St Anthony’s Primary School
Johnstone
Renfrewshire Council

5 September 2006

Contents

1. Background
2. Key strengths
3. What are the views of parents, pupils and staff?
4. How good are learning, teaching and achievement?
5. How well are pupils supported?
6. How good is the environment for learning?
7. Improving the school
Appendix 1 Indicators of quality
Appendix 2 Summary of questionnaire responses
How can you contact us?

1. Background

St Anthony’s Primary School was inspected in May 2006 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 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 the chairperson of the School Board, representatives of the parent teacher association (PTA), and a group of parents¹.

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

St Anthony's Primary School is a denominational school in the Spateston area of Johnstone. The school serves the communities of Corseford, Johnstone Castle, Howwood, Elderslie and Lochwinnoch. At the time of the inspection the roll was 229, including 29 children in the Communication Disorders support classes. The proportion of pupils who were entitled to free school meals was below the national average. Pupils' attendance was above the national average. At the time of inspection, the headteacher and a depute headteacher were on sick leave. The education authority had recently seconded an experienced headteacher and appointed an acting depute headteacher to lead the school.

2. Key strengths

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

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, pupils and staff were very pleased with almost all aspects of the work of the school. All parents thought that staff welcomed them into the school and they found parents’ evenings helpful and informative. They were confident that the school dealt effectively with any concerns they raised and that it was well led. A few felt the school could involve them more in decisions affecting their child. All pupils thought that teachers praised them when they did something well. They felt that staff helped them to keep safe and healthy. A few were concerned about the inappropriate behaviour of some pupils. Staff were very positive about working in the school. They thought that the school was well led and that teachers set high standards for pupils’ attainment. A majority of support staff felt their staff training time could be used more effectively.

4. How good are learning, teaching and achievement?

Pupils’ learning experiences and achievements

The overall quality of the curriculum was good. Staff gave good attention to promoting pupils’ personal and social development, healthy lifestyles and citizenship. They placed appropriate focus on developing pupils’ skills in listening and talking. In the support classes, planned visits were used to effectively enhance the curriculum. Across the curriculum, there was too much emphasis on using published schemes to provide progression in pupils’ learning. The technology programme was successfully enabling pupils to understand design processes. There were insufficient opportunities to use information and communications technology (ICT) to support learning across the curriculum. At the early stages, staff did not make full use of play to develop pupils’ early learning skills. Overall, the quality of teaching was good. Most teachers were skilled in using questions to check pupils’ understanding and in encouraging them to explain their answers and ask further questions. They also shared with pupils what they expected them to learn from their lessons. Interactions between teachers and pupils were positive. In the support classes, most pupils were motivated and encouraged by appropriate praise and support. They were encouraged to work independently. Homework was used regularly across the school, but it was not sufficiently varied or challenging.

The quality of pupils’ learning was good. Most pupils were confident and motivated to work well with minimum supervision. Pupils in support classes worked regularly alongside their peers in mainstream classes. They engaged enthusiastically in practical learning activities and co-operated positively with others in ICT and physical education tasks. Overall, pupils did not have sufficiently regular opportunities to work with others to develop ideas and find independent solutions to problems. Across the school, most pupils were developing a good range of skills and knowledge. They had a good understanding of healthy eating. Pupils at P1 were able to use simple Spanish phrases about aspects of everyday life. In P3, pupils were developing good art and design skills through their work with a local potter.

At all stages, including the support classes, pupils were developing self-confidence and valuable social skills. They showed respect for each other. They were developing good citizenship skills through a range of specific duties, including buddying younger pupils in the playground, helping in the classroom and tending to the school garden. Elected representatives on the pupil council were very successful in representing pupils’ views and made positive contributions to decision-making in the school. They had been instrumental in bringing about improvements to school facilities. Older pupils were gaining understanding of enterprise through the work associated with their enterprise café. This included organising a well attended coffee morning. Most pupils had good awareness of the needs of others and participated in regular fundraising for a range of charities.

English language

Overall, the quality of pupils’ attainment in English Language, including those in the support classes, was good. In recent years attainment had fluctuated. By P3, most pupils achieved appropriate national levels in listening, talking, reading and writing. Many pupils had exceeded the levels normally expected for this stage. However, this rate of progress was not sustained. Pupils who had not yet attained appropriate national levels were making suitable progress with their classwork. At all stages, pupils listened well to teachers and to each other. Pupils talked confidently. By the upper stages, they were developing very good skills through personal talks and debates. Most pupils read fluently and accurately, often with good attention to expression. They read widely for enjoyment and could describe well the key features of a story. Throughout the school, pupils were developing skills in writing for a limited range of purposes. There were insufficient opportunities to write extended pieces of writing. Standards of pupils’ spelling were good.

Mathematics

The overall quality of attainment in mathematics was good. In recent years, levels of attainment had varied but now showed slight improvement. The majority of pupils were achieving appropriate national levels. Most pupils, including those in the support classes, were making good progress in their coursework. By P2, the majority were achieving national levels earlier than might normally be expected. However, at P7, only around half were achieving appropriate national levels. At all stages, pupils were able to collect, organise and present information in graphs or tables. However, pupils did not have experience of using computers to organise and present information in a variety of forms. Pupils were confident in their written and mental calculation. At P7, pupils could competently use fractions, decimals and simple percentages in a variety of contexts. Across the school, pupils had a good understanding of shapes and their properties. They could solve problems using a range of strategies. At P7, pupils were able to tackle problems confidently and present their solutions in an organised way.

5. How well are pupils supported?

Staff provided a very good level of care for pupils. They knew pupils well and responded sensitively to their social, emotional and behavioural needs. All staff had a clear understanding of school policies in relation to child protection, anti-bullying and situations where pupils’ health might be at risk. All pupils interviewed praised the support they received from staff and were confident about raising concerns. Pupils had a good awareness of personal safety issues. Staff gave appropriate attention to the development of healthy lifestyles. Activities such as lunchtime games and the health week had helped to promote pupils’ knowledge about nutrition. Catering staff took time to ensure that pupils received a healthy, balanced school lunch. There were good arrangements in place to support the transition of children from nursery to P1 and from P7 to S1. In most of the support classes, there were good approaches to developing personal and social development skills across the curriculum.

The school’s approaches to meeting pupils’ needs were adequate. Teachers planned carefully to address the needs of groups and individuals in their classes. However, in a number of areas including English language, they relied too heavily on textbooks. As a result, pupils were not always appropriately challenged. The school’s approaches to identifying pupils’ learning needs were not sufficiently targeted and were not clearly understood by staff. In the mainstream classes, a small number of pupils had individualised educational programmes (IEPs). However, pupils’ achievements towards the learning targets set for them were not being monitored sufficiently closely to ensure that all pupils were making good progress. Support staff provided valuable assistance to individuals in both mainstream and support classes. However, there was scope to extend their role to increase the effectiveness of support to pupils. Visiting network support teachers provided support to individuals and small groups. They did not have sufficient opportunities to work alongside class teachers and assist in monitoring pupils’ achievements.

The learning needs of pupils in the support classes were being well met by class teachers, support staff and speech and language therapists. Pupils benefited from working regularly with their peers in mainstream classes. Teachers made good use of IEPs for pupils in the support classes to help meet their specific learning needs. Pupils were making good progress towards the targets set for them.

6. How good is the environment for learning?

7. Improving the school

Appendix 1 provides HM Inspectors’ overall evaluation of the work of the school.

St Anthony’s Primary School provided a very welcoming and supportive environment for pupils. Staff demonstrated a strong commitment to inclusion and all pupils were fully included in school life. Pupils received a broad range of learning experiences and the quality of attainment in English language and mathematics was good. Teachers had taken positive steps to develop pupils’ personal and social skills and understanding of citizenship and healthy eating. Pupils were well behaved, polite and motivated. They did not have frequent enough opportunities to learn from each other through working collaboratively. A few were not being challenged appropriately.

At the time of inspection, the headteacher and a depute headteacher were on sick leave. The education authority had seconded an experienced headteacher to lead the school. During her few weeks in post, the seconded headteacher had gained the confidence of staff, parents and pupils. She had vision, enthusiasm and a high degree of professional commitment. She was ably assisted in the day-to-day management of the school by the recently-appointed acting depute headteacher and the depute headteacher of the support classes. The school’s approaches to evaluating the quality of its work were adequate. Senior managers visited classrooms, looked at examples of pupils’ work and monitored aspects of pupils’ progress. However, teachers were not yet sufficiently involved in evaluating learning and teaching. Arrangements for tracking pupils’ progress lacked rigour. With the support of the local authority, the school was well placed to improve the quality of learning and teaching.

What happens next?

The school and the education authority have been asked to prepare an action plan indicating how they will address the main findings of the report, and to share that plan with parents. Within two years of the publication of this report parents will be informed about the progress made by the school.

Elizabeth Cole
HM Inspector

5 September 2006

Appendix 1 Indicators of quality

The sections in the table below follow the order in this report. You can find the main comments made about each of the quality indicators in those sections. However, aspects of some quality indicators are relevant to other sections of the report and may also be mentioned in those other sections.

This report uses the following word scale to make clear judgements made by inspectors:

Appendix 2 Summary of questionnaire responses

Important features of responses from the various groups which received questionnaires are listed below. Where any one group had five or less respondees then, in order to maintain confidentiality, the analysis is not provided.

How can you contact us?

If you would like an additional copy of this report

Copies of this report have been sent to the headteacher and school staff, the Director of Education and Leisure, 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 .

If you wish to comment about primary inspections

Should you wish to comment on any aspect of primary inspections, you should write in the first instance to Chris McIlroy, Acting 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 600258 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.

Footnotes

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