Orkney Islands Council
March 2007
Contents
Page
Introduction
i
1.
The inspection
1
2.
Continuous improvement
1
3.
Progress towards meeting the main points for action
2
4.
Conclusion
6
How can you contact us?
7
Introduction
The education functions of each local authority in Scotland was 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 Orkney Islands Council in March 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 December 2006 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 significant progress since the original inspection. The Department of
Education and Recreation had restructured the remits of the senior management team (SMT)
to allow them to focus on priority work areas. This was helping to reduce duplication and
improve coordination. Senior staff had made very good use of the authority’s graduate
trainee scheme to increase the strategic capacity of senior staff. As a result of the
restructuring, members of the Directorate now carried increased workloads, which would
require careful monitoring to ensure they retained the capacity to work strategically.
Pre-school centres inspected during the last three years provided good or very good
experiences for children. There were no major weaknesses in any aspects of provision. Pupil
attainment remained strong in the authority, with very good opportunities for learners to
pursue activities promoting wider achievement in sports, arts and culture. Over the period
2002 to 2006, attainment in reading, writing and mathematics in primary schools had
gradually increased from a very high baseline. During 2000 to 2004 performance in all three
areas was above the averages for comparator authorities 2 and national averages. National
and comparator averages are not available for 2005 and 2006. A detailed analysis of
National Assessment attainment data by the authority had identified schools and stages where
there were specific weaknesses and enabled it to target additional support to ensure the
greatest impact. The authority was aware that attainment was poorer in writing than the other
areas but had achieved notable success working with schools to improve this. The authority
had also challenged and supported schools to improve attainment in all areas at P5, again
with some success. Pupil attendance had improved slightly and was above national averages.
Exclusions had remained relatively static at a very low level, and well below national and
comparator authority averages.
In secondary schools, pupil attendance had increased and was better than both the national
and comparator authority averages. Exclusions from secondary schools had decreased
significantly and was the lowest in Scotland. Overall attainment by the end of S2 had shown
an improving trend in reading, writing and mathematics. From 2000 to 2004, when data was
available from other authorities, it exceeded the performance of comparator authorities and
the national average in all three areas. In addition, the proportions of pupils achieving above
the expected national level showed an improving trend and was above the national average.
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
At S4 all key indicators showed a strong performance. The authority’s performance against
comparators and the national average was better on all key measures. At S6 almost all key
indicators had improved over the last year. Over the period 2002 to 2006, almost all key
indicators had shown improvement. Higher education entry rates were slightly above
comparators and national averages.
Overall, performance of pupils at S4, S5 and S6 was above that for pupils in comparator
authorities, and well above national averages. Attainment had dipped in 2004 but had
recovered to its previous level the following year. There was no consistent trend, however,
and the authority had targeted attainment at S5 where it appeared to have reached a plateau.
This had yet to have a significant effect. Attainment at the end of S6 was very impressive.
The performance of the lowest-attaining 20% of S4 pupils was a real strength of the
authority, and figures were significantly above comparator authorities and the national
average.
In 2006, the authority had introduced a raising attainment strategy, and all schools had
included three developments designed to raise attainment in development plans for
2006/2007. This was encouraging schools to share best practice and had led to a number of
inter-school collaborations. The authority had strengthened their approaches to providing
more rigorous analysis of whole school and subject attainment.
Central staff and an external consultant provided a wide range of statistical information and
analyses to assist staff in schools and officers in identifying strengths and priorities for
raising attainment.
As part of their programme of visits to schools, officers discussed attainment analyses with
senior managers and principal teachers. They now intended to monitor more carefully the
actions of both schools and departments to address areas of weakness and regularly review
progress in taking forward key developments. Financial monitoring and control was
rigorous, and the department invested heavily in continuing professional development (CPD)
opportunities for staff at all levels. Leadership was being developed effectively through staff
involvement in working groups and by providing opportunities for staff at all levels to lead
projects and initiatives.
The Director and senior staff were committed to quality assurance in order to improve the
quality of learning experiences. Commendably, the SMT had conducted a thorough
self-evaluation against the quality indicators in QMIE2, and had written up their findings in a
report to help identify key strengths and areas requiring improvement. The challenge now
was to identify best practice across Scotland and interpret it for the Orkney context in a way
which ensured that all parts of the Department were working coherently and effectively
together for the benefit of all learners. Service users in Orkney would benefit from greater
inter-departmental joint-working to secure improved outcomes.
3. Progress towards meeting the main points for action
The initial inspection report published in March 2005 identified five 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.
2
3.1
Adjust the balance of duties and responsibilities across the Directorate
Team to ensure that all members are able to play their full part in
strategic management and quality assurance.
The Council had made very good progress in meeting this recommendation.
The Department of Education and Recreation had been restructured to ensure a more focused
approach to strategic management and quality assurance. The Director provided a strong
lead in taking forward the work of the Department. He was highly respected, played a strong
corporate role and met regularly with his senior directorate team. He was supported by four
assistant directors including a new acting assistant director of quality development. Each
assistant director was hard-working and carried wide-ranging and demanding responsibilities.
They had made a significant contribution to the inspection action plan, particularly the work
of support for learning, information and communications technology (ICT) and quality
assurance. At the time of the follow-through inspection, one post at directorate level was
becoming vacant giving the department the opportunity to review their structures to ensure a
more equitable workload. The Service Improvement Officers (SIOs) with link officer duties
had been brought together under the management of the quality development directorate.
This was strengthening team work and providing more opportunities to share good practice
and ensure a more consistent approach. Their remits had been reviewed appropriately to
focus on monitoring, evaluating and supporting the work of schools. The Department had
appointed three graduate trainees who provided very effective administrative support to
senior officers. They were taking forward a range of work which was beginning to free
senior officers to work more strategically in their areas of responsibility.
3.2
Ensure that appropriate policies and guidelines are in place to direct and
support the work of schools and other services to pupils.
The Council had made very good progress in taking forward this recommendation.
The Council had introduced a two year programme of policy review and development and set
up working groups to take this work forward. Working groups were mostly chaired by senior
department staff and included a wide representation of staff at all levels. These groups were
now working more strategically and had clear remits, timeframes and expected outcomes.
Plans were in place to ensure that key developments, including a learning and teaching
framework, were taken forward. This should provide practical advice for teaching staff,
drawing on identified good practice. Staff felt that their involvement in these groups had
increased confidence, a feeling of ownership and empowerment, and that they were making a
positive difference to the work of schools and the experiences of children and young people.
There was good evidence of impact on policies including a helpful framework to develop
leadership capacity, more efficient arrangements for devolved school management, improved
induction and packages to attract new teachers to the area and arrangements to take forward
ICT. The Education is for all policy contained clear advice and guidelines for
implementation in schools. Educational psychologists worked closely with senior colleagues
in pupil support to coordinate their work for the benefit of children. The principal
psychologist co-chaired a new multi-agency working group which was taking forward
effectively the implementation of The Education (Additional Support for Learning)
(Scotland) Act 2004 (ASL). Almost all of the Records of Needs across the Council had been
converted into coordinated support plans through the effective work of this group. Another
3
working group was producing a framework document for schools to help them explore the
opportunities and choices available to pupils through a more flexible view of the curriculum.
The group was drawing upon the experiences of other authorities and had consulted widely
which was improving understanding amongst all school staff and resulting in new ideas for
implementation in Orkney. This was being continued through a sub-group to develop a
strategy to reduce the percentage of pupils who were neither in employment, education or
training on leaving school. Other policies included helpful advice on citizenship, school
excursions, raising attainment strategies and pupil entitlement to sporting and cultural
activities. In order to ensure maximum impact, future policies and developments should be
clearly aligned to CPD strategies with regular updates to all staff on progress. Link officers
should now ensure that they consistently monitor the implementation of agreed policies
during their visits to schools.
3.3
Ensure that new arrangements for quality assurance are fulfilling their
objectives of consistently high quality of learning, teaching, attainment
and achievement in schools.
The Council had made good progress in taking forward this recommendation.
The Department had demonstrated a clear commitment to improving the quality of its support
and challenge to schools. The drive for improved quality assurance, effectively led by the
Acting Assistant Director, was ensuring that schools were being challenged more consistently
to improve. The Department had strengthened its links with schools by allocating to each
cluster a link officer with a quality assurance role. The link officers played a key role in
assisting schools to take forward and monitor improvements. This included discussions in
relation to school improvement planning, and moderating schools’ data and self-evaluations.
Officers had drawn up a quality assurance calendar and developed school performance
profiles to help track progress through school evaluations of performance against quality
indicators. These profiles could usefully be simplified to better focus on the kind of
information that was crucial to quality improvement. Link officers, especially in primary
schools, had begun to sample classroom observations to ensure a consistent approach across
schools. Staff and officers were developing a better understanding of their respective roles in
taking forward quality assurance strategies for the benefit of learners. Officers were also
responsible for conducting headteachers’ professional reviews and linking these to identified
professional development needs. Link officers should continue to develop their skills in
leading quality assurance and embedding this approach in the work of staff at all levels
within establishments.
The original inspection identified that not all schools were clear about the new roles of SIOs.
Only a majority (56%) had indicated that officers maintained effective links with their
schools. The new structure had helped to improve this. In particular, an authority survey in
May 2006 showed that 78% of headteachers believed that officers maintained effective links
with schools, and 89% believed that this was true of SIOs. The original inspection also
identified that link officers for secondary and junior high schools were not yet regularly
engaging with subject departments as part of their monitoring process. SIOs were now
attending both principal teacher meetings and departmental meetings. Overall, quality
assurance visits were now more rigorous and had a clear focus on attainment, and learning
and teaching. As a result, almost all schools reported improvements in the quality of learning
and teaching through more rigorous quality assurance mechanisms being introduced and
4
supported at school level and the sharing of best practice. The authority knew its schools
well and provided accurate pre-inspection reports to HMIE in almost all cases.
Visits to secondary schools should continue to develop a sharper focus on attainment and
identify features underpinning strong and weaker attainment, especially at departmental level.
This analysis should be extended to identify targeted visits to ensure that those schools and
departments in need of support were given most attention. Aspects of best practice in
learning and teaching should then be shared with school staff.
3.4
Address weaknesses in the technical support for ICT in schools.
The Council had made very good progress in taking forward this recommendation.
The Council had appointed a dedicated ICT support supervisor for the Education Service.
This had resulted in significant improvements to the quality of technical support for ICT in
schools and improved benefits for learners. School staff had a single point of contact and
larger schools had technicians on site. The Council had also arranged for corporate and
education-focused ICT to be based together in a new building which was helping to improve
communication between staff.
An ICT strategy group and a number of appropriate sub-groups were taking forward
developments at a good pace. The Council had made significant investments in hardware to
schools including projectors and interactive whiteboards in classrooms. All schools would
have GLOW 3 compliant machines by 2008 and a projector and interactive whiteboard in
every classroom. Almost all schools had access to broadband including remote island
schools which was improving pupil access to ICT. There was strong and sensible use of
video-conferencing by both staff and pupils in remote schools. The strategy group undertook
a benchmarking survey which included very positive feedback from education, particularly in
relation to improved communication and response times. SIOs should build monitoring of
ICT as part of their classroom visits to schools to ensure developments were impacting on the
quality of pupils’ learning. Technicians had a high level of contact with schools,
significantly above minimum level. The Council now needed to ensure ICT developments
were supported by parallel CPD opportunities to increase the confidence of staff to take
forward ICT, and better link it to developments in the curriculum and learning and teaching.
3.5
Engage in a systematic approach to evaluating the effectiveness of the
contribution of Education and Recreation Services to continuous
improvement in educational services.
The Council had made good progress in taking forward this recommendation.
The Department had comprehensively monitored progress against all the actions identified
within the original inspection report. As part of this process, officers had established a
regular cycle of quality assurance activity to address areas of concern. Officers had enhanced
the survey used for HMIE inspection of education authorities and issued it to all
headteachers. The analysis provided good information on progress, and was used to identify
remaining areas of concern which were included as actions within the next departmental
service plan. Similarly, a bi-annual ethos survey was undertaken with pupils, staff and
3
GLOW is the new name for the Scottish Schools Digital Network, the national intranet which will link Scottish education.
5
parents to gather their views about learning and living in Orkney. The authority had
organised an Orkney Youth Conference in 2005 and 2006 that proved very successful with
over 50 young people in attendance. The agendas were built upon preliminary surveys which
identified areas of interest, and the results were used to inform policy development. The
Department had improved the degree to which staff were kept informed about the Council’s
aims for education and their role in helping to realise them. The Council’s programmes for
induction and CPD were viewed positively and the courses themselves were judged to be
very successful by those attending them. Senior staff routinely attended more than half of all
school board meetings, and the Department met with school board chairs on an annual basis
to discuss matters of collective interest. Parents and carers of children with additional
support needs were routinely involved in reviews of their children’s progress and planning
for next steps. Senior officers discussed the quality of services with parent focus groups, and
this led to further improvements.
As a result, the Department was able to identify the quality of its contribution to continuous
improvement and set clear and realistic targets for improvement. The Department had
undertaken a rigorous self-evaluation and used this information to prepare a report on the
performance of the Department. Officers now needed to ensure that the full breadth of work
undertaken by the Department, and its contribution to high quality learning outcomes, was
included in its self-evaluation.
4. Conclusion
The authority had taken very effective action to implement the recommendations of the
report. They had made very good progress on three action points, and good progress on the
remaining two. HMIE will make no further visits to the authority in relation to this report.
Annette Bruton
HM Chief Inspector
Directorate 5
March 2007
6
How can you contact us?
If you wish to comment about education authority inspections
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,
Directorate 5, Denholm House, Almondvale Business Park, Almondvale Way, Livingston
EH54 6GA.
Our complaints procedure
If you have a concern about this report, you should write in the first instance to Hazel Dewart,
Business Management Unit, HM Inspectorate of Education, Denholm House, Almondvale
Business Park, Almondvale Way, Livingston EH54 6GA. A copy of our complaints
procedure is available from this office or by telephoning 01506 600 258 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 e-mail
ask@spso.org.uk. More information about the Ombudsman’s office can be obtained from the
website: www.spso.org.uk.
Crown Copyright 2007
HM Inspectorate of Education
This report may be reproduced in whole or in part, except for commercial purposes or in
connection with a prospectus or advertisement, provided that the source and date thereof are
stated.
7