St Bridget’s Primary School
Baillieston
Glasgow City 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 Bridget’s Primary School was inspected in April 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 a member of the School Board, representatives of the parent teacher association (PTA), and a group of parents¹.

St Bridget's Primary School is a denominational school serving the areas of Baillieston, Garrowhill and Swinton in north east Glasgow. At the time of the inspection the roll was 497, including 48 children in the nursery class. The proportion of pupils who were entitled to free school meals was well below the national average. Pupils' attendance was in line with the national average.

The work of the nursery class was not included in this inspection.

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 were pleased with most aspects of the work of the school. All felt that their children enjoyed being in school. They thought that staff placed a high priority on the care and welfare of pupils. They held the headteacher and depute headteachers in high regard and trusted their judgement. They believed that teachers were good at letting them know their child’s strengths and weaknesses, and found parents’ evenings helpful. Parents were concerned about the condition of the school building. All pupils thought that teachers expected them to work hard. They felt teachers explained things clearly in lessons and helped them with difficult coursework. However, they were not always clear about what they had to do to improve their work. They felt safe in school and believed that staff were good at dealing with bullying. All teachers and support staff enjoyed working in the school. Teachers were very positive about all aspects of the school’s work. Most of the support staff felt communication in school could be better. A majority would like to be more involved in the decision-making process, and in discussions about achieving school priorities.

4. How good are learning, teaching and achievement?

Pupils’ learning experiences and achievements

The overall structure of the curriculum was good. Teachers made good use of the additional time they allocated to improve standards in English language, mathematics and personal and social development. The information and communications technology (ICT) programme was very effectively delivered to most classes by one of the principal teachers and pupils showed confidence and skill in their use of ICT. However, ICT was not consistently used well to support learning and teaching across the curriculum. The school had received a bronze award for its enterprise education programme. A specialist teacher of music made a valuable contribution to pupils’ learning in music. Pupils’ learning was enriched by regular opportunities to work with and listen to a range of speakers, including for example, drama workshops and performances. The overall quality of teaching was very good. Teachers consistently shared the purposes of lessons with pupils. They gave clear explanations and used praise well to encourage learning and build pupils’ confidence. Teachers were highly skilled in the use of direct teaching to groups and classes. Homework was well planned and in most cases supported the learning in class. Overall, however, it lacked variety.

The overall quality of learning was good. Pupils were attentive and required little encouragement to settle to their tasks. The pace of lessons was good. Pupils were clear about their levels of attainment, but were not yet sufficiently involved in setting learning targets for themselves. They worked well in pairs, for example, when discussing ideas with their writing partner. In a few classes, pupils were developing good collaborative skills through their involvement in group work. However, pupils were not given sufficient opportunities to be independent and think for themselves. Pupils expressed themselves well through drama and music, and showed good movement skills in physical education. The standard of singing was very high, and both the senior and junior choirs had won a number of local awards. In art and design pupils had too few opportunities to be creative.

Across the school, pupils were developing self-confidence and good social skills. Pupils had participated in healthy eating workshops and showed a good understanding of the need to take regular exercise and eat a healthy diet. Pupils were developing a good understanding of citizenship through their involvement in a range of specific duties around the school, including participating in the Eco Committee and fund raising. Elected representatives from P4 to P7 made positive contributions to decision making in the school through the work of the pupil council. Pupils at P6 and P7 developed new skills through their participation in a wide range of after-school activities such as cycling proficiency training, the school choir, netball, badminton, kidfit, basketball, drama club and football. Pupils at P5 had further developed their ICT skills through participating in an after school ICT class.

English language

The overall quality of pupils’ attainment in English language was very good. Levels of attainment in reading and writing had been consistently high over the last three years. Almost all pupils attained appropriate national levels in listening, talking, reading and writing. A significant number of pupils attained these levels earlier than might normally be expected. Pupils not attaining national levels were well supported, and making appropriate progress. Almost all listened and responded well to their teachers and to each other. They expressed views confidently. At the early stages, pupils were making good progress in developing early literacy skills. Most pupils from P3 to P7 read fluently, and many read widely for pleasure. Pupils in P5 successfully compared texts and understood the key features of different types of writing. Those in P7 confidently described the key features of different types of books, and showed a good knowledge about language. Pupils read well for information and used these skills across the curriculum. At P2, they used simple word books and dictionaries effectively to produce extended pieces of writing. Those at P3 to P7 wrote at length for a range of purposes. They showed a growing command of technical expression in their personal and imaginative writing. The quality of pupils’ handwriting and presentation was consistently high across all stages.

Mathematics

Overall, pupils’ attainment in mathematics was very good. Although attainment had fallen in 2004, overall, attainment levels were high. Almost all pupils achieved appropriate national levels, with many achieving these levels earlier than might normally be expected. Pupils not attaining national levels were making good progress in their coursework. Pupils in P1 had made a very good start to developing early mathematical skills. At P2, pupils showed skill in interpreting and displaying information. Those in P7 recognised and interpreted a range of graphs accurately. At all stages, almost all pupils were confident in mental and written calculations. They showed a good knowledge and understanding of decimals, percentages and rounding of numbers. They were less confident working with fractions. Pupils in P6 worked well in groups to complete practical tasks in measurement. At P6 and P7, pupils were secure in their knowledge of angles and three-dimensional shape. Pupils at all stages could use a range of strategies successfully when solving problems.

5. How well are pupils supported?

The quality of pastoral care throughout the school was very good. All staff effectively followed procedures for ensuring the care and welfare and protection of all pupils, including procedures for dealing with child protection and anti-bullying. Staff knew pupils well and were committed to supporting their physical, social and emotional needs. The school made good provision for pupils’ health needs, including providing healthy meal options in the diningroom. The school nurse and community police officer were effectively involved in supporting the health education programme and promoting healthy lifestyles.

The school had good arrangements in place for supporting the needs of all pupils, including those with additional support needs. Teachers took good account of pupils’ needs and their prior learning. Teachers worked well with support staff to support individual pupils and groups. Arrangements for teaching pupils in P3 to P7 in groups for mathematics, and carefully chosen tasks and activities helped meet pupils’ needs. Promoted staff and the network support for learning teacher effectively identified and supported pupils in English language and mathematics. However, support was mainly provided when pupils were extracted from class and there were occasions when pupils would have benefited from support within the classroom setting. A few pupils had individualised educational programmes which detailed clear learning targets and timescales. Staff used these effectively to help ensure pupils’ progress. However, pupils were not sufficiently involved in the planning process. Support assistants provided valuable help to individual pupils throughout the school.

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 Bridget’s Primary School provided a caring and supportive environment for learning. The staff’s commitment to care and welfare and the focused support provided by senior managers and the principal teacher helped to ensure that pupils were achieving well. Pupils responded positively to the high expectations set but many were capable of undertaking more responsibility for their learning. They required more opportunities to work collaboratively and greater involvement in discussing next steps in learning. The school had provided opportunities for parents to find out more about the curriculum and homework.

The leadership of the school was very good. The headteacher was held in high regard by staff, parents and pupils. He had established a very strong team approach to raising attainment. He maintained a high profile across the school and knew all the pupils and their families well. He provided good support in mathematics to a group of pupils in P7. The headteacher had good interpersonal skills which he successfully used to build staff and pupil morale. The depute headteachers gave good support to the headteacher. They had good relationships with staff, pupils and parents. They supported pupils’ learning in English language and mathematics and dealt effectively with parents’ concerns. Teachers were effectively involved in the decision-making process and in evaluating the work of the school. However, support staff were not given sufficient opportunities to contribute to the decision-making process. The procedures for evaluating the work of the school were good. The school had an appropriate range of systems for monitoring and evaluating its work, including good systems for tracking pupils’ progress. However, monitoring learning and teaching was informal and did not impact significantly on classroom practice. The school now needed to develop more rigorous approaches to monitoring classroom practice and use the information gathered to improve pupils’ learning.

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.

Belinda Sheehan
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.

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 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 .

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.

Footnote

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