St Ninian’s Primary School
Knightswood
Glasgow City Council

23 January 2007

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’ learning needs met?
6. How good is the environment for learning?
7. Leading and improving the school
Appendix 1 Indicators of quality
Appendix 2 Summary of questionnaire responses
How can you contact us?

1. Background

St Ninian's Primary School was inspected in September 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 innovation, and its 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), the parish priest and a group of parents¹.

St Ninian’s Primary School is a denominational school serving Knightswood and surrounding areas in the west of Glasgow. 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. There had been a very recent substantial change in teaching staff which had amounted to seven new temporary teachers being appointed to the school at the start of the current session. A depute headteacher had recently been appointed to the post of acting headteacher.

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.

The majority of parents were satisfied overall with the work of the school. Almost all thought that their child enjoyed being at school, parents’ evenings were helpful and informative and school reports gave them helpful information about their child’s progress. Parents were, however, concerned about certain aspects of the school. Around one-third of parents did not think that the school dealt effectively with inappropriate behaviour. Around a quarter did not think that if they raised a matter of concern that the school would do something helpful about it. Pupils thought that teachers made them work hard and that they had a say in deciding how to make the school better. Around a quarter of pupils indicated that they had been bullied and more than half did not think that the behaviour of pupils was good. One-fifth did not think that staff were good at dealing with those who bullied others. Almost all teachers believed that pupils were enthusiastic about learning and that pupils’ successes were celebrated regularly. The majority of teachers felt that indiscipline was not dealt with effectively. They thought that communications between senior managers and staff were ineffective and that senior managers operated ineffectively as a team. Almost all support staff enjoyed working in the school. The majority did not think that staff training time was used effectively. They also felt that there was not regular staff discussion about how to achieve school priorities.

4. How good are learning, teaching and achievement?

Pupils’ learning experiences and achievements

There were important weaknesses in the quality of the curriculum. Teachers planned across most curricular areas but lessons delivered did not always reflect the activities shown on class timetables. They did not ensure continuity and progression in the development of pupils’ knowledge and skills in a number of key curricular areas. The depute headteacher made effective use of the recently refurbished computer suite to develop pupils’ skills in information and communications technology (ICT). However, teachers did not make sufficient use of ICT in lessons to enhance pupils’ learning. Teachers were inconsistent in their approaches to the teaching of writing, environmental studies and personal and social education. The visiting specialist for physical education worked with classes and provided an effective level of support. Overall, the quality of teaching had important weaknesses. In most lessons, teachers did not make effective use of questioning to support pupils’ learning and check pupils’ understanding. Too often lessons were over-directed by teachers. They relied too heavily on textbooks. Few teachers made use of the available assessment information to identify pupils’ needs or plan the next steps in learning. A few teachers had recently introduced new approaches to motivate pupils and involve them more actively in their learning. However across the school, pupils had very few opportunities to be involved in active learning or practical activities. Teachers’ use of homework was variable. Much of the homework lacked variety and interest.

The quality of pupils’ learning was weak. The majority of pupils listened attentively to teachers and responded well when given the opportunity to contribute. However, the pace of learning was often too slow and some pupils had difficulty remaining engaged or on task for extended periods of time. Pupils were not used to working without close supervision and their skills in working with others to improve their learning were not well developed. Most pupils were unclear about their next steps in learning or what they needed to do to improve.

The school had taken some steps to help pupils develop their wider achievements. Pupils had effective opportunities to be involved in the eco-committee and pupil council. Pupils had gained experiences in enterprise activities for example through the Christmas project and had received a platinum award for enterprise from the education authority. Pupils were developing their health and fitness through taking part in a range of out-of-school-hours clubs such as basketball, netball, football and hip-hop. These clubs were being delivered by members of the wider community and were having a positive impact on pupils’ self-esteem and confidence. The school had two junior road safety officers and operated a playground buddy system. Pupils in P7 developed their sporting and personal and social skills through an annual residential experience.

English language

The overall quality of attainment in English language was weak. Pupils’ attainment in reading and writing had declined in recent years, however, in 2006 there had been a slight increase. The majority of pupils were achieving the appropriate national levels in reading and writing. Pupils who experienced difficulty in reading and writing were not well supported. Pupils’ listening and talking skills were weak. Teachers did not assess systematically pupils’ listening and talking skills. In the majority of classes, pupils spoke over one another and their teachers. Pupils were able to read unseen text with some confidence. However, their knowledge about language and understanding of vocabulary was too limited. In a few classes, pupils were given a range of opportunities to write for different purposes but these were not consistent or regular enough to develop pupils’ writing skills effectively. They did not have sufficiently well developed understanding of writing styles or how to write for different audiences. Teachers required further guidance in developing pupils’ writing. Across the school, the quality of pupils’ handwriting and presentation of written work was weak.

Mathematics

The overall quality of attainment in mathematics was adequate. Overall, levels of attainment in mathematics had decreased. Most pupils were achieving appropriate national levels of attainment in mathematics. At some stages, a few pupils were achieving these levels earlier than might normally be expected. Across the school, pupils were capable of achieving higher standards by being set more challenging and purposeful tasks. By P7, pupils could confidently interpret information using a range of graphs and charts. They had limited experience of organising and displaying information using computer software. Across the school, pupils’ ability to carry out mental and written calculations was weak. Pupils could identify a range of two- and three-dimensional shapes appropriate to their stage, but were not always able to discuss their properties. They could solve simple problems using a range of problem solving strategies. Teachers did not provide enough opportunities for pupils to apply their mathematical skills in practical contexts.

5. How well are pupils’ learning needs met?

There were important weaknesses in the school’s approaches to meeting pupils’ needs. Across the school, teachers did not match tasks and activities sufficiently to pupils’ learning needs. Many tasks and activities relied too heavily on textbook exercises and were not sufficiently challenging. Teachers were not fully aware of pupils’ prior learning experiences and achievements. They did not set learning targets and most pupils were unclear about what they needed to do to improve. The school had recently developed approaches to assess the needs of pupils with additional support needs. These were not yet impacting on support for pupils. The cluster support for learning teacher provided helpful advice to teachers to help them assist pupils who required additional support with their learning. However she provided very limited direct support to pupils. In the previous session, a principal teacher had provided support to identified groups of pupils and staff. The school had individualised educational programmes (IEPs) in place to support pupils’ learning needs. However, a few pupils with IEPs had not made sufficient progress over a lengthy period of time. Parents were not sufficiently involved in planning and supporting their child’s learning. Senior managers did not coordinate support for learning effectively or systematically track and monitor pupils’ progress. The deployment of pupil support assistants was ineffective and was not targeted well enough at meeting the needs of pupils with clearly identified additional support needs.

6. How good is the environment for learning?

7. Leading and improving the school

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

The strengths of St Ninian’s Primary School were significantly outweighed by many important weaknesses. The school did not provide a sufficiently high standard of education for pupils. Across the school, there were important weaknesses in the quality of learning and teaching. Attainment in English language was weak. In several curricular areas there were important weaknesses in the continuity and progression of pupils’ learning. Teachers needed to improve the quality of learning and teaching, set higher standards, improve the pace of learning and work together to create a climate of mutual trust and respect. There were major weaknesses in the school’s approaches to pastoral care. There were clear communication difficulties amongst staff. Morale was low and staff did not work collectively as a team.

A number of systems and procedures to identify areas for development had previously been put in place. These included monitoring of teacher’s plans, observation of classroom practices, tracking of pupils’ attainment and monitoring of pupils’ work. These procedures had not yet impacted upon the quality of pupils’ learning experiences. Important weaknesses had been identified in the quality of teaching and some steps had been taken to address these. Relationships amongst staff had broken down. The acting headteacher had not gained the full confidence of all staff. The leadership of the school was unsatisfactory. The education authority had taken some steps to support the school. However, the overall impact of these approaches on improving the quality of education was weak. Senior managers, with the strong support of the education authority, needed to take immediate action to improve the quality of pupils’ learning experiences. Teachers did not take sufficient responsibility for improving the quality of learning and teaching, raising attainment and promoting a positive ethos. Although working groups had been established, teachers had not always met regularly. They had not completed their tasks and therefore they had made no impact on school improvement. The school’s approaches to self-evaluation were weak and teachers did not evaluate the effectiveness of their own teaching. Without significant and improved support from the education authority, the school did not have the capacity for improvement.

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.

Isabel Robb
HM Inspector

23 January 2007

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, Freepost EH641, Edinburgh EH3 0BR You can also telephone 0800 377 7330 (fax 0800 377 7331) or e-mail ask@spso.org.uk More information about the Ombudsman’s office can be obtained from the website: www.spso.org.uk

Crown Copyright 2007

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.