East Dunbartonshire Council
February 2001
Contents
________________________________________
Page
Introduction
i
1.
The aims, nature and scope of the
inspection
1
2.
The Education Service: operational
context
1
3.
Strategic management of the service
8
4.
Consultation and communication
11
5.
Operational management
16
6.
Resource and financial management
20
7.
Performance monitoring and continuous
improvement
25
8.
How well does the authority perform
overall?
34
9.
Main points for action
35
Appendices
Performance information
Inspection coverage
Quality indicators
37
41
43
Definition of terms used in this report
HM Inspectors use published criteria when making judgements about the
work of a local authority. These quality indicators relate judgements to
four levels of performance. This report uses the following word scale to
make clear the judgements made by Inspectors:
very good
good
fair
unsatisfactory
major strengths
more strengths than weaknesses
some important weaknesses
major weaknesses
This report also uses the following words to describe numbers and
proportions:
almost all
most
majority
less than half
few
over 90%
75-90%
50-74%
15-49%
up to 15%
Introduction
The education functions of each local authority in
Scotland will be inspected between 2000 and
2005. Section 9 of the Standards in Scotland’s
Schools Etc. Act 2000 charges HM Inspectors of
Schools 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 against a
published framework of quality indicators
(Quality Management in Education) 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. The external
auditor member of the inspection team carries out
a performance management and planning (PMP)
audit of the education functions of the authority.
The inspection team also includes an Associate
Assessor who is a senior member of staff currently
serving in another Scottish local authority.
i
ii
_______________________________
Inspection of the education functions of
East Dunbartonshire Council
1. The aims, nature and scope of the inspection
The education functions of East Dunbartonshire Council
were inspected during the period October to November
2000.
The inspection team interviewed elected members and
officers of the Council. The inspection team also
attended meetings, visited schools and other
establishments in the authority and met with staff,
chairpersons of School Boards and other key stakeholders
of the Education Service. A summary of inspection
activities is given in Appendix 2.
On behalf of HM Inspectors, an independent company
issued and analysed responses to questionnaires to
headteachers of all educational establishments within the
authority and to the chairpersons of the School
Boards/parents’ associations.
2. The Education Service: operational context
Social and economic context
East Dunbartonshire Council was formed out of the
former Strathclyde Region District Councils of Bearsden
and Milngavie and parts of Strathkelvin. It had an
estimated population of 110,690 in 1999. On the whole,
the socio-economic context is an advantaged one. For
example, in 1991, 76.9% of households were owner
occupied. The total unemployment rate of 2.8% in
January 2000 was around half the national average. A
1
baseline survey done for the Council at the time of its
formation stated that ‘The area has a highly skilled and
educated workforce although most work outwith East
Dunbartonshire, reflecting its commuter role’. The free
school meal entitlement (FME) was 9.5% in January
2000, less than half the Scottish average.
Within this overall picture, there are also some pockets of
disadvantage. One of its postcode areas, for example, is
ranked amongst the worst 20% of deprived areas in
Scotland. Another has a high unemployment rate. Three
secondary schools have FME rates of 22, 17 and 15%;
and six primary schools have FME rates which are at, or
well above, the Scottish average of 20.3%.
Political and organisational context
Since its formation up to and including the time of the
inspection, the Council had undergone several political
and organisational changes which affected continuity of
policy and produced uncertainty amongst the staff of the
Council.
The political representation consists of 11 Labour, 10
Liberal Democrat and three Conservative councillors.
The administration changed in October 1999 and is
currently led by the Liberal Democrats. The Council has
an Education and Leisure Services Committee but is
currently reviewing its committee structure. There have
been four changes in the convenorship in education over
the short life of the Council, most recently in October
1999.
The Chief Officer structure has also changed since the
formation of the Council, most recently over 1999-2000.
There is now a new Chief Executive (appointed June
1999), an Assistant Chief Executive and three Strategic
Directors. The Strategic Director (Community), who has
overall responsibility for Education, Social Work,
Housing and Cultural Services, had been in post only for
around two months at the time of the inspection. The
2
officer structure and personnel to support that post had
not been finalised.
At the time of the inspection, three Heads of Service
within education, one responsible for Provision and
Planning, one for Educational Support Services and one
for Educational Development, reported to the Strategic
Director. Each Head of Service was supported by a
professional, administrative and technical team of staff,
some as full-time officers and some on secondment from
schools.
During the financial year 2000-2001, the Council made
significant budget savings in response to Scottish
Executive guidelines. The cuts did not have a large
overall effect on education but the tight financial position
of the Council was an important consideration in the
decision-making of elected members and senior officers.
A Corporate Plan of September 1999 identified five
strategic aims for the Council:
•
delivering quality services through Best Value
•
building strong communities and promoting social
inclusion
•
enhancing quality of life and protecting the local
environment
•
extending local democracy and developing
community leadership
•
protecting and strengthening the identity of East
Dunbartonshire.
As in other areas of the Council’s work the Corporate
Plan and aims were being reviewed in light of
Community Planning requirements.
3
Educational provision and performance
The authority is responsible for nine secondary and 36
primary schools, two special schools and seven special
units/bases, one primary Gaelic-medium unit, 16 nursery
classes, one Gaelic-medium nursery class, one Special
Educational Needs (SEN) nursery class and one nursery
school. The pupil population is around 20,000 of whom
3000 (15%) attend through placing requests. This level
of placing requests indicates the popularity of schooling
in East Dunbartonshire but presents a challenge for the
authority in managing accommodation which is tight,
particularly in secondary schools.
All primary, special and secondary schools have a School
Board.
The Accounts Commission Statutory Performance
Indicators (SPIs) for 1999-2000 show that 58.5% of
children in their pre-school year were in authority
provision, 21.1% in private, 4.8% in independent, and
15.6% in voluntary provision. The authority has done
very well to carry out its aim of providing a place for
every pre-school year child by 2000, and a place for
every three-year old whose parent wishes one.
Statistics for 1998/99 showed that occupancy levels for
primary and secondary schools were well above national
averages. Budgeted running costs for primary and
secondary schools in 1999-2000 are amongst the lowest
in Scotland.
In 1998-99, the Council allocated £53,922,000 to the
revenue budget for education, compared to the Scottish
Executive Grant Aided Expenditure assessment (GAE) of
£58,361,000. In 1999-2000, the revenue budget was
£60,396,000 compared to a GAE of £62,831,000 (both
totals include grants given directly to education under the
Excellence and other Funds). In 2000-2001, the Council
allocated £62,923,000 in revenue budget compared to the
GAE-assessed allocation of £65,245,000.
4
The following commentary draws on key performance
information about the schools in the Council provided
in Appendix 1
Staying on rate and school leaver destinations
•
The percentage of pupils staying on after the
compulsory school leaving age is well above the
national average figure and grew from 72% to 74.2%
between 1997 and 1999.
•
The percentage of pupils entering full-time Higher
Education was well above national averages between
1996-1999 and close to the top of the group of
authorities with similar characteristics. In the same
period, the percentage of leavers entering full-time
Further Education rose to be just above the national
average in 1999, whilst the percentage of leavers
entering employment was below national average
figures over the same period.
5-14 performance
•
National Test results between 1998 and 2000 show
that East Dunbartonshire was well above national
average figures for primary school pupils attaining or
exceeding the expected levels for their stage in
mathematics and reading. It also performed well in
comparison to authorities with similar characteristics.
In writing, East Dunbartonshire had been below
national average figures and at the bottom of the
group of similar authorities in 1998 but by 2000 had
improved to be above the national average. If the
authority achieved the targets set for mathematics and
reading in 2001 as part of the Raising Standards Setting Targets initiative, the extent to which it
performed above the national average would be
reduced. In fact, results for 2000 indicated that the
authority had already exceeded their 2001 targets for
reading and writing.
5
•
National test results in 1998 for S2 pupils in
mathematics, reading and writing indicate lower than
expected performance at the S1/S2 stages. The
percentage of pupils attaining or exceeding expected
levels for their stage was only around the national
average. The authority also performed less well than
almost all of the group of similar authorities. The
targets set by the authority for 2001 as part of the
Raising Standards - Setting Targets initiative indicate
that S2 pupils in East Dunbartonshire would attain
around national average target figures. In fact, results
for 2000 in reading and mathematics had progressed
to be above 2001 targets. The rate of improvement in
writing was slower than the national rate of
improvement.
SQA examination performance
6
•
In Standard Grade performance from 1997-99, the
authority was well above national average figures for
the percentage of the S4 roll gaining 5+ awards at
Credit level. It was close to the top of the group of
authorities with similar characteristics. The rate of
improvement was 3.6% compared to the national rate
of 1.9%. The authority’s target for 1999-2001 would
maintain its relative position compared to the national
average.
•
At Higher Grade from 1997-99, the authority was
well above the national average figures for the
percentage of the S4 roll gaining 3+ and 5+ A-C
awards and above almost all of the similar authorities
group. The percentage of the S4 roll gaining 3+
Higher Grade awards declined by 1.9% between
1997-99. This will present a challenge for the
authority in achieving the target figure it set itself for
3+ Higher Grades in 2001. By 1999, good progress
had been made towards achievement of the 5+ Higher
Grade figure.
National Certificate performance
•
For the percentage of the S5/S6 roll gaining 3+ NC
modules, East Dunbartonshire was 5.6% below the
national average figure in 1997, 6.5% below in 1998
and 6.4% below in 1999.
Attendance and absence
•
Between 1997-98 and 1999-2000, the percentage of
total absences in primary schools was below the
national average. The authority’s 2001 target for
improving attendance in primary schools was the
same as its 1999 starting point figure and the national
average target. Again, improvement meant that the
authority exceeded its target in 2000.
•
Between 1997-98 and 1999-2000, the percentage of
total absences in secondary schools was below the
national average but higher than all but one of the
group of authorities with similar characteristics. The
authority’s 2001 target for improving attendance in
secondary schools was for a one percent reduction in
the number of half days absence per secondary pupil.
The rate of improvement meant that the authority had
exceeded its target by 2000.
•
There had been a reduction in exclusions from 707 in
1998-99 to 585 in 1999-2000.
7
3. Strategic management of the service
Vision, value and aims
The series of political and organisational changes the
Council was experiencing, together with the current
budgetary problems, had presented very challenging
circumstances for establishing and delivering aims and
policies in a coherent and decisive way.
For all that, however, the authority had been particularly
slow in establishing a clear and distinctive vision for
education. This area of the authority’s work was
unsatisfactory. At the time of the inspection, over 4 years
after its establishment, many school staff and almost all
School Board chairpersons were unable to identify a
vision, values or aims for education. There was a set of
aims which had been prepared as a draft and which was
used in some policy statements. There was no public
declaration that these had been adopted as final aims.
Many stakeholders were unaware of the status of the draft
and felt that the authority was visionless. There was no
consensus about, or sense of ownership of, the direction
of the service and no means of evaluating success in its
work. Establishments largely developed their own aims
in isolation from each other and from the authority. The
Council’s corporate aims were also being reviewed in
light of its forthcoming Community Plan. Currently,
these aims did not give a strong message about how
important education would be to achieving improvements
for citizens in East Dunbartonshire. Within various
service areas or delivery areas of education, for example,
early intervention, there were clear operational aims and
staff were working very hard and with a lot of success to
implement these. However much of this work was not
linked in systematically to an overarching strategy.
8
Leadership and management
Despite routine business being taken forward in a mainly
satisfactory way, the leadership and management of
education within the Council had been unsatisfactory.
The following major weaknesses were apparent.
•
Management had been too reactive to events with the
result that the service had been slow in considering
and tackling major strategic issues, such as Service
Planning and quality development. Senior
management meetings within the service, and
meetings with headteachers, spent too much time on
day-to-day business and providing information.
•
There had been a failure to define and set out the
roles and mutual expectations of central officers and
of headteachers as senior managers within the
authority. In important areas of its work, there was
little sense of partnership between authority staff and
a significant number of headteachers, particularly, but
not exclusively, in the secondary sector. In some
cases, a relationship of trust between the authority
and schools had broken down and the leadership had
not been able to resolve this unsatisfactory situation.
•
Heads of Service were committed and hardworking
but did not function fully as a team in key areas of
policy. At times, these officers had to deal with
important and sensitive issues without a framework of
policy advice and direction, and with insufficient
support.
•
Senior managers had not reviewed the performance of
officers effectively. There had been no system of
review and development until very recently. Heads of
Service and their teams did not have adequate
opportunities to have their strengths recognised and
support given to tackle areas of weakness.
9
•
Elected members did not have a full picture of the
performance of education within the Council.
Education was seen as a high-performing, smoothrunning and successful service. Although in many
respects this was true, the analysis did not identify
areas of under-performance or the opportunity to
build on good performance to make the authority
‘best in class’. Elected members needed to debate
and challenge reports and papers more.
Policy development
The quality of policy development was fair. There was
no overall policy framework. The authority had a
number of useful policies and procedures, some of which
it had inherited from Strathclyde Regional Council but
which were still serviceable. Some policies in day-to-day
areas of work or in development projects such as writing
were good. A promising policy on able pupils had not
been carried through.
More recently, the authority had been producing several
key policies. There was a useful draft policy on Special
Educational Needs. Policies on school development
planning and Standards and Quality reports were
beginning to make an impact, particularly in primary
schools. Policies on quality assurance and school
improvement had also been produced but were not seen
by some schools as clear in setting out roles,
responsibilities, procedures and expectations.
Implementation was uneven. The policy on staff review
(Promoting Professional Learning) was widely seen by
many headteachers as unclear and unhelpful in terms of
practical implementation. There was no system for
review of headteachers, and the authority would not be
able to meet Scottish Ministers’ expectations on the
implementation of staff review.
Overall, strategic management of education was
unsatisfactory. The new Strategic Director saw the need
for major improvements. She and the Chief Executive
10
had already taken steps to ensure that education would
link more closely into corporate structures and policies.
Both had been working very hard to produce more
systematic corporate and Service Planning, better
budgeting and a system of staff review. They had also
recognised that education was not well enough integrated
with other services and were heavily involved in
implementing a new structure for the management of the
education and other services.
However, the vision for education in the life of the people
of East Dunbartonshire remained to some extent
indistinct. The inspection team had reservations about
whether the new service structure, which separated the
management of headteachers from the management of
quality in schools, and on which there had been little
consultation with headteachers, would be able to tackle
the urgent priorities in education. There were very
challenging tasks which needed to be done quickly,
particularly those of establishing a relationship of trust
with all schools, and defining the roles and expectations
of headteachers and the authority in support and
challenge for quality assurance and quality improvement.
4. Consultation and communication
The effectiveness of the authority’s approach to
consultation about education was unsatisfactory. Its
communication was fair. There was no effective
consultation strategy and the Education Service had not
defined the key stakeholders with whom they should
consult and communicate.
The inspection survey showed that although most
headteachers (75%) acknowledged the high level of
commitment which senior managers showed to the
promotion of quality, just less than half (47%) thought
that they communicated a clear overall vision. Even
fewer (44%) felt that, as heads of establishments, they
11
had been appropriately consulted on the direction and
priorities of the Service Plan.
Headteachers were not effectively consulted on the
authority’s budget and spending plans, or about the
provision of key services such as human resources and
property repairs and maintenance. Secondary
headteachers had not been properly involved in shaping
authority policies on quality assurance, staff development
and review and continuous improvement. Some felt
marginalised. They felt that the authority relied too much
on written mechanisms and should provide more
opportunities for open discussion of policy developments.
Consultations had short timescales and the results were
not always fed back to establishments. Some
headteachers doubted whether officers took full account
of their views. Although the authority circulated minutes
of meetings and education committee reports, it did not
organise formal launches of new policies. Some
headteachers remained uncertain about whether draft
policies had been finalised.
The pre-inspection survey showed that headteachers had
varied views on the effectiveness of communication in
the key area of quality development. Almost all primary
headteachers (89%) and most heads of pre-school (63%)
and SEN establishments (75%), said they were clear
about the department’s policy and procedures for quality
development. Only a very small minority of secondary
headteachers shared this view. Similar sectoral
differences were apparent in perceptions of the
authority’s role in reviewing development plans and in
encouraging systematic approaches to monitoring and
evaluation. The extensive written guidance on quality
development designed to address this uncertainty was not
clear and succinct enough to function as practical
working documents.
Heads of primary and pre-school establishments attended
regular meetings with Heads of Service and engaged in
12
joint projects with the authority. Relationships between
secondary headteachers and the Educational
Development Service were often strained and sometimes
acrimonious. As a consequence, the previous system of
regular formal meetings between the Educational
Development Service and secondary headteachers had
fallen into abeyance in 1999, although productive contact
was maintained with individuals.
The Educational Development Service had established
strategy groups to address concerns about consultation
and communication. These groups brought together
headteachers, education officers and external consultants
to plan developments in a number of priority areas
relating to quality development. Some groups had
achieved successful outcomes, for example, the
publication of school development planning guidelines.
Others had been unproductive, partly because of
difficulties in establishing effective co-operation among
all parties. Some heads of establishments on these groups
did not give sufficient priority to consulting and
communicating with their headteacher colleagues on the
matters discussed. The system of strategy groups had
recently been suspended.
Despite these serious difficulties, there were some areas
of strength in the authority’s approaches to
communication and consultation.
•
Most senior promoted staff in schools were clear
about the role of officers with regard to their
establishments (81%) and found Education
Department staff to be prompt and helpful in
responding to contacts (79%). The recently-produced
Education Development Service team handbook
provided useful information.
•
Teaching unions felt well consulted at a strategic
level, although not always within individual schools.
The Joint Consultative Council provided good
13
opportunities for officers and representatives of
teaching unions to discuss issues and priorities and to
develop joint approaches to policy making.
•
Professional Development Groups provided a
valuable forum for principal teachers in secondary
schools to discuss current developments, share good
practice and engage in joint planning.
•
The authority had produced informative leaflets about
SEN services and had effectively consulted on
important aspects of SEN policy and resource
allocation.
•
The authority used effective methods for
communicating with nursery and primary teachers
about approaches to raising attainment. Officers
ensured that teachers were involved in planning
recent curricular initiatives. All primary teachers had
taken part in well-organised and effective in-service
courses on aspects of writing. Primary and secondary
teachers had attended similar courses in mathematics.
As a result, key messages had been communicated
successfully to all schools.
•
The authority provided some good opportunities for
classroom practitioners to be involved in its work at
operational level, for example, through membership
of implementation groups. Officers also arranged
regular meetings which brought together staff with
particular responsibilities within their own
establishments, for example, co-ordinators of staff
development, and senior teachers.
School Board chairpersons shared the concerns about
communication and consultation expressed by
headteachers. In their response to the pre-inspection
survey, most indicated that they were aware of how well
their schools were performing (86%) and what they had
to do to implement Education Department plans (80%).
Almost all (93%) were clear about how to channel views,
14
enquiries and complaints. However, less than half
thought that the Education Department was good at
letting them know about its policies and plans for
education (36%) or that they could access good
information about the quality of education across the
authority as a whole (41%). The majority (63%) did not
find the system for allocating finance and other resources
to schools clear and understandable.
The authority had recognised the need to develop its
approaches to consultation and communication with
School Boards and had begun to take some appropriate
steps. It had established a School Board Forum,
following concerns about lack of involvement in
discussions about the previous year’s budget. The Forum
had started to provide valuable opportunities for School
Board representatives to discuss important issues with
council officers and elected members. The Strategic
Director (Community) had embarked on a series of visits
to School Boards in order to improve the quality of
communication.
School Board chairs generally felt that headteachers gave
them good information about matters concerning their
school. They also received education committee reports.
However, some were concerned about a lack of induction
by the authority for their role in chairing a Board.
In general, schools were responsible for consulting and
communicating with parents and pupils. The authority
itself did not use systematic methods to survey parental
opinion. However, the SEN Parents’ Forum provided
parents of pupils attending special educational needs
establishments with valuable opportunities to discuss
relevant issues. Parents of pupils with special
educational needs in mainstream schools expressed the
view that they would benefit from similar opportunities.
The authority needed to explore further approaches to
consultation with parents, pupils and the community in
general.
15
There was no strategy for public performance reporting in
education. Officers provided regular reports to the
education committee on national and local priorities, on
the results of quality development visits to establishments
and on analyses of attainment in schools. These reports
were not sufficiently evaluative to enable parents and
elected members to make an informed assessment of
performance across the authority. Although some
headteachers had produced reports on the quality of their
own establishments, the authority had yet to publish a
report on standards and quality in East Dunbartonshire
schools.
5. Operational Management
Service Planning
Overall, Service Planning was fair, particularly at
strategic level. The Council was revising its approach to
corporate planning and to the preparation of Service
Plans within a corporate framework. The process of
planning within the Education Service was not
sufficiently systematic. It did not take full account of the
views of all stakeholders in identifying priorities.
Coherent, cyclical approaches to planning had yet to be
established.
The overall Service Plan for education for 2000-2001
comprised sections on Educational Provision and
Planning, Educational Support Services and Educational
Development. Each section took good account of
national priorities such as raising attainment, social
inclusion, implementation of the Higher Still programme,
and activities to promote information and
communications technology (ICT) within the National
Grid for Learning project. The plan also reflected the
Council’s priority of expanding pre-school and special
16
educational needs provision. However, there had been
little systematic use of information on establishments to
identify priorities for improvement.
The Service Plan was supplemented by a detailed
development plan for the Educational Development
Service. It was this document which schools thought was
the full Service Plan. Schools were also given a list of
authority priorities each year which they in turn were
expected to include in their school development plans. In
addition, officers working within the Educational Support
Services had prepared development plans for their areas
of responsibility. While these plans provided useful
working documents for the officers involved, their format
varied and some lacked rigour and clarity.
There were weaknesses in the structure and content of the
overall education Service Plan. The plan identified links
with the Council’s core aims but did not set out clearly
the aims of the Education Service and its key priorities.
The wide range of development plans had not been
brought together systematically as part of a coherent
overall plan. The very good format which had been
introduced recently for establishment plans was not
reflected in all sections of the Service Plan. Priorities for
improvement had been identified through some audits of
aspects of provision, but there was no overall audit
section in the Service Plan. Best Value reviews had not
yet been used for identifying priorities. For most
priorities, the Service Plan did not include sufficient
information on resource requirements, responsibilities
and timescales for implementation, criteria for measuring
success, and procedures for monitoring progress. These
details were sometimes located within development plans
for aspects of the service.
Some of the specific action plans for improvement, for
example, in the Educational Development Service Plan,
were of good quality. This was noted in relation to
current projects, for example, to improve writing and
17
mathematics, training for self-evaluation based on How
good is our school?1, and the National Grid for Learning.
Although there was a lack of clarity on policy for
continuous professional development, staff development
organised by the authority was beginning to show
consistent good quality.
Deployment and effectiveness of centrallyemployed staff
Since its inception, the Council had not given sufficient
priority to deployment of staff to its central functions of
quality assurance and school improvement. An overreliance on secondments had resulted in lack of
continuity in staffing, mainly within the Educational
Development Team. This had prevented the service from
achieving fully efficient and effective deployment of staff
and resulted in some important weaknesses.
Each of the three Heads of Service had pastoral
responsibility for schools within an area of the Council.
This pastoral function had not been properly defined and
was interpreted unevenly. The authority had not set out
its responsibilities for line management of headteachers.
Overall responsibility for the management of quality
assurance and development lay almost entirely with the
Head of the Educational Development Service. She led
the educational development team which comprised three
permanent and thirteen seconded staff. Three of these
secondees had particular responsibility for quality
assurance and improvement. All of the team had welldefined remits and were clear about their respective
responsibilities. However, the nature of their deployment
made it difficult for them to build up and sustain their
knowledge of individual establishments and to follow up
1
How good is our school? - Self-evaluation using performance indicators (Audit Unit
– HM Inspectors of Schools, SOEID, 1996)
18
priorities for improvement with establishments on a longterm basis.
Two staff within Educational Support Services also had
responsibilities for aspects of quality assurance and
improvement. A quality development officer was
responsible for providing professional support and
guidance to ensure high quality pre-school provision.
She was assisted by two seconded teachers. A principal
officer had responsibility for all aspects of provision for
special educational needs. There was sometimes a lack
of continuity across sectors. For example, there was no
close link between pre-school provision and the
developments in early intervention, which were led by
the Educational Development Team. Learning support
and special educational needs staff, however, had very
strong links with psychological services.
Within these constraints, staff had been generally
effective in managing their remits to achieve planned
priorities.
•
Individual officers were capable and showed
commendable commitment to their remits. Support
for the pre-school and special education sectors and
for Early Intervention projects was particularly
valued.
•
There was a strong sense of teamwork within the
Educational Development Team. Secondees were
well supported by the Head of Service, with whom
they regularly reviewed progress in implementing
their remits. However, there was no planned
programme of induction, staff development and staff
review.
•
Each small team worked very well together. Those
involved in gathering information on the quality of
provision in establishments had recognised the need
for greater rigour in their activities and evaluations.
19
As the new structure for the Education Service is
finalised and implemented, high priority should be given
to improving the overall strategic management and
deployment of staff for quality assurance and quality
development.
Some other Council departments provided services to
education. There was a widespread perception amongst
headteachers and School Board chairpersons of important
weaknesses in aspects of the effectiveness of these
services.
•
They felt that there was a generally poor level of
response from the Council service dealing with
property maintenance.
•
Headteachers felt that central management of human
resources was not always effective administratively,
resulting in difficulties relating to the recruitment of
school staff.
6. Resource and financial management
Resource management
The quality of resource management was fair, with
important issues needing to be addressed.
Over the past three years, the Council had allocated
resources below the Grant Aided Expenditure (GAE)
assessment to support education. Links were beginning
to be made between budget setting and strategic planning
processes, but could be developed further. It was
difficult to ascertain how priorities were decided and
whether budget savings reflected Council policy
priorities. It appears that resources were focused on core
activities required by legislation and those contributing to
the Council’s overall strategic aims. Strategic plans
20
prepared by the Education Department did not contain
any budgetary information.
Resource allocation was governed, in the main, by the
level of central settlement received for the Council as a
whole and the need for the Council to set an overall
budget within tight limits. Schools, School Boards, and
other stakeholders in education were unable to discern
any explicit rationale for the allocation of education
resources in line with specific education priorities derived
from overall Council aims and strategies. Schools and
School Boards were very critical about the lack of
transparency in budget allocations to education and some
at least felt that the Council wished to reduce education
expenditure. That climate had been exacerbated by
perceptions about how the 2000-2001 budget cuts had
been handled.
The Education Department, along with the rest of the
Council, had been required to offer up cost savings. As
part of this exercise, it was noted that such savings could
only be achieved if specific grant (Excellence Fund)
monies were used to support mainstream provision.
However, the Scottish Executive Education Department
indicated that, in general, such reallocations of resources
were not possible, although some flexibility was allowed
to take account of slippages. In the event, savings in
education had been much less than many had feared.
Disquiet was also expressed by schools and other
stakeholders regarding the level of recharges incurred for
support for education from other Council departments
such as human resources. The basis and level of these
charges was not formally agreed with the service
departments through the mechanism of a Service Level
Agreement. Without any formal agreements in place, the
Education Department could not establish if it was
receiving value for money for the support service
received or if the support service was providing the
required quality. In addition, the budgeted allocation at
the start of the year might not have been in line with
21
actual cost, but budget adjustments were not made during
the year. Education staff, both at the centre and at
schools commented on their dissatisfaction with this
system, both in terms of the lack of transparency
regarding cost and the quality of some of the central
services received.
The Council was aware of deficiencies in its approach to
resource management and had begun to take action. A
structured approach was adopted across the Council in
1999 for the production of a three-year budget covering
2000-2003. This was the first time that a formal threeyear budget planning process had been adopted. To
address the linkage of strategy and budgets, the Council
had also established a Strategic Budget Group in April
2000.
A capital plan for the three-year period 2000-2003 had
been presented to the education committee. It was
unclear how the projects contained within this plan were
prioritised. The Council had recognised that significant
resources were required to raise the standard of its school
accommodation. HM Inspectors of Schools’ school
inspection reports had repeatedly referred to
accommodation difficulties in schools. The capital
allocation available to the Education Department was
inadequate and the Council was now starting to explore
the possibility of a Private Public Partnership (PPP)
approach to financing capital expenditure.
A new Council IT strategy was under development. The
existing 1997 strategy did not address the needs of
individual departments. Staff within the Education
Department were unable to clearly identify a strategic
approach to the development of ICT, although plans for
roll-out to schools of resources provided under the
National Grid for Learning were sound.
The Education Department had initiated or participated in
a number of Best Value type reviews, for example,
covering education directorate administrative support. In
22
addition, the Department had conducted a detailed review
of administration support for schools following the
guidance contained in Time for Teaching. It is too early
to say if these reviews will result in increased efficiencies
or effectiveness. Further reviews are currently being
considered as part of the corporate Best Value strategy.
The Council participated in a major benchmarking
exercise with four other councils over the last two years.
The final report from this exercise became available in
August 2000 and the Education Department was still
considering how the comparative data for education
could be used. Apart from this exercise, benchmarking
had only been used within the context of Best Value
reviews. The other performance data collected were
those relating to Statutory Performance Indicators and
nationally-provided statistics to do with the performance
of schools.
There were no targets or measures set for improved
resource usage apart from the requirement to remain
within budget. The budget will have inbuilt savings
although these are not monitored separately.
Financial management
The quality of financial management was fair.
The Council’s Financial Regulations had not been
updated since 1997. There did not appear to be a set of
procedures or regulations in common usage.
The bulk of the Education Department budgets (80%)
were held at school level through the Devolved
Management of Resources (DMR) scheme. There was a
set of DMR procedures and a DMR working group
involving headteachers to constantly review and discuss
issues arising from DMR although the last minuted
record was in autumn 1999. DMR training had been
effective.
23
The job of monitoring schools’ budgets was carried out
by Administrative and Finance Assistants (AFA)
allocated to each secondary/primary school ‘cluster’. The
AFA received a monthly budget monitoring report which
was used by the headteacher of each school and the AFA
to control expenditure. Headteachers commented that the
role of the AFA was successful and appreciated.
Education Department managers also considered that this
arrangement for budget monitoring worked well.
Central department budgets were monitored by the
relevant Head of Service as budget holder. Monthly
budget reports were produced for each budget but simply
showed variances to date without projecting forward to
the year end.
One of the education Heads of Service was specifically
responsible for all budget monitoring and liaising with
appropriate staff. Budget issues had been discussed by
the Education Department senior management team. The
minutes of their meetings did not clearly show the
outcomes of such discussions in terms of actions to be
taken.
Budgetary performance was also discussed by the
corporate management team. A budget monitoring report
to the Policy and Resources Committee lists variances
and their likely year end impact. Recently, financial
reports had started to be provided to the education
committee on a six-week cycle containing information on
progress in achieving savings, revenue budget variances,
and capital budget progress reports. The variances did
not show expenditure and income in specific areas. The
production of such reports is a relatively new initiative
and it is too early to ascertain its impact.
There were no other comprehensive reports which could
enable the education management team to review
financial performance on a regular (say monthly) basis.
In addition, there was no written record, shared by the
24
management team, that showed in detail actions to be
taken to resolve slippages or variances.
Financial support for the Education Department was
provided by central finance staff located in an Education
Department building. These staff were line managed
through the finance department but undertook work for
the Head of Service responsible for financial matters
whom they regarded as a client. The Education
Department bore the cost of this financial support but in
the past there has been no agreement in place specifying
the basis of this cost and the type and quality of service to
be provided. Although formal agreements were now
starting to be developed the successful operation of this
arrangement was dependent on the goodwill of all staff
involved.
7. Performance monitoring and continuous improvement
Measuring, monitoring and evaluating
performance
The quality of work in this area was fair. Over the past
two years, however, the authority had put in place some
useful mechanisms for measuring, monitoring and
evaluating its own and schools’ performance.
A school improvement team had been established to
monitor and evaluate school performance. New
guidelines on school development planning, including a
new and useful template for the plan, had been produced.
School development plans were produced in line with
authority guidelines and the school improvement team
had collaborated in approving the plans using criteria
which had been shared with schools. Schools received
written approval of plans and, where appropriate, were
notified on an individual school basis of aspects of the
plan which required further work. The school
improvement team was following up the production of
25
the plans by visiting all schools to discuss general issues
related to the plan which had arisen out of the approval
and scrutiny process.
The authority’s revised guidance for school development
planning had resulted in better plans and a more effective
approval and feedback process for schools. It now
needed to consider how to give more direct support to
schools in the audit, planning and implementation
processes.
The authority was at an early stage in the introduction of
Standards and Quality reports from individual schools.
Advice had been produced based on the Scottish
Executive Education Department guidelines but there was
still some confusion amongst schools on key aspects of
the process.
A further important element in the authority’s
mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating its schools
was the notion of ‘quality visits’. These involved officers
from the school improvement team carrying out a
programme of visits to schools on themes such as
consultation and communication, support for pupils,
writing, and annually on attainment. Headteachers
completed a pre-visit questionnaire and the visit itself
lasted around two hours and was followed by a report
agreed with the schools. Composite reports on each
theme were presented to the Education and Leisure
Services Committee.
The programme of quality visits demonstrated a
commitment by the authority to improve its quality
assurance processes and to obtain an overall picture of
the performance of its schools in particular aspects of
provision. Headteachers generally welcomed the
opportunity they had to discuss aspects of performance
based on evidence they had gathered. The visits firmly
established the principles of supported self-evaluation
and the reports produced commended success and
26
achievement in individual schools and highlighted areas
for improvement.
Currently, the quality visits lacked rigour and Best Value
challenge and comparison. They drew on too limited a
range of activities and evidence in the schools. The
individual school reports and collated reports to the
Committee were too descriptive. The authority’s preinspection reports on schools to HMI were also of a very
general nature due to the lack of specific information on
the performance of individual schools. Individual
schools should be targeted to celebrate achievements and
address under-achievement. There was also a need for
follow-up progress checks in individual schools to be
built specifically into the quality visit process and for
authority trends to be identified and acted upon.
The authority was at an early stage in its approaches to
systematically collecting and analysing statistical data on
pupil attainment. In the Early Intervention initiative, it
had established a testing regime in P1, P2 and P3 in 13
pilot schools. Though some teachers expressed concern
at the validity of the tests and the approaches used for
conducting tests, this was a useful attempt by the
authority to monitor performance of schools in the Early
Intervention initiative and measure added value. The
authority was also examining trends where data showed
that further support may be required, for example, on
gender. An attempt was being made to examine
attainment data relating to 5-14 levels in P1, P2 and P3 in
all primary schools. The outcome should ensure that
assessment and evaluation processes in early intervention
are valid and that staff have confidence in the assessment.
5-14 attainment targets for June 2002 and starting and
current levels of performance in reading, writing and
mathematics had recently been published in a leaflet for
schools and School Boards. This was the authority’s first
attempt at producing such information. There was no
apparent attempt to explain the information and no
27
indication of how such information could be used to
benchmark performance or to raise standards. There is
clearly a need for those involved in collecting and
presenting data on 5-14 to work closely with the
Educational Development Service in analysing,
interpreting and acting on the information, for example,
re-negotiation of targets where appropriate. There is also
a need for the authority to reconsider its position on 5-14
Assessment and Reporting in that all 5-14 attainment
information in reading, writing and mathematics is
presented only in terms of 5-14 National Test results.
The authority had commissioned an external evaluation
of its writing initiative which provided performance
information on improvements in learning and teaching,
pupils’ attitudes to writing and in attainment. The
attainment information in the evaluation was not specific
nor quantified, though the authority had since provided
information to headteachers from the Raising Standards Setting Targets initiative which demonstrated that overall
performance in writing had dramatically improved from
its low starting point in 1998.
In the analysis, interpretation and use of attainment
information, individual secondary schools were using
information provided through national Standard Tables
and had benefited from an input from the East
Renfrewshire EMIS unit. More recently, some useful
analysis had been produced at authority level for 5-14
attainment in S1/S2 and for Standard Grade. These
approaches have potential in terms of performance
monitoring and evaluation but need to be planned and
used more systematically through discussion amongst the
Educational Development Team, management
information operations and the secondary schools
themselves.
Overall, the authority was engaged in some useful
performance monitoring activities but there was a lack of
a coherent strategy to ensure appropriate support and
28
challenge to all involved in monitoring standards and
improving quality. The authority should seek to deploy
officers in ways that ensure consistency and continuity in
the authority’s knowledge of the performance of its
schools. The authority should also consider how a staff
review and development process for headteachers will
link to its system of quality assurance. As a matter of
priority, the authority should provide further guidance to
schools to clarify roles and responsibilities in monitoring
learning and teaching.
Continuous improvement in performance
There were many examples of authority officers and
teams giving well-judged and effective support for preschool and school education. Recently, some of the
improvement work had begun to show an impact on the
areas targeted for support. The impact of support was
much more evident in pre-school, primary and support for
learning than in secondary schools. Support generally
was not tailored to the individual needs of schools.
Because of these deficiencies, because some of the
developments had been slow in starting, and because
continuity was dubious due to reliance on secondments to
support initiatives, continuous improvement was fair.
Support for school self-evaluation
The authority had been slow in promoting the use of the
processes set out in How good is our school? to support
school self-evaluation. In the past two years the authority
had picked up the pace and very effective staff
development activities had been delivered to all teaching
staff in primary schools and principal teachers in
secondary schools. The authority’s recent efforts were
helping to promote a self-evaluative culture, through the
use of performance indicators, which was beginning to
permeate into classrooms.
The approach the authority has taken to promote
professional learning through individual and collective
29
self-review had some potential, if clarified and simplified,
to develop an effective mechanism for teaching staff to
reflect on current practice and identify staff development
needs which can then be addressed at school and
authority levels.
Support for pre-school education
This was a strength. Starting from a low threshold, preschool provision had been expanded rapidly through
building up the authority’s own nursery provision and
through making effective partnership arrangements.
Good support had been provided for quality development
in partnership centres such as playgroups. Improvements
were evident, for example, in centres which had
experienced difficulties in registration by HM Inspectors
of Schools. Staff reported that training was effective in
priority areas such as the use of performance indicators
for evaluation, early numeracy and free play. There was
now a need for better links in the work of pre-school and
early years support officers and teams to bring about
more continuity of policies from pre-school to early years
in primary schools.
Support for primary schools
Thirteen schools were involved in the Early Intervention
initiative supported through the Excellence Fund. An
Early Intervention team had provided good support to
schools in terms of learning and teaching and resources
for literacy and numeracy. Teachers valued the support,
particularly the in-class support by a member of the team.
The work of the Network Support Team added value to
the initiative in terms of advice and support to teaching
staff and support for individual children.
The evaluation and an analysis of 5-14 level attainment
demonstrated that early intervention was beginning to
have an impact on improved learning and teaching and on
attainment. The beneficial impact of the Early
Intervention initiative and associated support had not
30
rolled out to other primary schools beyond those in the
initiative or to other stages of the primary school beyond
P1, P2 and P3. This is the next logical step for the
authority to take.
There was no clear strategy or programme for the
development and implementation of the 5-14 curriculum
in primary schools. The concentration since the
introduction of the Raising Standards - Setting Targets
initiative had been on writing development. The
authority’s interesting ‘supported conference’ approach
to staff development in writing had been well received by
teaching staff and evaluation demonstrated a clear
improvement in learning and teaching and in attainment.
Attainment in writing had risen beyond the original June
2001 target. A similar ‘supported conference’ approach
had recently been adopted for mathematics development.
Some of the messages were already being used
successfully in schools. While the ‘supported
conference’ approach had been successful in ensuring
that a common message was given to all staff, the
authority should now consider a strategy for improvement
in primary schools which differentiates support needs for
individual schools.
Cluster groups involving primary and secondary schools
submitted bids for funding for development projects.
Current projects covered modern languages, ICT and
aspects of English language. There was no clear
evidence of the impact of these projects on school
improvement or that they were related to a broader
strategy for 5-14 developments or for primary/secondary
continuity. A clear strategy for the development of all
aspects of the 5-14 programme should be established
including the place of cluster group developments and
other support mechanisms.
Support for secondary schools
The Excellence Fund was beginning to be used well in
Supported Study initiatives. After a pilot of study
31
support in S1/S2, it had now been extended to all stages
of all secondary schools and one special school (and was
due to be extended to primary schools). Monitoring of
schools’ proposals for programmes was systematic.
There were examples of good practice such as focusing
on pupils who were most likely to benefit from study
support, and programmes in study skills and personal and
social education. It was too early to judge the impact of
study support on pupils’ performance.
Support for 5-14 implementation and S1/S2
developments, both areas of under-performance in
secondary schools, had been very limited indeed. 5-14
implementation in secondary schools had only been
recognised as an authority priority in session 1999-2000
and there was no authority time-line for implementation.
Secondary schools had benefited from the recent staff
development in 5-14 mathematics but, partly because
some of them were disinclined to support Educational
Development Team initiatives, had not been part of the
successful writing staff development. There had been no
noticeable thrust to support the national Raising
Standards - Setting Targets initiative for secondary
schools.
To take forward subject and support for learning
developments in secondary schools, the Educational
Development Team had taken the promising steps of
setting up Professional Development Groups. These
groups, each chaired by an educational development
officer, brought together principal teachers from across
the authority to identify and plan to meet common needs,
to share good practice and to address ideas for
improvement. Some groups had already demonstrated
good practice such as through inviting successful
practitioners from outwith the area to meet with them,
support for Higher Still or producing helpful teaching
materials. The success of the groups had been uneven up
till now and more guidance was needed on the role of the
chairpersons. Nevertheless, this development had
32
potential which the teachers recognised and the authority
had proved willing to support.
Using Excellence Fund finance, the Educational
Development Service had supported Higher Still through
providing a seconded authority co-ordinator, funding
specific posts within each school for a period of time, and
through resources and training. There had been some
discontinuity arising from the ending of one seconded
post and the commencement of another and because of
the complex administrative demands arising from the
SQA difficulties. However, senior promoted and middle
management staff in schools felt for the most part that
Higher Still had been well supported. Based on an
authority audit, there was a clear implementation plan
and timeline for the introduction of Higher Still. Good
plans for further progress had been made. Training for all
subject staff, additional to national training, had been
appreciated. Objectives had been met or were on course
to being met.
Support for learning
Schools generally welcomed the support they had from
authority staff in several specialist areas to do with
supporting the needs of individual pupils. There was
evidence of good practice in helping schools in areas
such as learning support, English as an Additional
Language, language and communication, and for pupils
with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties.
Recently, there had been good training in Individualised
Educational Programmes. The extension of the
Excellence Fund Alternatives to Exclusion project from a
pilot in a few schools to all secondary schools had been
supported by some additional staffing.
Support for schools under inspection
Overall, those primary schools in the authority which had
been inspected were successful in addressing HMI
recommendations for improvements. Guidance for
33
schools on pre and post-inspection procedures had been
disseminated. There were some recent signs of
improvement in providing support to schools in taking
forward the implementation of follow-up action plans.
8. How well does the authority perform overall?
Overview
In the four and a half years of its existence, East
Dunbartonshire Council had limited success in supporting
improvements in the many schools which performed
well, or in tackling areas of under-performance. Largely,
this was due to lack of effective leadership. A
convincing vision for education had not been established
and educational improvement had not been given a high
enough priority in the work of the Council. Planning to
achieve overall objectives was weak. In many instances,
schools had performed well through their own individual
efforts.
These difficulties were compounded by a failure to
consult and communicate effectively with education’s
main stakeholders. In some cases, particularly with
secondary schools, a relationship of trust, essential to
partnership for improvement, had broken down.
There were individual areas of good work. These
demonstrated that when it worked well with schools the
authority could indeed secure improvements.
New senior officers in the Council were beginning to
tackle areas of weakness. Alongside improvements to
planning, they now need to work in partnership, mainly
with schools but also with other stakeholders, to define a
vision and agree goals for education in East
Dunbartonshire. They need as a matter of urgency to
34
re-establish relationships with headteachers in a context
of support and challenge for continuous improvement.
Key Strengths
•
Responsive and hardworking officers and seconded
staff who were effective and skilled in their individual
contributions.
•
Good supportive teamwork within the various officer
and seconded staff teams.
•
Effective contributions to the support of schools in
some service areas.
•
Some good actions for improvement which were
beginning to produce beneficial effects on the quality
of education in pre-school, early intervention and 514 writing.
9. Main points for action
HM Inspectors will re-visit the authority to assess
progress in meeting these recommendations. The local
authority has been asked to prepare and make public an
action plan, within eight weeks of the publication of this
report, indicating how it will address the following main
points for action in this report.
•
Senior officers should work in partnership with key
stakeholders to establish a vision, values and aims for
education which link to a corporate vision and goals.
•
As a matter of high priority, senior officers should
work with headteachers to agree mutual roles and
expectations. In particular, roles and expectations in
consultation, communication and in respect of quality
assurance and quality development should be agreed.
35
•
The authority should review the deployment of staff
and resources to quality assurance and quality
development so that local and national priorities can
be addressed effectively and sustained.
•
Open and transparent procedures for consultation and
communication with stakeholders over strategies,
plans, and allocation of resources and budgets, along
with means of public performance reporting, should
be developed.
•
Systematic Service Planning for the education
service, linked to local and national priorities, with
clear objectives and success criteria, and including
strategic use of Best Value reviews should be
introduced and implemented.
•
In continuing to improve resource and financial
management, the authority should ensure: that
strategic planning and budgetary processes are linked;
that three-year planning is developed to enable
longer-term decisions to be taken; that the capital plan
is revised in line with strategic objectives and options
for alternative sources of finance to improve
accommodation standards are explored; that a
comprehensive financial monitoring report is
developed that can be used by the Educational
Management Team to examine spending to date,
slippages, variances and actions to be taken; and that
the basis for cross-charges is clearly explained and
agreed by all parties.
Bill Clark
36
HM Chief Inspector of Schools
Quality, Standards and Audit Division
February 2001
37
Appendix 1
Performance information
Statistical indicators
•
In relation to the Raising Standards – Setting Targets
initiative, East Dunbartonshire Council set itself the
following targets to minimise the average number of
half-days absence per pupil in primary and secondary
schools by 2000/01.
Primary
Secondary
•
Starting Level
(1997-1998)
Current Level
(1999-2000)
Target Level
(2000-2001)
18
21
36
43
16
19
33
41
18
18
35
36
E. Dunbartonshire
National
E. Dunbartonshire
National
Exclusion from schools
1998-1999
1999-2000
707
0
585
0
Total exclusions
Removal from roll
•
% school pupils staying on to S5 (post Christmas)
E. Dunbartonshire
National
Av. similar councils 1
1
1997
1998
1999
72.0
64.1
69.1
72.6
63.9
69.0
74.2
64.7
71.7
Av. similar councils refers to the group of education authorities which are most
similar to each other in terms of various socio-economic and demographic factors.
38
• Pupil destinations
% Entering Full-Time
Higher Education
1996/97
1997/98
1998/99
E. Dunbartonshire
National
Av. similar councils
43.1
29.0
36.7
43.5
29.6
36.0
39.1
31.0
37.0
% Entering Full-Time
Further Education
E. Dunbartonshire
National
Av. similar councils
15.7
18.3
18.7
17.7
18.6
19.9
18.7
18.5
20.2
% Entering
Employment
E. Dunbartonshire
National
Av. similar councils
22.8
25.2
22.7
20.0
26.2
23.0
23.5
25.9
23.9
•
As part of the Raising Standards – Setting Targets
initiative, East Dunbartonshire Council set itself the
following targets in reading, writing and mathematics
in primary schools to be achieved by 2001, and has
made the following progress in achieving them. The
figures represent the percentage of pupils attaining
and expected to attain appropriate 5-14 levels by P71.
Target
Reading
Writing
Maths
•
E. Dunbartonshire
National
E. Dunbartonshire
National
E. Dunbartonshire
National
Starting Level
June 1998
Current Level
June 2000
Target Level
June 2001
80.7
69.5
43.7
55.8
83.9
73.3
87.0
74.6
77.0
66.4
87.8
76.6
85.9
77.4
63.5
67.2
88.1
80.6
As part of the Raising Standards – Setting Targets
initiative, East Dunbartonshire Council set itself the
following targets in reading, writing and mathematics
in secondary schools to be achieved by 2001, and has
made the following progress in achieving them. The
figures represent the percentage of pupils attaining
and expected to attain appropriate 5-14 levels by S22.
1
Level A by end of P3. Level B by end of P4. Level C by end of P6. Level D by end
of P7.
2
Level E by end of S2.
39
Target
Reading
Writing
Maths
•
E. Dunbartonshire
National
E. Dunbartonshire
National
E. Dunbartonshire
National
Current Level
June 2000
Target Level
June 2001
40.4
41.0
34.9
35.5
42.2
41.5
63.7
53.0
39.8
43.5
58.7
46.6
55.0
53.7
48.8
48.4
55.2
54.7
As part of the Raising Standards – Setting Targets
initiative, East Dunbartonshire Council set itself the
following SQA Standard Grade and Higher Grade
targets for session 2000-2001, and has made the
following progress in achieving these. The figures
represent the percentage of pupils achieving
particular targets.
SG English 1-6
SG Maths 1-6
5+SG 1-6
5+SG 1-4
5+G 1-2
HG 3+ (A-C)
HG 5+ (A-C)
40
Starting Level
June 1998
E.Dunbartonshire
National
E. Dunbartonshire
National
E. Dunbartonshire
National
E. Dunbartonshire
National
E. Dunbartonshire
National
E. Dunbartonshire
National
E. Dunbartonshire
National
Starting Level
(1995-97)
Current Level
(1997-1999)
Target Level
(1999-2001)
95.8
92.4
96.0
92.2
93.7
89.5
80.1
71.8
39.8
28.3
32.4
20.2
13.4
6.2
96.7
93.1
96.8
92.7
90.3
90.5
83.2
74.1
42.2
30.6
30.5
20.3
14.0
6.3
96.4
94.1
96.3
94.0
93.9
92.7
83.4
77.3
43.5
33.7
34.3
22.9
14.4
7.7
•
Results in Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA)
National Qualifications.
% S4 Roll gaining:
5+ S Grades at 1-6
1997
1998
1999
E. Dunbartonshire
National
Av. similar councils
95.3
90.2
92.8
95.3
90.0
92.3
96.9
91.4
94.1
5+ S Grades at 1-4
E. Dunbartonshire
National
Av. similar councils
81.9
73.3
79.4
82.1
73.9
79.7
85.3
74.8
80.8
5+ S Grades at 1-2
E. Dunbartonshire
National
Av. similar councils
40.2
29.4
36.5
42.3
30.7
38.6
43.8
31.3
38.4
3+ H Grades at A-C in S5
E. Dunbartonshire
National
Av. similar councils
31.0
19.8
26.3
29.7
20.4
26.4
30.4
20.4
27.3
5+ H Grades at A-C in S5
E. Dunbartonshire
National
Av. similar councils
13.0
6.0
9.2
14.0
6.0
9.5
15.0
7.0
10.6
% S5/S6 roll gaining 3+
NC modules
E. Dunbartonshire
National
Av. similar councils
35.0
40.6
36.0
35.0
41.5
37.9
32.8
39.2
36.3
•
Value Added from S Grade to H Grade
(- represents a performance lower than would be
expected and * signifies significantly so)
E. Dunbartonshire
1997
1998
1999
+27.79*
+28.09*
+28.74*
41
Appendix 2
Inspection coverage
Establishments visited:
Baldernock Primary School
Craigdhu Primary School
Hillhead Primary School
Lennoxtown Primary School and Nursery Class
Lenzie Primary School and Nursery Class
Oxgangs Primary School
St Flannan’s Primary School
Wester Cleddens Primary School
Campsie View School
Merkland School
Boclair Academy
Douglas Academy
St Ninian’s High School
Turnbull High School
Woodhead Support Base
Meetings attended:
Council meeting
Education and Leisure Services Committee
meeting
Focus group of headteachers
Joint Consultative Committee representatives
Meeting of all headteachers with Strategic
Director
School Board Chairpersons’ Forum
SEN Parent’ ‘Forum
KITES (Kids Inclusion through Education and
Support) Parents’ Group
42
Interviews or meetings with Council Officers:
Chief Executive
Strategic Director (Community)
Head of Finance
Heads of Education Provision and Planning,
Educational Development, Education Support
Service
Heads of Social Work Services
Officers and Secondees working in the three
educational service areas
Educational Psychologists
Managers of Pupil Support Services
Head of Support Services, Principal Officer,
Principal Psychologist
School Board Chairpersons in each of the schools
visited
Interviews or meetings with elected members:
Council Leader
Convenor of Education and Leisure Services
Committee
Vice-Convenor of Education and Leisure
Committee
Conservative and Labour spokespersons on the
Education and Leisure Services Committee
In addition to these activities, the inspection team
scrutinised minutes, correspondence, papers, policy
documents, plans and reports submitted by the authority.
43
Appendix 3
Quality indicators
We judged the following to be very good
•
no aspects were found to be in this category.
We judged the following to be good
•
no aspects were found to be in this category.
We judged the following to be fair
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Policy development
Mechanisms for communication
Service Planning
Deployment and effectiveness of centrally-employed
staff
Resource management
Financial management
Measuring, monitoring and evaluating performance
Continuous improvement in performance.
We judged the following to be unsatisfactory
•
•
•
44
Vision, values and aims
Effectiveness of leadership and management
Mechanisms for consultation.
How can you contact us?
Copies of this report have been sent to the Chief
Executive of the local authority, the head of the
Education Service, 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 the office at
the address below or by telephoning 0131 244 0746.
Copies are also available on our web site:
www.scotland.gov.uk/hmis
Should you wish to comment on or make a complaint
about any aspect of the inspection or this report, you
should write in the first instance to Bill Clark, HMCI
whose address is given below. If you are unhappy with
the response, you will be told in writing what further
steps you may take.
HM Inspectors of Schools
Quality, Standards and Audit Division
1-B-01
Victoria Quay
Edinburgh
EH6 6QQ
Crown Copyright 2001
Scottish Executive
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.
45