St Catherine's Primary School Barmulloch
Glasgow City Council

24 October 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 Catherine’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 Catherine's is a denominational school which serves the Barmulloch area in the north east of Glasgow. The school is part of the All Saints' Learning Community. At the time of the inspection the roll was 249. The proportion of pupils who were entitled to free school meals was well above the national average. Pupils' attendance was below the national average.

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 positive about most aspects of the school. They felt that the school had a good reputation in the community and that reports and parents’ evenings were helpful and informative. They appreciated the level of care and concern staff showed for pupils’ wellbeing. Almost all thought that the school was well led. Pupils thought that teachers were good at telling them when they did something well. Around a third thought that pupils were not always treated fairly and less than half felt that overall standards of behaviour were good, especially in the playground. All teachers and support staff thought that pupils received helpful feedback on their work and felt that pupils were enthusiastic about their learning. However, they did not all think that standards set for pupils’ behaviour were upheld consistently. Staff thought that there should be more shared celebrations of pupils’ successes, for example at assemblies. All support staff and a majority of teachers thought that the school was well led.

4. How good are learning, teaching and achievement?

Pupils’ learning experiences and achievements

The curriculum was suitably broad and included education for enterprise at P4 and P5. The school had plans to extend this across the stages. Staff allocated additional time in the curriculum to develop further pupils’ skills in information and communications technology (ICT) in English language and maths. For example, pupils stored information in databases and used the Internet for research reading. Staff had not monitored the impact of this additional time on pupils’ learning experiences. Overall, teachers were not yet using ICT effectively across the curriculum. Pupils had insufficient opportunities to develop their literacy and numeracy skills across the curriculum. A variety of educational trips and visiting speakers enhanced pupils’ learning. At all stages, pupils followed well-planned approaches to personal, social and health education (PSHE) as part of a new programme developed by the associated schools in the All Saints’ Learning Community. The school had improved several programmes of study, including problem solving, writing, talking and listening. Teachers had established strong relationships with pupils and were open and responsive to their ideas and suggestions. They shared the purposes of lessons clearly with pupils. They used a range of appropriate teaching approaches, including some well-managed interactive teaching which encouraged pupils to participate, think and reflect on what they were learning. A few teachers were particularly effective in creating an appropriate balance of whole class teaching and individual or group activities. Teachers used praise and displays of pupils’ work effectively to motivate pupils. In a few lessons they relied too much on textbook exercises which did not match the needs of all pupils well. There was scope for teachers to develop further pupils’ independent learning and to involve them further in discussing their progress and how to improve.

Pupils worked conscientiously and most did so with minimum supervision. A few pupils were notably enthusiastic about their learning. Pupils behaved well in classrooms. However, the behaviour of a small number of pupils sometimes interrupted the learning of others. At all stages, most pupils collaborated well on tasks, although a few did not take an active part or did not remain on task sufficiently. From P1 to P3, well-organised play activities allowed pupils to work together effectively and to take responsibility for their own learning. Across the stages, pupils were beginning to develop confidence in assessing their own and each other’s work, for example in listening and talking. Across the school pupils used ICT well in English language, for example to place graphics within text and to link up pieces of text. Some pupils also word processed their stories confidently.

Pupils achieved wider success through a good range of activities. They developed teamwork and self-discipline through their involvement in school choirs and the guitar club. They read music well and maintained rhythm when they played percussion instruments. At P7, pupils entertained residents at a nearby home for the elderly at Christmas with songs and carols. Pupils were actively involved in sporting activities, including cross-country running, athletics, football and netball. Their successes had won the school a Glasgow’s Sports School of the Year award. As part of their education for enterprise, P4 and P5 pupils had organised events for pupils and parents, including a very successful Scottish evening. Across the school, pupils showed their awareness of the needs of others through regular fund-raising for national and international charities. They were developing their citizenship skills, for example by taking part in a mock election and through recycling activities. However, a significant number of pupils dropped litter regularly in the playground. Pupils developed responsible attitudes through membership of the pupil council. P6 and P7 pupils helped with the development of reading skills and confidence as ‘reading tutors’ for pupils in P4 and P5.

English language

The overall quality of pupils’ attainment in English language was good, with signs of improvement in reading and writing. However, pupils’ attainment had varied over the past three years. Most pupils attained appropriate national levels in listening, talking and reading and the majority did so in writing. A few pupils attained these levels earlier than might be expected. In lessons, pupils listened attentively to teachers and to each other and carried out instructions successfully. In particular, pupils at P7 spoke confidently on a range of issues. They supported and challenged each other’s views appropriately and in a respectful way. Many pupils were keen readers and could summarise details from books they had enjoyed and identify their favourite authors. At all stages pupils wrote regularly and at appropriate length. They were developing skills in assessing their own and other pupils’ written work. Pupils used well-chosen vocabulary to create characters and to set the scene in their stories. At P5, pupils wrote very effective ‘mini books’ in which they took great pride. They presented them very well, with attractive illustrations. At P7, pupils wrote very imaginative and well-structured stories.

Mathematics

The overall quality of pupils’ attainment in mathematics was good and had been stable over the last three years. Most pupils achieved appropriate national levels of attainment. A significant minority were capable of exceeding these standards if given more challenging tasks. At P1 to P3, pupils responded well to teachers’ encouragement to use their mathematical skills in real life contexts. At all stages, pupils were confident in their written number work. Some pupils were capable of more challenging mental mathematical activities. Across the stages, pupils were able to construct graphs, and some pupils used computers well to organise and present information. Most at P7 were able to identify two- and three-dimensional shapes and discuss their properties. They were developing a sound understanding of fractions, percentages and decimals. However, some pupils at P7 were less secure in aspects of measurement and about durations of time. Pupils were developing appropriate skills in problem-solving and enquiry within mathematics.

5. How well are pupils supported?

Overall, the quality of pastoral care was adequate. Most pupils enjoyed school and were confident that, if they were upset, staff would help them sort things out. Staff were committed to pupils’ care and welfare, knew pupils well and were sensitive to their needs. The school had effective arrangements to meet the needs of particularly vulnerable pupils. Staff implemented helpful guidelines for child protection provided by the education authority. Although the school had a clear policy on preventing bullying and gave high priority to this within the PSHE programme, a significant minority of pupils thought that the school’s anti-bullying procedures were not fully effective. The school’s approaches to pupils’ personal and social development included an appropriate emphasis on alcohol and substance misuse and personal relationships. While the school provided healthy breakfasts and lunch options, and catering staff had run competitions to encourage healthy choices, the school did not consistently promote healthy eating. Pupils regularly brought confectionery, crisps and fizzy drinks into the dining hall at lunch time. Teachers often gave sweets as rewards.

Teachers provided well-focused support to develop pupils’ writing skills. Some pupils needed further support in their learning to help them attain expected levels in mathematics. Most teachers provided pupils with helpful feedback on their work. However, sometimes they provided too much support which limited pupils’ independence. Absences interrupted the progress of some pupils. A few tasks were not sufficiently challenging to meet the needs of all pupils. Teachers were making effective use of individualised educational programmes (IEPs) to meet the needs of a small number of pupils who were experiencing difficulties with their learning or behaviour. Pupils with IEPs and those in the ‘nurture class’ were making good or very good progress towards meeting their personal learning or behaviour targets. The school’s arrangements for meeting pupils’ learning needs were adequate overall. Support staff helped individual pupils and groups effectively in lessons. The network support teacher and two teachers worked closely with small groups of pupils with specific learning needs. Their support made a positive impact. However, the headteacher had not ensured that teachers and staff who provided targeted support had sufficient time together to plan systematically to meet pupils’ identified social, emotional and learning needs.

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.

In recent years, the headteacher and staff at St Catherine’s Primary School, with support from the education authority, had implemented new programmes and approaches designed to improve the quality of learning and teaching. Pupils could identify with increasing confidence their strengths and areas for development. However, the pace of improvement in pupils’ attainment remained slow overall. A few pupils at each stage could achieve more if presented with more challenging tasks and higher expectations. Improved attendance would also help some pupils make appropriate progress. Staff knew pupils well. With the support of senior managers, they now needed to work together to ensure that the needs of all pupils were met appropriately.

The headteacher was ambitious for the school. She had won the confidence of parents and most staff. She wanted to ensure a consistently high quality of learning experience for pupils. She had led staff successfully in improving the quality of pupils’ skills, for example in talking and listening. However, she had not been fully successful in managing changes in the curriculum and in classroom practice. She had yet to take a sufficiently strong lead in monitoring and evaluating learning and teaching to ensure staff and pupils had appropriate support. Half of teachers were new to the school. They were working hard to develop their expertise in the school’s approaches to the curriculum, assessment and active learning. A second depute headteacher had yet to be appointed. As a result, the remits of senior managers had still to be finalised to ensure consistent support and challenge for staff and pupils. The depute headteacher was highly committed to the school and the wider community. She provided well-focused assistance at P6 and P7 to help develop pupils’ skills in writing. The overall quality of leadership to the school was adequate. The school’s approaches to evaluating its work had strengths but these were outweighed by important weaknesses. Senior managers monitored pupils’ attainment closely and sampled their classwork. The headteacher discussed teachers’ plans with them each term and provided verbal and brief written feedback. She produced a formal report on the standards and quality of the school’s progress against its priorities for improvement. However, it described rather than evaluated what had been done. Measures for judging success were linked too closely to resources rather than improvements in learning and tracking what pupils could do and needed to do next. In taking the school forward, the headteacher and staff should work together to develop effective approaches to monitoring learning, teaching and meeting pupils’ needs.

What happens next?

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.

Mary Ritchie
HM Inspector
24 October 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:

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

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.

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.