1 November 2006
1. Background
2. Key strengths
3. What are the views of parents, pupils, staff and placing authorities?
4. How well are pupils supported?
5. How good are learning, teaching and achievement?
6. How good is the environment for learning?
7. Improving the school
Appendix 1 Framework for Inspection and indicators of quality
Appendix 2 Summary of questionnaire responses
How can you contact us?
Seamab School was inspected in May 2006 as part of a national sample for pupils with additional support needs. The inspection was part of a programme of integrated inspections of residential schools by the Care Commission and HM Inspectorate of Education. It was one of the twice-yearly inspections which are undertaken by the Care Commission.
The inspection covered key aspects of the school’s work at all stages. It evaluated approaches to ensuring pupils’ care and protection, and the environment for care and learning. It also evaluated pupils’ achievements, the effectiveness of the school, the school’s processes for self-evaluation and its capacity for improvement. There was a particular focus on attainment in English language, mathematics and personal and social development.
Care Commission Officers and HM Inspectors gave attention to selected national care standards and quality indicators. HM Inspectors observed learning and teaching and examined pupils’ work. Along with Care Commission Officers, they analysed responses to questionnaires issued to all parents1, pupils and staff. They interviewed groups of staff and pupils. Members of the inspection team also met the Chairperson of the Board of Governors. They provided oral feedback to the school’s senior management and the Chairperson of the Board of Governors on the standards and quality of the work of the school.
Seamab School is situated in Rumbling Bridge, Perth and Kinross. The school, which is independently managed, provides care and education for 13 boys and two girls aged from six to 13 years who have significant social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. Thirteen local authorities have placed pupils in the school. Care is provided on a fifty-two week basis if required. No pupils had a Record of Needs. Pupils’ attendance was in line with the national average.
At the time of the inspection, the school was in a period of transition as the result of a move two weeks earlier to new accommodation for the education of pupils.
HM Inspectors and Care Commission Officers identified the following key strengths.
|
HM Inspectors and Care Commission Officers analysed responses to questionnaires issued to parents, pupils and to all staff. Information about the responses to the questionnaires appears in Appendix 2.
As fewer than five parents responded to the questionnaires, in order to maintain confidentiality, the analysis of parents’ responses is not provided. Most pupils were positive in their views. They thought that there was at least one adult with whom they could discuss personal issues and enjoyed being at the school. Around half of those who responded to the questionnaire thought that they did not get enough homework. Most staff liked working at Seamab and all felt confident in their awareness of child protection procedures. However, a few staff felt that they were not well informed about pupils’ care and education targets, that indiscipline was not effectively dealt with by the school and there was not good communication amongst staff. The nine local authorities who responded to the request to provide information about Seamab were very positive about the child-centred approach to care used by the school. Almost all commended the school’s success in re-integrating children to their own community within three years. A few felt that teaching staff rarely contributed to review meetings and although they valued the emphasis on care, there was insufficient focus on education.
Care and protection
All care staff had a very good understanding of each pupil’s social and emotional development. A strength of the school was the way in which care staff recognised the individual emotional needs of the children. Key care staff ensured regular contact with parents. The school had in place a sufficient number of staff to ensure pupils’ safety and well-being at all times. Risk assessments were undertaken when pupils arrived in the school and were updated when required. Pupils reported feeling safe in their bungalows but a few indicated that they did not feel safe and secure in the school. All staff had received recent training in child protection and the school followed procedures effectively. Almost all staff were trained in the safe use of restraint. However, whilst the school had a policy on de-escalating challenging behaviour and promoting positive behaviour, staff across care and education were not sufficiently clear about these procedures and when the use of safe restraint or ‘safe holding’ was appropriate. Staff were not consistent across care and education in managing inappropriate behaviour. Approaches to recording incidents and 'safe holding', in education were confusing and did not ensure consistent responses by staff or effective analysis of incidents. The school did not have a bullying log. Nevertheless, all young people knew how to complain and also how to contact Childline or children's rights officers. Staff carried out procedures effectively for pupils going missing in a child-friendly and age-appropriate manner taking account of the school’s rural location. They were clear about matters of confidentiality.
Arriving for the first time
The school had clear admissions procedures which included visits to the school by children and their families and the identification of a key worker prior to admission to help them through the process. An independent adviser ensured that children understood their rights and complaints procedures on arrival at the residences. The school provided each child with a helpful profile containing key personal information and summarising personal interests and health issues. Care staff updated these profiles regularly. Within the first month of arrival, pupils received an individualised care plan (ICP) with long-term goals and short-term targets to develop personal and social skills related to areas such as personal hygiene, self-image and managing emotions.
Support arrangements
Pupils’ care plans were comprehensive and care staff provided a good range of activities which took account of pupils’ individual targets. These included shopping trips to buy books and encouragement to develop personal skills such as tidiness, laundering clothes and personal grooming. As pupils did not have individualised educational programmes (IEPs), care staff were unable to support curriculum targets. Nevertheless, at the six-weekly meetings between teachers, classroom assistants and key workers, staff discussed pupils’ care and educational needs and reviewed provision appropriately. The school provided good access to a range of services to meet pupils’ health needs, including health specialists and therapists to address issues such as weight, allergy and self esteem. Pupils participated in leisure activities to build social skills and confidence. Links with the dedicated nurse for looked-after and accommodated children provided access to health care services and additional support through personal and social education. All children had routine medical and dental appointments. The arrangements for the storage of medication were well managed.
Meeting pupils’ needs
The overall quality of meeting pupils’ needs was weak. The support coordinator offered flexible support for pupils and staff across care and education. An activities coordinator, art therapist and classroom assistants provided appropriate individualised support for pupils. A few pupils were making good progress towards achieving personal and social development targets, particularly in their ability to interact positively with adults and other children. However, pupils’ learning needs were not fully considered through educational assessment. Teachers could identify particular strengths in pupils’ learning, but they were not sufficiently clear about the next steps in learning. Although the school proposed to support pupils to make progress through re-introducing IEPs, it had not yet done so. The school had not given sufficient thought to the composition of classes and grouping of pupils. At all stages, there was insufficient acknowledgement of pupils’ strengths in learning and too little challenge. Tasks and activities were not always well matched to pupils’ needs. The lack of structures and routines, particularly in the nurture class, were often contrary to recommendations set out in pupils’ care plans. The school recognised the need to provide further training for staff on the additional support for learning legislation.
Leaving school
Staff were very sensitive to children’s anxiety about leaving the school and to issues of attachment, change and loss for individual children. They considered carefully the impact on children’s behaviour and concentration in school and provided individualised support in the classroom to minimise distractions for children who were due to return to their local community or move on to another schoo1. Staff demonstrated a strong commitment to preparing pupils to return to their mainstream school and local community where possible and planned this well in advance. The school had good links with receiving schools and authorities and worked closely with social workers and families to provide appropriate support when a child was returning home. Former pupils were welcomed back to the school and residences.
Pupils’ learning experiences and achievements
The overall quality of the curriculum was weak. The length of the school week had recently been increased in line with that of mainstream schools. Teachers recognised that the school needed to address pupils’ social, emotional and behavioural needs through alternative curriculum approaches. A nurturing approach had recently been introduced in one class. However, staff and pupils were not sufficiently clear about the purpose and learning objectives of this approach. There was no information and communication technology (ICT) programme and very limited use of ICT to support pupils’ learning. The school had succeeded to some extent in embedding personal and social development across care and education through a wide range of learning activities, including out of school trips. However, these activities were not yet planned for within a formal programme. Enterprising activities were at an early stage and there were few opportunities for pupils to develop skills in active citizenship. The school offered well-developed summer programmes and activities. The most effective teaching made skilled use of simple language, symbols and the classroom environment to manage behaviour and ensure that pupils stayed focused on their learning. However, the quality of teachers’ planning varied and the absence of structured teaching and positive teacher and pupil interaction, particularly in the nurture group, often led to misbehaviour.
The overall quality of pupils’ learning experiences was weak. Care staff provided good opportunities for pupils in the residences to read, shop and go to the library. Specialist tutors in music, art therapy, physical education and pottery provided good individual learning experiences and support for pupils. In the elaborated curriculum class, the pace of learning was appropriate, learning outcomes were clearer and pupils’ learning experiences were often of a higher quality than elsewhere in the school. In other classes, learning was often incidental rather than planned and pupils were unable to see the purpose of learning. Across the school, pupils were not sufficiently encouraged to take active responsibility for their own learning. There was some flexible and motivating use of visits and practical activities, such as shopping and visiting local places of interest, to develop pupils’ personal and social skills and their understanding of their local environment.
The school promoted effectively pupils’ wider interests, achievements and confidence for lifelong learning. Pupils had regular access to the local library, reference books, local newspapers, comics and magazines of special interest. A few children attended local youth groups to encourage their social skills. All pupils were learning to play guitar and to swim. Some had achieved competency in riding and skiing. One pupil had experienced success through selection for trial with a local and national football team. Pupils were aware of some aspects of how people lived in other countries through regular celebrations of other cultures. For example, pupils had celebrated Egyptian, Chinese and Jewish festivals by displaying symbols and artefacts associated with these cultures, and by making and tasting national dishes and dressing in national costumes. Pupils had regular opportunities to develop life skills through camping in Dollar Glen. Most benefited from opportunities to travel further afield to the island of Coll and to Disneyland, Paris.
English language
The overall quality of pupils' attainment in English language was unsatisfactory. Pupils did not have learning targets in this area of the curriculum. The school was unable to measure pupils’ progress in reading and writing. A few pupils listened well to instructions and directions but they had insufficient opportunities to listen to each other and to stories. Approaches to developing pupils' communication were limited. Most pupils lacked confidence when talking in class and were unable to express their views. The majority of pupils were able to read aloud. However, they were unable to develop their skills further in class. Pupils frequently read for enjoyment in the bungalows. However, they had insufficient opportunities to read for enjoyment and to enjoy story telling in class. Pupils’ written work was limited and relied mainly on a few published textbook exercises. Pupils had limited opportunities to write for a purpose. As a result, their written skills were not well developed. Pupils’ skills in handwriting, grammar and punctuation were unsatisfactory.
Mathematics
The quality of mathematics was unsatisfactory. Most pupils were working towards national levels of attainment. However, it was not possible for staff to evaluate accurately pupils’ progress in mathematics as there was no mathematical assessment, and the school no longer set targets within IEPs. A few pupils at all stages demonstrated a good grasp of basic number, money and simple measurement. For example, in the elaborated curriculum class, they demonstratrated good skills in counting on and counting back. Almost all pupils at the nurture stages could add numbers between one and ten using counters and a few could match familiar coins to their values. Younger pupils showed a clear understanding of sequence of the day and the days of the week. At other stages, a few pupils showed a good understanding of 2D shapes such as triangles, circles, rectangles and squares. However, staff gave insufficient attention to other aspects of mathematics, including problem solving and information handling. There was no mathematics programme and staff were unable to ensure that pupils experienced breadth, balance and progression of skills. Pupils had no opportunities to develop problem solving or information handling skills and they did not use ICT to support their learning in mathematics. More able pupils were not challenged sufficiently and pupils rarely received homework. Pupils had few opportunities to apply practical skills in, for example using money on trips outwith the school.
Personal and social development
All pupils enjoyed and benefited from the intensive support provided by care and education staff for their emotional well-being. The wide range of group activities, including horse riding and swimming, trips to the beach and the safari park, provided good opportunities to promote self-esteem and confidence. Pupils' physical and social well-being was being developed through supported playtime activities, the movement programme and cross-country running. Senior pupils were learning about aspects of adolescence but this information had not been shared with care staff. Daily assemblies at the start and end of the day provided some opportunities for sharing information but pupils did not always listen well during these sessions. The young people had very good personal support within the bungalows and were generally calm and settled in this environment. Mealtimes in the bungalows were happy occasions when the children were reminded about good manners and were polite to visitors. However, lunchtimes in the dining area were not well managed and pupils’ behaviour was often inappropriate. The varied evening and weekend programmes provided pupils with very good opportunities to participate in community activities such as the cub scouts and visits to local places of interest. The summer programme, funded by Friends of Seamab, was very well organised and gave pupils wide-ranging learning and social experiences which included camping, guided walks and visits to places of interest such as adventure centres and stock-car racing. The school’s initial assessment of pupils’ social and emotional needs highlighted strengths and areas for development. However, the school had not yet used this information to meet pupils’ needs consistently within a planned programme across care and education. Personal and Social Education (PSD) targets were not shared with pupils and progress toward achieving targets was not systematically tracked. Overall, approaches to PSD were adequate.
Aspect |
Comment |
Comfort, safety and security
Quality of accommodation and facilities |
The well-maintained bungalows were set in private woodland and provided children with opportunities for imaginative, safe outdoor play. Two public rooms facilitated privacy for visitors and the opportunity for individual work with children. Care staff ensured that children were given privacy and chose the colour scheme and personal effects for their own room. The bungalows took very good account of health and safety through the use of non-slip flooring, fire blankets and extinguishers. Accidents and incidents were carefully recorded and parents and social workers informed. A fire evacuation plan was in place along with monthly fire drills and checks of emergency lighting and alarm points. Fire evacuation procedures were child-friendly and well displayed. However, staff had not yet carried out a fire risk assessment. Children had good access to snacks, drinks and fruit and were given opportunities to assist in the kitchen. However, there were no written guidelines for eating, drinking, food and nutrition and menus needed to be reviewed to ensure they met the requirements of individual children. The school provided a very good standard of home-cooked lunches. |
Climate and relationships, expectations and promoting achievement and equality |
Climate and relationships were positive overall. Staff were committed to the care of pupils. Almost all pupils wore the school uniform and were proud to be associated with school. Reception staff at the school were friendly and welcoming and staff felt that senior managers were approachable. Pupils expressed confidence that their complaints would be listened to although they were less confident that any incidences of bullying would be resolved. Expectations of children’s behaviour varied between the bungalows and the school. Behaviour was notably better in the bungalows. Corridor behaviour at the school was often very poor and standards of behaviour were not consistently managed. Able pupils were not challenged in their learning and low expectations of both learning and behaviour were evident, particularly in the nurture group. Senior pupils were not always respectful of staff. Staff were not always prompt in responding to and following through incidences of misbehaviour. The school was committed to inclusion and successfully integrated pupils back into their own community. The small number of girls felt well supported and good account was taken of their needs. The school provided some appropriate opportunities for religious observance through religious and moral education. However, the school did not actively promote awareness of racial equality. |
Partnership with parents and the community |
The school had very positive relations with parents. Almost all felt that the school had achieved an improvement in their child’s behaviour. Parents felt well informed by weekly progress reports about their child and attended six-weekly reviews. The Chairperson of the Board of Governors and staff provided parents with emotional support and facilitated weekly home visits for pupils as appropriate. Parents and staff were positive about transition arrangements for children. The school was very well supported by the Friends of Seamab who visited the children regularly and raised money for resources and trips during the summer. Pupils had regular access to the Dollar Academy swimming pool and had made use of a local village hall as base for Seamab youth club and Lendrick Muir sports hall for a Thursday evening games night. The school was working at building links with the local community by organising coffee mornings at the school and inviting members of the local community. Parents were not provided with information about the health education programme. |
Appendix 1 provides HM Inspectors’ overall evaluation of the work of the school.
Seamab School provided a happy and caring environment in which pupils with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties were well supported. The enthusiastic and committed staff worked well as a team to provide consistent and positive support. Most pupils responded well to staff and worked hard when they were given structured programmes of study and clear expectations of their behaviour. They showed a very good awareness of appropriate behaviour in the local community and when out of school on visits and trips. However, pupils’ behaviour in the school was notably poorer. Overall, expectations of pupils within education were low. Teaching and learning was not sufficiently well planned and pupils were often unable to see the purpose of learning. In most classes, there was inadequate acknowledgement of pupils’ strengths in learning and too little account taken of pupils’ prior learning. Across the school, pupils were not sufficiently encouraged to take active responsibility for their own learning. Senior managers now needed to identify and share the good practice for managing pupils’ behaviour in the bungalows across care and education.
Management and staffing
The school had in place all legally required policies although it recognised the need to further develop the policies on managing challenging behaviour and racial equality. The school needed to update its child protection and staffing policies in line with recent legislation and national guidance. All care staff showed great sensitivity and patience towards young people and encouraged parents to visit their children in the residences. A key strength of the school was its comprehensive training plan for care staff. Monthly team meetings ensured good communication within care and consistency across the bungalows. However, there were some concerns that communication from senior managers was not always clear and that some initiatives were not always carried through systematically. The school provided an appropriate induction pack for new care staff who had good opportunities to shadow more experienced colleagues. Care staffing levels were sufficient to ensure high levels of support.
Leadership
The Chairperson of the Board of Governors visited the school regularly. In his post as a consultant psychologist, he provided valuable, professional advice to staff and parents. The experienced principal had initiated and managed the transition to the new school well. She was highly committed to the care of children and her child-centred approach to education was reflected in the ethos of the school. Along with the depute principal, she sought out the best practice in the care of young people. However, although she had a clear vision for the school and communicated this well, there had been difficulty with the practical implementation of some of her ideas for improving the school. Leadership for learning was not well developed. Targets within the school improvement plan had not yet been implemented or carried through and senior managers did not have a quality assurance role within education. The depute principal had gained the trust and respect of staff and provided effective support strategies for managing the care and individual needs of children. The recently appointed head of education had identified accurately the need for an alternative curriculum for some pupils. She had introduced a calendar of school events and personal review and development opportunities for all staff. However, she had made limited progress in fulfilling her management remit due to her full-time teaching commitment and had experienced difficulty in managing and resolving tensions that existed amongst education staff.
Self-evaluation
The overall quality of self-evaluation was weak. Children’s progress was monitored through supervision and regular informal meetings. Although an audit of care based on national advice had been carried out by staff, the evaluations were not robust and pupils’ care plan priorities had not been overtaken. Teachers’ forward plans were monitored by the head of education. However, there was no systematic evaluation of learning and teaching, and teachers did not know what they needed to do to improve pupils’ learning experiences. The school had recognised the need to provide teachers with more opportunities to share good practice. Whilst the school had good arrangements across care and education for jointly reviewing children’s progress, these were weakened by the absence of IEPs. The school had not yet developed a policy to clarify the role of senior managers and the Board of Governors in quality assurance.
Main points for action The school and Board of Governors, in liaison with HMI Inspectors and Care Commission should take action to seek improvement in the following.
|
Requirements
What happens next?
The school and the Board of Governors 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 Board of Governors to monitor progress. They will publish an interim report on progress within one year of publication of this report. Thereafter, HM Inspectors will continue to engage with the school and the Board of Governors in monitoring progress, and will undertake a follow-through inspection. This will result in nother report to parents, within two years of the publication of this report, on the extent of improvement that has been achieved. Care Commission will continue to undertake their twice-yearly inspections.
Kate Hannah |
Rachael Gillespie |
1 November 2006
RESIDENTIAL SPECIAL SCHOOL and SECURE ACCOMMODATION SERVICES
INTEGRATED INSPECTIONS BY CARE COMMISSION AND HMIE
The inspection team gives particular attention to the National Standards for School Care Accommodation Services and Quality Indicators from How good is our school? (2002 edition, incorporating the six-point scale) under the following report headings.
How well are pupils supported? |
|
Standard 3 |
Care and protection |
How good are learning, teaching, attainment and achievement? |
|
Standard 14 |
Supporting your education |
How good is the environment for care and learning? |
|
Standard 5 |
Comfort, safety and security |
Improving the school |
|
Standard 7 |
Management and staffing |
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.
How good are learning, teaching and achievement? |
|
Structure of the curriculum |
Weak |
The teaching process |
Weak |
Pupils’ learning experiences |
Weak |
Pupils’ attainment in English language |
Unsatisfactory |
Pupils’ attainment in mathematics |
Unsatisfactory |
Personal and social development |
Adequate |
How well are pupils supported? |
|
Meeting pupils’ needs |
Weak |
How good is the environment for learning? |
|
Accommodation and facilities |
Very good |
Climate and relationships |
Good |
Expectations and promoting achievement |
Weak |
Equality and fairness |
Good |
Partnership with parents, the Board of Governors and the community |
Very good |
Improving the school |
|
Leadership |
Weak |
Effectiveness and deployment of staff with additional responsibilities |
Adequate |
Self-evaluation |
Weak |
This report uses the following word scale to make clear judgements made by inspectors:
excellent |
excellent |
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. Where any one group had five or less respondees then, in order to maintain confidentiality, the analysis is not provided.
What parents thought the school did well |
What parents think the school could do better |
As fewer than five parents responded to the questionnaires, in order to maintain confidentiality, the analysis is not provided. |
As fewer than five parents responded to the questionnaires, in order to maintain confidentiality, the analysis is not provided. |
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 |
Staff were positive about most aspects of the school.
|
A few staff felt that:
|
If you would like an additional copy of this report
Copies of this report have been sent to the Principal and school staff, the chair of the Board of Governors, 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 600 389. Copies are also available on our website www.hmie.gov.uk. and the website of the Care Commission at www.carecommission.com
If you wish to comment about residential special school inspections
Should you wish to comment on any aspect of alternative provision for pupils with additional support needs, you should write in the first instance to Kenneth Muir, HMCI at HM Inspectorate of Education, Denholm House, Almondvale Business Park, Almondvale Way, Livingston, EH54 6GA
Our complaints procedure
If you have a concern about this report, you should write in the first instance to Hazel Dewart, Business Management Unit, HM Inspectorate of Education, Second Floor, Denholm House, Almondvale Business Park, Almondvale Way, Livingston EH54 6GA. A copy of our complaints procedure is available from this office or by telephoning 01506 600 258 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. The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman is fully independent and has powers to investigate complaints about Government departments and agencies. You should write to The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, 4-6 Melville Street, Edinburgh EH3 7NS. You can also telephone 0870 011 5378 or e-mail enquiries@scottishombudsman.org.uk. More information about the Ombudsman’s office can be obtained from the website: www.scottishombudsman.org.uk.
Crown Copyright 2006
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 and carers who are relatives or friends