St Mary’s RC Primary School
Kildean Toll
Stirling Council

17 January 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 Mary’s Roman Catholic Primary School was inspected in October 2005 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, and a group of parents¹.

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

St Mary’s Primary School is a denominational school serving Stirling and the surrounding area. At the time of the inspection the roll was 76. The newly appointed headteacher had taken up post three weeks prior to the start of the inspection. The proportion of pupils who were entitled to free school meals was well above the national average. Pupils’ attendance was well 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 all parents, P4 to P7 pupils, and to all staff. Information about the responses to the questionnaires appears in Appendix 2.

Parents were generally satisfied with the work of the school. Almost all thought that their children enjoyed being at school and that staff treated children fairly. During interviews with parents, most stated that they wanted their children to have more homework. They agreed that school reports gave helpful information on children’s progress but stated that they were not clear about the standard of work expected by teachers. Parents felt that the school did not always deal effectively enough with inappropriate behaviour. Almost all pupils enjoyed being at school and felt that teachers explained things clearly and helped them with their work. However, a small number of pupils felt that the behaviour of some pupils in the school was not good. Teachers and staff were generally positive about most aspects of school life. Teachers felt that the newly appointed headteacher was very supportive. They welcomed the opportunity to become more involved in the decision making process and in setting priorities for improvement. A small number of teaching and non-teaching staff felt that teachers did not always set high enough standards for pupils.

4. How good are learning, teaching and achievement?

Pupils’ learning experiences and achievements

Teachers did not offer pupils a broad and balanced curriculum. They had not been given enough support and guidance on providing pupils with an appropriate range of well-planned learning experiences, particularly in areas such as science, technology and social subjects. As a result, there was a lack of continuity and progression in the development of pupils’ skills, knowledge and understanding in a number of curricular areas. Specialist teachers for art and design, music and physical education worked with classes for periods of time throughout the year and provided a good level of support. The quality of teaching had important weaknesses. In most lessons, teachers gave clear explanations but they did not always make effective use of questioning to reinforce learning and check pupils’ understanding. In many lessons, teachers did not share the learning objectives with pupils or make effective use of assessment information to identify and plan the next steps in pupils’ learning. Teachers had started to track pupils’ progress in English language and mathematics, but they did not always take sufficient account of pupils’ attainment and prior learning experiences when they were organising ability groups. Staff did not provide sufficiently challenging activities to allow pupils from P1 to P3 to learn through play. Across the school, the quality of homework activities was not of a high standard.

The quality of pupils’ learning was weak. In a significant number of lessons, the pace of learning and choice of activities did not present sufficient challenge for pupils. Most pupils listened attentively to teachers and responded well during class discussions. However, they were not used to working without close supervision and their skills in working together and learning from each other were not well developed. Pupils’ skills in using computers to support their learning were limited. The quality of pupils’ handwriting and the presentation of written work were not of a sufficiently high standard.

Pupils had good opportunities to take part in the school council. Teachers had started to develop pupils’ understanding of enterprise education and there were examples of successful activities in previous years. Pupils were learning about the importance of healthy eating and the need for a healthy lifestyle and a balanced diet. Pupils in P7 carried out a range of helpful activities around the school, including working with younger pupils. Most pupils from P4 to P7 took part in a wide range of extra-curricular activities and supported study initiatives. Pupils in P7 developed their sporting, personal and social skills through an annual residential experience.

English language

The quality of pupils’ attainment in English Language was weak. In recent years there had been a decline in the standard of pupils’ attainment in reading and writing. The majority of pupils were achieving the appropriate national levels in reading and less than half were attaining the appropriate levels in writing. Across the school, a significant number of pupils were capable of achieving higher standards in their coursework. P4 pupils could talk knowledgeably about books and their favourite authors. Pupils’ skills in listening, talking and writing were not well developed and their skills in spelling, grammar and punctuation were limited. They were not good at producing extended pieces of writing and did not know how to improve their writing. They did not have a well developed understanding of writing styles or the need to write for different audiences.

Mathematics

The overall quality of pupils’ attainment in mathematics was weak. In recent years, there had been a decline in the level of pupils’ attainment in mathematics. Although the majority of pupils were attaining appropriate national levels, a significant number were capable of achieving higher standards. The majority of pupils were making appropriate progress in their learning but higher attaining pupils, and those who were experiencing difficulties with aspects of mathematics, were not well supported in their learning. Although pupils had a good understanding of simple graphs, they did not use computers to organise data or handle information. Most pupils had a good understanding of number work and could confidently carry out basic written calculations but their skills in mental calculation were not well developed. Pupils’ skills in using practical equipment to carry out measurement activities were limited. By P7, pupils did not have a good understanding of decimal notation, fractions or percentages. Most pupils could identify a range of shapes and discuss their properties and their understanding of shape, position and movement was good. Pupils could not identify or use a broad range of problem solving strategies.

5. How well are pupils supported?

The school’s procedures to ensure the care, welfare and protection of pupils were adequate. The headteacher had recently issued helpful advice for staff on child protection, substance abuse and the administration of medicine. Pupils could describe the school’s procedures for dealing with instances of bullying and the headteacher dealt with ongoing issues using school and education authority guidelines. Although outside agencies provided well-targeted support for a small number of vulnerable pupils, staff were not always sufficiently sensitive to the emotional, physical and social needs of individual pupils. The school had not yet developed a programme of study for personal and social development.

The school did not always provide pupils with an appropriate level of support when they experienced difficulties with aspects of their learning. The learning support teacher and classroom assistants worked well in classes to assist a significant number of pupils with additional support needs. The school had introduced a number of individualised educational programmes (IEPs) for pupils with additional support needs but these lacked detail and had not been discussed with parents. The education authority was providing well-judged support to improve pupils’ writing skills but this had not yet led to an improvement in pupils’attainment. The school had effective arrangements in place to support pupils at points of transfer from nursery into P1 and from P7 into secondary 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.

The school did not provide a sufficiently high standard of education for pupils. The education authority had taken action to support the school more directly and had provided teachers with additional support and opportunities to visit other schools, meet colleagues and view resources. Apart from mathematics, there were minimal curricular programmes or policies in place. This, and a lack of written guidance, restricted teachers from planning and delivering quality learning experiences for pupils. Across the school, there were important weaknesses in the quality of learning and teaching. Teachers’ plans lacked sufficient detail and they did not make effective use of assessment information to monitor and track pupils’ progress. Pupils’ attainment in English language and mathematics was not good enough and a significant number of pupils were capable of achieving higher standards in all areas of the curriculum. Teachers needed to set higher standards, improve the pace of learning and ensure an appropriate level of challenge for all pupils.

At the time of the inspection, a new headteacher had taken up post. The headteacher had made a positive start and had identified a number of appropriate priorities for improvement. She had started to involve staff in curriculum development activities and had produced a suitably focused school improvement plan with clearly stated priorities. Throughout the course of the previous session and prior to the appointment of the new headteacher, the principal teacher had been acting headteacher. He had been given considerable support by the education authority. Prior to the headteacher’s appointment in August 2005, the education authority had identified weaknesses and had intervened directly to support the school, improve the quality of learning and teaching and raise pupils’ attainment. The education authority had involved staff in monitoring the work of the school and identifying areas for improvement. In addition, authority staff had started to evaluate the quality of learning and teaching and had provided feedback to teachers. However, the feedback had not yet led to significant improvements in the quality of learning and teaching. The headteacher recognised that the school would require the ongoing support of the education authority to ensure further improvements.

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 engage with the school and the education authority to monitor progress. They will publish an interim report on progress within one year of the publication of this report. Thereafter, 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.

Michael Wood
HM Inspector

17 January 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 Children’s 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, Denholm House, Almondvale Business Park, Almondvale Way, Livingston EH54 6GA or by telephoning 01506 600385. 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.