Argyll and Bute Council
June 2007
Contents
Page
Introduction
i
1.
The inspection
1
2.
Continuous improvement
1
3.
Progress towards meeting the main points for action
3
4.
Conclusion
6
How can you contact us?
7
Introduction
The education functions of each local authority in Scotland were inspected between
2000 and 2005. A second cycle of inspections began in 2006 taking a proportionate approach
using the findings of the original inspection and other information subsequently available.
Section 9 of the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc. Act 2000 charges HM Inspectorate of
Education (HMIE), on behalf of the Scottish Ministers, to provide an external evaluation of the
effectiveness of the local authority in its quality assurance of educational provision within the
Council and of its support to schools in improving quality. Inspections are conducted within a
published framework of quality indicators Quality Management in Education 2 1 (QMIE2) which
embody the Government’s policy on Best Value.
Each inspection is planned and implemented in partnership with Audit Scotland on behalf of the
Accounts Commission for Scotland. Audit Scotland is a statutory body set up in April 2000,
under the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000. It provides services to the
Accounts Commission and the Auditor General for Scotland. Together they ensure that the
Scottish Executive and public sector bodies in Scotland are held to account for the proper,
efficient and effective use of public funds.
1
Quality Management in Education 2 (HM Inspectorate of Education 2006) is a framework of self-evaluation for Local Authority
Education Services.
i
1. The inspection
HMIE published a report on the inspection of Argyll and Bute Council in June 2005. The
education authority prepared an action plan indicating how they would address the main
points for action identified in the original HMIE inspection report.
HM Inspectors revisited the authority in March 2007 to assess the extent to which the
authority was continuing to improve the quality of its work, and to evaluate progress made in
responding to the main points for action in the initial report.
2. Continuous improvement
The authority had made notable progress since the original inspection. Both Heads of
Service for education continued to provide a very strong lead and strategic direction for
continuous improvement within the authority. They had established a clear and appropriate
balance of support and challenge for educational establishments from pre-school to
secondary. The impact of their work was evident in the very positive ethos within the
authority and the productive relationships that had been established with staff in schools.
Particular improvements were noted in the secondary sector. Headteachers appreciated the
fact that expectations were now clearer, and their contributions were valued and nurtured.
They felt fully engaged in decision-making and discussion on key initiatives and priorities.
The Quality Improvement Team, which had been extended just before the original inspection,
was now well established. Teamwork and the quality of relationships with schools were
strengths. All Quality Improvement Officers (QIOs) collaborated very effectively in taking
forward the authority’s priorities for the curriculum, learning and teaching from 3-18.
The education authority’s support for pre-school establishments and primary schools
continued to be strong. Pre-school centres inspected during the last three years provided
good or very good experiences for children. HMIE inspections of 22 primary and secondary
schools, between the original inspection and February 2007, evaluated almost half as being
high performing schools, with a strong record of improvement and very effective leadership.
In primary schools inspected, leadership was found to be good or very good in almost all
schools. In two schools, leadership was evaluated as excellent. In almost all schools, the
quality of learning and teaching and the degree to which pupils’ needs were met were found
to be good or very good. Attainment in English language and mathematics was good or very
good in almost all schools. Pastoral care, climate and relationships, expectations and
promoting achievement, and partnerships with parents and the community were increasing
strengths, with examples of excellence identified in each of these aspects. Inspection
findings also identified improvements in self-evaluation. Attainment of pupils in primary
schools in the authority continued to be strong. Work done by authority staff to improve
standards in writing, for example, has had a positive impact. During 2001 to 2004, levels of
attainment in reading, writing and mathematics were above national averages and those of
comparator authorities 2. National and comparator authorities averages were not available for
2005 and 2006. However, data from a recently-formed consortium of 14 authorities showed
that the authority performed above the average for this consortium. There had been further
improvement in attainment in reading, writing and mathematics between 2004 and 2006.
2
The term ‘comparator authorities’ refers to the group of education authorities which are comparative to each other in terms of
socio-economic and demographic factors.
1
Pupil attendance in primary remained above national averages. Exclusions were well below
national averages and those of comparator authorities.
HMIE inspections of secondary schools up to February 2007, including follow-through
inspections, also found evidence of continuous improvement. Excellent practice was found
in two aspects in one of the schools inspected. The education authority was producing
increasingly helpful and accurate pre-inspection reports, post-inspection progress and
follow-through reports. Overall attainment by the end of S2 had shown an improving trend
in reading, writing and mathematics. From 2001 to 2004, when data was available from all
other authorities, it was above both national averages and those of comparator authorities for
reading and writing, and overall above national averages for mathematics. Data from the
consortium of 14 authorities showed that, in 2006, Argyll and Bute performed well above
consortium averages for attainment in reading, writing and mathematics by the end of S2.
Performance by the end of S4 in National Qualifications improved significantly in 2005. It
had declined slightly in 2006, but was still above the average of comparator authorities.
Performance was also above, and often well above, national averages. The very strong
performance of the S4 cohort in 2005 was maintained in 2006, with a significant increase in
the proportion of S5 pupils who achieved five or more awards at Scottish Credit and
Qualifications Framework (SCQF) 3 Level 6. The rate of improvement in key measures of
attainment by the end of S5 had increased between 2005 and 2006. There had been less
improvement in the performance of pupils by the end of S6, with a decline in performance in
several key measures. The authority was working very closely with senior managers in
schools to address areas identified for further improvement, at school and authority level.
The Quality Standards Manager and an external consultant provided a wide range of
statistical data and analyses. This information was used to support a rigorous programme of
monitoring and evaluation by authority officers to ensure continuous improvement in overall
attainment. Pupil attendance in secondary had declined slightly, but remained above national
averages. Exclusions had increased slightly, but were overall in line with national averages,
although above those of comparator authorities.
An inspection of community learning and development (CLD) in Dunoon, undertaken in
autumn 2006, found the impact of capacity building on the community to be excellent.
One aspect of CLD provision was evaluated as good and all others were found to be very
good. Key strengths included the high levels of participation and retention of young people
and adults in learning and development programmes. Effective partnerships, based on high
levels of mutual trust, were found to have increased the quality and extent of opportunities
for participants and community and voluntary groups.
The authority had established Our Education Service Learning Culture to re-state its values
and aims for education and to provide a context for implementing national Curriculum for
Excellence 4 developments. It had developed knowledge networks to promote the sharing of
good practice. Work being done in relation to shared reflection was having a positive impact
3
Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF) Levels:
7: Advanced Higher at A-C/CSYS at A-C
6: Higher at A-C
5: Intermediate 2 at A-C; Standard Grade at 1-2
4: Intermediate 1 at A-C; Standard Grade at 3-4
3: Access 3 cluster; Standard Grade at 5-6
4
The Curriculum for Excellence programme outlines the purposes and principles of the curriculum 3-18 to provide a framework
within which improvement to Scottish education can and should be made.
2
on the quality of self-evaluation in schools as well as at authority level. Another key focus of
Our Learning Culture was the development of leadership at all levels, which also contributed
to the authority’s strategy for succession planning. Staff spoke very positively about
improvements in opportunities for continuing professional development (CPD), including
their involvement in the leadership programme.
3. Progress towards meeting the main points for action
The initial inspection report published in June 2005 identified four main points for action.
This section evaluates the progress made with each of the action points and the resulting
improvements for learners and other stakeholders.
3.1
Establish closer integration between service and budget planning.
The Council had made very good progress in meeting this recommendation.
The authority had introduced new planning and reporting structures since the original
inspection, resulting in more coherent and effective links between corporate and service
planning, and also with budget setting and reporting. Education was working closely with
staff from the Chief Executive’s Department to ensure that their management information
system would integrate effectively with new Council performance management and financial
systems. The Council had agreed a new corporate plan in August 2006, with higher
educational attainment featuring as a strategic priority. As a result each service was required
to identify five overarching service priorities linked to the Council’s strategic objectives
under the main Council aim of becoming Scotland’s leading rural area. The service and
budget plan for education was accessible and clear, although the Community Services
priorities of staffing, quality improvement, communication, improving learning and
supporting children were not yet clearly referenced. Resource allocation to each action was
specified and spending plans for all national priority areas and specific grants were identified
clearly. Community Services had developed a new quarterly reporting structure to elected
members. These reports provided analysis of performance against the five service priorities,
together with financial statements explaining any budget variances. Strategic finance staff
supporting education had prepared helpful budget monitoring guidance notes for Community
Services staff that provided basic information to assist budget holders to monitor their
budgets. Training sessions had been held for all budget holders, and budget monitoring took
place on a monthly basis. A service accountant held monthly meetings with senior staff to
maintain an overview of all budgets, and also on an annual basis to set priorities.
3.2
Address the issues of capacity and the physical environment in schools.
The Council had made good progress in taking forward this recommendation.
The authority faced major challenges in the quality of its school buildings and in an over
supply of school places. Seventy percent of primary schools and 10% of secondary schools
had less than 60% occupancy. The Council had completed a review of suitability in 2005 to
assist in prioritising future maintenance and capital programmes. Against Scottish Executive
definitions, 59% of the primary school estate was classified as poor or bad. Three of the four
secondary schools not due for replacement were classified as poor. In addition, the Council
had a significant backlog of priority maintenance. Overall, the authority recognised that the
3
existing position was unsustainable. The Council was the first in Scotland to use a Non
Profit Distributing Organisation (NPDO) model of Public Private Partnership (PPP) to
upgrade its school estate. The Council had won the 2006 Award for Innovation from the
United Kingdom Public Private Finance Awards for this approach. The NPDO project was
scheduled to finish by February 2008, improving ten educational establishments across
five sites, including the creation of joint campuses. It will impact on 60% of secondary and
16% of primary pupils, and over 500 staff.
The majority of schools, however, still required extensive modernisation. In 2005, the
Council created a modernisation database to provide a very wide range of robust data to
inform school estate decisions. The authority devised a School Estate Asset Strategy and
Management Plan in April 2006. Its aim was to use a combination of different funding
methods, combined with sound management of revenue costs, to significantly improve school
buildings. In the short term, the Council had made a significant capital expenditure
commitment to the non-NPDO estate. This was enshrined in the three year educational
capital plan and involved a mixture of new buildings, extension projects and refurbishments.
The authority was near to finalising a further detailed modernisation strategy supported by
external consultants. A final version of this strategy was to be presented for approval to
elected members immediately after the Scottish local government elections. This strategy
provided a clear mechanism to tackle the remaining school estate issues. It remained vitally
important that the Council approved and implemented a solution to the remaining school
estate problem to ensure that all learners will have access to high quality learning
environments.
3.3
Strengthen procedures for monitoring and evaluating the performance of
secondary schools.
The Council had made very good progress in taking forward this recommendation.
The Education Service had established a very effective and rigorous approach to monitoring
and evaluating performance in all of its educational establishments. A strong culture of
continuous improvement was now clearly evident across all sectors of the service.
Procedures to evaluate performance in the secondary sector, which had been at the early
stages of development at the time of the original inspection, were now firmly embedded.
Their effective implementation had resulted in notable strengths in quality assurance and
promotion of continuous improvement. With very effective leadership from the Head of
Service for Secondary and Pupil Support, members of the Quality Improvement Team
provided commendable levels of support and challenge for staff in secondary schools. Their
input was valued highly by headteachers. Education Service staff used key area reviews and
school reviews to monitor the effectiveness and impact of authority policies, to identify good
practice and to provide support for aspects in need of improvement. Through their regular
and focused contacts, they had established productive relationships with headteachers and
staff. They had built up detailed knowledge of individual schools and of the overall quality
of provision in the secondary sector.
Rigorous monitoring and evaluation of standards of attainment at authority, school and
departmental levels were key features of the authority’s quality assurance procedures. The
Head of Service and link QIOs met regularly with staff in schools throughout each session to
discuss performance at all stages, with a particular focus on performance in relation to
National Qualifications. Scrutiny of factors influencing performance was a key feature of the
4
process. Headteachers valued the quality of these discussions, the expectations set by
Education Service staff, and the support provided by the QIO team. Information gathered
was used to share best practice and celebrate success, as well as to identify and address areas
for improvement.
Key area visits and school reviews included a clear focus on learning and teaching, including
leadership for learning, as well as on levels of attainment. The outcomes enabled Education
Service staff to identify each school’s capacity for improvement and to target support to
ensure continuous improvement in all establishments. Actions taken by the authority had led
to improvements in teaching, learning and attainment.
3.4
Ensure more effective support for the curriculum and learning and teaching in
secondary schools to achieve the Council’s aim of raising attainment and
achievement further.
The Council had made very good progress in taking forward this recommendation.
A number of QIOs had been appointed just before the original inspection to be deployed
primarily to provide more structured and systematic support and challenge for the secondary
sector. Each had responsibility for specific curricular areas and aspects, as well as for
implementation of key authority and national priorities. Each also acted as link QIO for
two secondary schools. In addition, one QIO had overall responsibility for CPD, including
leadership development. These QIOs were now well established and had worked very
effectively as part of the Quality Improvement Team to support improvements in the
curriculum as well as learning and teaching. They worked closely with Subject Leaders to
provide a well-structured framework of support and development for secondary subjects.
Well-organised subject development days, often including input from national speakers, and
a wide range of CPD opportunities were appreciated by staff. Analysis of attainment data,
focused discussion with staff in departments and faculties in schools, observation of learning
and teaching and review of pupils’ work had also been used to facilitate improvements in
learning and teaching.
All QIOs, as part of their responsibilities for provision from 3-18, had a key role in
supporting developments in learning and teaching encompassed within the authority’s Our
Learning Culture initiative. Well-established and effective work on a national project on
assessment had been enhanced and refined to support staff in schools in reflecting on their
practice and improving the quality of pupils’ learning. This work was being taken forward
successfully in all sectors. The authority’s strong focus on using Curriculum for Excellence
national developments to take forward further improvements in learning and teaching was
well judged. It provided a very clear framework for identifying and sharing good practice
and for introducing innovative approaches to providing quality learning experiences for
children and young people. Pupils involved in some pilot developments were responding
positively to the expectations set by well-planned, challenging tasks. The approach of the
Education Service in engaging staff in Argyll and Bute in Curriculum for Excellence had
been recognised at national level.
The positive impact of the action taken by the authority was evident in, for example,
improvements in learning and teaching in schools inspected by HMIE, in the successful
implementation of cooperative approaches to learning in an increasing number of schools,
and in the very positive response to study weekends for a few subjects. Standards of
5
attainment at the end of S4 and S5 in secondary schools had also improved, and the authority
was committed to ensuring further improvements. It had now established an ‘improvement
on previous best’ ethos, as recommended in the original inspection. Across all sectors, pupils
were also benefiting from their involvement in activities designed to promote broader
achievements in sports, arts and culture, enterprise activities, and projects focusing on
environmental sustainability.
4. Conclusion
The authority had taken very effective action to implement the recommendations of the
report, and showed clear capacity for continuous improvement. It had made very good
progress on three action points, and good progress on the remaining one. HM Inspectors will
make no further visits to the authority in relation to this report.
Annette Bruton
HM Chief Inspector
Directorate 5
June 2007
6
How can you contact us?
If you would like an additional copy of this report
Copies of this report have been sent to the Chief Executive of the local authority, elected
members, the Director of Community Services, other local authority officers, Members
of the Scottish Parliament, Audit Scotland, heads of the local authority educational
establishments, chairpersons of the local authority School Boards/Parents Associations
and to other relevant individuals and agencies. Subject to availability, further copies may
be obtained free of charge from HM Inspectorate of Education, Directorate 5, Denholm
House, Almondvale Business park, Almondvale Way, Livingston EH54 6GA or by
telephoning 01506 600 377. Copies are also available on our website www.hmie.gov.uk.
HMIE Feedback and Complaints Procedure
Should you wish to comment on any aspect of education authority inspections you should
write in the first instance to Annette Bruton, HMCI, at HM Inspectorate of Education,
Denholm House, Almondvale Business Park, Almondvale Way, Livingston EH54 6GA.
If you have a concern about this report, you should write in the first instance to our
Complaints Manager, HMIE Business Management Unit, Second Floor, Denholm House,
Almondvale Business Park, Almondvale Way, Livingston, EH54 6GA. You can also
email HMIEComplaints@hmie.gsi.gov.uk. A copy of our complaints procedure is
available from this office, by telephoning 01506 600200 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
(SPSO). The SPSO is fully independent and has powers to investigate complaints about
Government departments and agencies. You should write to the SPSO, Freepost EH641,
Edinburgh EH3 0BR. You can also telephone 0800 377 7330 (fax 0800 377 7331) or
email: 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.
7