1 and P3 taking responsibility for their learning and working effectively in small groups. This very good practice was not consistent across all classes. Pupils’ learning was supported very effectively through the use of ICT.
At all stages, pupils were developing a very good awareness of their responsibilities to themselves and to one another. They were given opportunities to make decisions within the Eco, enterprise and health councils. The school had achieved its first green Eco School (Scotland) flag for its efforts in recycling, and for developing the school grounds. Pupils were developing skills in enterprise across the school and had successfully organised the production of ‘Annie’, the musical. Many attended the healthy breakfast club and took part in the morning snack service. Pupils took part in a wide range of after-school clubs including football, netball and badminton. At P7, pupils developed good relationships with one another through the buddy system. They gained self-confidence through a residential excursion to Kilbowie outdoor education centre. Pupils learned about the Spanish language and culture through a recently established link with a school in Mallorca. Class captains were involved in organising lunchtime games for pupils. The school had achieved a silver award as a health promoting school and pupils had become more aware of the need for healthy eating.
English language
Children in the nursery were making good progress in developing their skills in communication and language. Most children enjoyed listening to stories and rhymes and talked confidently in groups, during play or with an adult. Children were beginning to recognise their own name in print. Some children were experimenting with making marks and symbols at a writing table. Overall, the school’s attainment in English language was good. Attainment in reading had improved in recent years. Overall, most pupils were achieving appropriate national levels in reading and writing. By P7, the majority had achieved appropriate levels in writing. Pupils who received additional support were making appropriate progress. At all stages, pupils were confident when talking in small groups. However, they were less confident when talking to an audience and making presentations. At P1 to P3, most pupils were making a good start to learning to read and write. Pupils in P4 wrote evaluative reviews of books they had read. At P6, pupils were developing skills of reading for information through internet research. In the upper stages, pupils wrote for a variety of purposes across all curricular areas. However, they were not always clear how to improve their writing skills. They made effective use of ICT to enhance their writing. Across the school, the standards of pupils’ spelling and presentation of written work were variable.
Mathematics
Children in the nursery class were making very good progress in developing their early mathematics. They sorted, counted and measured competently. Children enjoyed solving problems and discussed numbers in play situations. The overall quality of pupils’ attainment in mathematics was good. Attainment levels had remained steady over a number of years, but had recently dipped. Most pupils were achieving appropriate national levels of attainment and an increasing number were exceeding these levels. However, pupils’ early attainment of national levels at P1-P3 was not sustained. Almost all pupils with additional support needs were making appropriate progress towards achieving their learning targets. Pupils at all stages were confident in gathering and interpreting information. They made effective use of ICT to develop mathematical skills. Pupils in the early stages demonstrated good progress in developing numeracy skills. Pupils’ abilities in mental mathematics were developing well across the stages. Overall, pupils carried out written calculations accurately. By P6, they were confident in using money but were less secure in their knowledge and understanding of time and fractions. From P4 to P7, pupils demonstrated a secure knowledge of the properties of three dimensional shapes. Pupils were developing appropriate skills in problem solving.
In the nursery class, children’s needs were well met. Staff had a sound, practical knowledge of how children learned and developed, and were responsive to individual children’s needs. They made appropriate observations of children at play, but did not use this information effectively to identify and track children’s progress. Planning for learning did not meet the needs of all children. At P1, the active literacy support assistant provided well-focused support to pupils. School staff knew pupils well and were sensitive to their needs. Overall, they provided group activities to meet the wide range of pupils’ needs. However, some whole-class lessons, lacked pace and challenge. Teachers did not always select tasks which met the needs of the highest attaining pupils or of a few pupils who were experiencing difficulties with their learning. Promoted staff were unclear about overall responsibilities related to pupils with additional support needs. The acting depute headteachers provided additional support to groups across the school. Support staff worked effectively with teachers in assisting identified pupils. However, planning and sharing of learning outcomes was not well established. The network support teacher assessed pupils, provided staff with helpful guidance and provided direct support for groups and individuals. Arrangements for discussion about pupils’ progress were not effective in ensuring learning targets were well focused and appropriate. Individualised educational programmes helped pupils achieve success in meeting short-term learning targets, but these targets needed to be reviewed more regularly. Pupils with social, emotional and behavioural needs received support from staff to develop their personal and social skills but approaches were not sufficiently clear to ensure consistency. The school liaised regularly with a range of support services to assist pupils in their learning.
Aspect |
Comment |
Pastoral care |
The overall quality of pastoral care in the school and nursery was good. All nursery children were provided with a healthy snack and participated in a daily tooth-brushing programme. Effective transition arrangements were in place to support children as they progressed from nursery to P1. Staff implemented appropriate child protection procedures. However, record keeping for the most vulnerable pupils was incomplete. Pupils’ absences were monitored systematically. Appropriate attention was given to administration of medication, and the responsible use of the Internet. Staff effectively supported families of the most vulnerable pupils. They worked hard to ensure pupils were well cared for. Pupils supported one another effectively and cooperated well in groups. Instances of bullying were dealt with appropriately. Pupils were well supported when transferring from P7 to secondary school. |
Quality of accommodation and facilities |
Accommodation and facilities were good. The school building was enhanced by a bright and spacious open-plan extension for classes at P6/P7. The nursery playroom and school classrooms provided stimulating environments for learning. Classes had good access to interactive whiteboards and ICT equipment. The dining hall was well used but in need of redecoration. The gym hall was spacious but lacked sufficient storage for equipment. A programme of window replacement had improved light and ventilation for classes located in the original school building. However, the absence of blinds meant some classes suffered from glare from the sunlight. Security arrangements were appropriate and staff were diligent about the reception of visitors to the school. The school was accessible and facilities were available for those with mobility needs. The flat roof leaked regularly in places and suffered at times from vandalism. |
Climate and relationships, expectations and promoting achievement and equality |
Pupils and staff identified strongly with the school and were very positive about their relationships. Staff morale was high and pupils’ wider achievements were celebrated. The school needed to continue to take steps to improve pupils’ attendance. Relationships between managers and staff were positive. The acting headteacher set high expectations of behaviour. However, these expectations were not yet consistently upheld across all classes. The school community regularly celebrated pupils’ achievements. Pupils were supportive of one another. The school’s approaches to ensuring equality and fairness were variable. For example, although the school promoted anti-racism and anti-sectarianism effectively, pupils receiving free school meals were identifiable by other pupils. Weekly assemblies provided good opportunities for the celebration of achievements and for religious observance. |
Partnership with parents and the community |
Nursery staff provided helpful information about the work of the nursery and parents were involved with story telling and a range of play room activities. The school’s partnership with parents and the local community was very good. The school communicated effectively with parents. Teachers produced helpful written progress reports for parents each year. They provided curriculum workshops to explain ways in which parents could support their children’s learning, and to address sensitive issues within the health education programme. The parish priest provided valued support and made regular visits to the school. The ‘Family and Friends’ committee regularly raised funds and actively supported social activities and events. Parents were in the process of forming a Parent Council. Pupils, staff and parents had worked effectively together to paint the school perimeter fencing. The school was actively pursuing useful links with local businesses in support of enterprise projects. |
Appendix 1 provides HM Inspectors’ overall evaluation of the work of the school.
St Andrew’s Primary School provided a caring environment. The quality of learning and teaching was good, attainment was good and the school’s ethos was positive. Parents were supportive of the school and pupils were keen to learn. However, the school’s staffing arrangements had been unsettled in recent times. The secondment of the headteacher had been extended beyond its initial intended period. This adversely affected the school’s capacity for improvement, which in other respects was positive.
The quality of leadership was adequate. The acting headteacher had achieved a positive impact on the school’s ethos and was highly respected by parents, pupils and staff. She had gained valuable experience and skill in her former role as depute headteacher in the school. She was approachable and encouraged parents to be partners in their children’s learning. Since taking responsibility as acting headteacher, she had been effective in the induction of new teaching staff. The acting headteacher was supported by two job-sharing acting deputes and an acting principal teacher. They were committed to the school but had not yet developed a strategic approach to leading the school. The acting depute headteachers provided very good support to newly qualified teachers. They had significant teaching input to classes and support for pupils. However, they had too little time for leadership and management responsibilities. Overall, the management team remits were insufficiently well defined. The principal teacher took responsibility for the implementation of the education authority’s system for tracking pupils’ progress. It was too soon to evaluate its impact. The acting headteacher had established systems to support the running of the school. Senior staff had not yet evaluated the effectiveness of staff deployment, for example to address the imbalance of teaching and management time. The school’s approaches to self-evaluation showed important weaknesses. Senior staff had made a start to evaluating the quality of teachers’ plans and pupils’ work. However, feedback to staff was insufficiently well focused on how to make improvements. Monitoring of pupils’ learning was carried out informally. The school’s standards and quality report was not sufficiently evaluative and did not provide an accurate account of the school’s progress. In order to ensure effective improvement in the quality of education in the school, the education authority needed to continue to work in close partnership with staff to improve leadership, curriculum guidance and arrangements for quality assurance.
Nursery staff were aware of the implications of the Scottish Services Council’s Codes of Practice and requirements for registration.
At the last Care Commission inspection there were three requirements and one recommendation.
The requirements and recommendation had been met.
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 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.
Susan Gow
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 |
good |
Pupils’ attainment in English language |
good |
Pupils’ attainment in mathematics |
good |
How well are pupils’ learning needs met? |
|
Meeting pupils’ needs |
adequate |
How good is the environment for learning? |
|
Pastoral care |
good |
Accommodation and facilities |
good |
Climate and relationships |
very good |
Expectations and promoting achievement |
good |
Equality and fairness |
good |
Partnership with parents and the community |
very 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 Learning and Leisure 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.