Perth & Kinross Council
Follow-up Inspection Report
August 2005
Contents
________________________________________
Page
Introduction
i
1.
The aims, nature and scope of the inspection
1
2.
Changes in the operational context of the
Education Service
1
3.
Continuous improvement
3
4.
Progress towards the main points for action
9
5.
Conclusion
22
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 Inspectorate of
Education, 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)1 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.
The inspection team also includes an Associate
Assessor who is a senior member of staff currently
serving in another Scottish local authority.
All inspections of the education functions of
education authorities are followed up by inspection
teams, normally around two years from the date of
the original published inspection report.
1
Quality Management in Education (HM Inspectors of Schools, 2000) is a framework of self-evaluation for
Local Authority Education Departments.
i
_______________________________
Perth & Kinross Council
Follow-up Inspection Report
1. The aims, nature and scope of the inspection
The education functions of Perth & Kinross Council were
inspected during the period November 2002 to February
2003 as part of the national inspection programme of all
education authorities in Scotland over a five-year period.
The local authority prepared and made public an Action
Plan in September 2003, indicating how it would address
the main points for action identified in the original HMIE
inspection report published in May 2003.
An inspection team revisited the authority in April 2005
to assess progress made in meeting the recommendations
in the initial report.
2. Changes in the operational context of the Education
Service
Since the initial inspection of the education functions of
Perth & Kinross Council in November 2002 to February
2003 there had been a number of significant changes
within the Council and the Education Service.
At the time of the initial inspection, the political
representation on the Council was 15 Scottish National
Party councillors, 11 Conservatives, seven Liberal
Democrats, six Labour and two Independent councillors.
The Partnership Group which formed the administration
comprised elected members from the Conservative,
Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, and one
Independent member.
1
A new administration had been formed following the
local Council elections in May 2003. The same political
groups formed the new administration with the Convenor
of Lifelong Learning continuing the portfolio following
the election. At the time of the follow-up inspection, the
political composition had changed. In August 2004, a
new administration was formed comprising Scottish
National and Liberal Democrat parties, with an
independent leader. The political composition of the
Council was nine Liberal Democrat, 15 Scottish National
Party, ten Conservatives, five Labour and two
Independent councillors. A new Education Convenor had
been appointed.
In 2003, the Council’s management structure comprised
the Chief Executive and seven Directors of Services.
One of these Directors was also Depute Chief Executive.
The Council also employed a General Manager of a pilot
joint health and social care service, Care Together.
Following the retiral of two Directors in March 2003 and
a review of Care Together, there were now, in addition to
the Chief Executive, five Executive Directors. The
Executive Director of Corporate Services was also the
Assistant Chief Executive. One of the Executive
Directors was the Executive Director of Education and
Children’s Services (ECS). The corporate management
structure reflected the political structure of the Council in
respect of the main Council Committees, that is, Lifelong
Learning, Community Safety, Housing and Health,
Enterprise and Infrastructure and Environment. These
Committees are consistent with the Community Planning
Themes.
Over the last two years, there had been continuing
changes in organisational and management structures
within ECS. In 2003, in addition to the Director and
Depute Director, there had been four Heads of Service
and 22 Service Managers, of whom nine were directly
responsible to the Director, nine to the Depute Director,
and four to the Acting Head of Service for Children,
2
Families and Young People. At the time of the follow-up
inspection there were six Lead Officers, all of whom
were managed by the Executive Director, and 23 Service
Managers responsible to the Lead Officers. The post of
Service Manager (Learning and Teaching) was vacant.
The Service Manager (Children and Family Services)
who had previously been managed by the Lead Officer
(Children’s Services and Criminal Justice) was now
managed by the Lead Officer (Improvement Services).
ECS had not yet appointed the Improvement Officers
who would work within that team. There had been a
number of other changes in organisational structure
within ECS over the last two years.
3. Continuous improvement
At the time of the initial inspection, leadership in ECS
had been evaluated as good. The Director and Depute
Director were considered to have the potential to become
a strong and effective senior management team. At that
time they were considering the most appropriate
allocation of responsibilities to senior managers in the
context of planned changes to the structure of the
organisation. There had been a number of plans for
reorganisation. This had resulted in a lack of continuity
in the structure of the service and in the allocation of
responsibilities to individual members of staff.
Weaknesses in the new management structure had
reduced the effectiveness of the strategic leadership and
direction of educational services.
At the time of the original inspection, the Executive
Director had taken on additional responsibilities in
relation to Children, Families and Young People, Arts
and Heritage, Culture and Libraries and Criminal Justice
Services. Since then, he had also been given a wider
corporate role in leading the Community Planning
Lifelong Learning agenda. He continued to face major
3
challenges in establishing appropriate management
structures for the wide-ranging teams and more extended
work of ECS. He had attempted to delegate a number of
duties to a range of officers. He had, however, retained a
direct line management role in relation to the Lead
Officer team, but did not dedicate enough time to
managing them effectively. He had encouraged
participation by empowering Strategy Groups and
individual officers, but was not sufficiently rigorous in
directing priorities or monitoring progress. As a result,
the capacity of the senior management team and centrally
employed staff to manage change was restricted.
The lead role of the Depute Director in the new structure
in terms of line management and accountability was not
set out clearly. His remit did not reflect the seniority and
strategic importance of his position nor make full use of
his extensive experience and skills. The remit lacked
clear areas of delegated responsibility, decision-making
powers and responsibility for staff. His role within ECS
largely involved mentoring and advisory responsibilities.
Although the Depute had oversight of the HMIE
inspection process, the Director had not specified the
Depute’s responsibilities in wider aspects of quality
assurance. On the other hand, his corporate
responsibilities were more clearly defined. They
comprised the management of the Investment in Learning
initiative and other strategic initiatives, as requested. For
example, he chaired a corporate group of second-tier
chief officers, as directed by the Chief Executive. In
addition, he had recently successfully led the corporate
review of child protection. While widely regarded as
skilled and experienced, he had not been given a clear
remit or responsibilities for improving the quality of
education within the authority.
The Executive Director had given the team of six Lead
Officers responsibilities for the management of schools
and services. They had responsibility for delivering the
authority’s strategic objectives and reporting on progress.
4
Progress with their Service Improvement Plan was
discussed at periodic meetings of the officer team and
annual Employee Review and Development meetings
when personal improvement targets were set for the
following year. A more robust strategy was required to
ensure progress with the Service Improvement Plan.
While individual Lead Officers conscientiously
progressed some of the Main Points for Action arising
from the authority’s Action Plan in response to the initial
inspection, strategic leadership of its implementation was
limited.
Since the original inspection, existing approaches to
quality improvement and performance monitoring had
been replaced with new systems which had taken time to
become fully established.
The education authority had made only a little progress in
raising attainment since the HMIE inspection. A few key
indicators of attainment had increased between 2003 and
2004. Most had remained steady or had decreased over
this period. The education authority’s overall
performance on many aspects of attainment remained
above the average for comparator authorities in 2004.
The performance of lower-attaining pupils tended to be
below the average for comparator authorities. The
education authority had been successful in reducing pupil
absence figures in primary and secondary schools
between 2003 and 2004. In contrast, the proportion of
pupils excluded from primary schools had increased
between 2003 and 2004 and was more than double the
average for comparator authorities. The proportion of
pupils excluded from secondary schools had dropped
between 2003 and 2004 and was in line with the average
for comparator authorities.
Since the inspection of the education authority, HMIE
had carried out 21 inspections of primary schools, two
inspections of secondary schools, one inspection of a
special school and an inspection of community learning
5
and development in the northern area of Perth. A number
of follow-through inspections had also been carried out.
In primary schools, standards of attainment had been
maintained overall. There were signs of improvement in
leadership and in self-evaluation. In one secondary
school, important weaknesses were found in learning,
teaching and attainment. The quality of leadership and
self-evaluation were very strong in the other secondary
school. In the special school, standards of leadership,
learning, teaching and meeting needs were also very
good. Follow-through inspections and moderation visits
in primary and secondary schools generally found good
or very good progress in meeting main points for action.
Overall, Service Managers (School Improvement) had a
very good knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of
provision in their schools. In the inspection of
community learning and development in North Perth,
learning opportunities for young people and adults were
evaluated as good. However, there were some important
weaknesses in leadership, and major weaknesses in
building the capacity of communities.
Resource management had generally improved since the
initial inspection. Additional funding had increased
technical support for information and communications
technology (ICT) in schools. Interactive whiteboards had
been introduced in every classroom in new schools. The
capital budget was used for ICT replacement,
programmes for introducing broadband to all schools and
the implementation of wireless technology where
possible. Business Managers had recently been
appointed to all secondary schools. A draft School
Estates Management Plan (SEMP) was linked
appropriately with new corporate asset management
arrangements. A new mechanism for approving
corporate capital projects had been introduced to
strengthen links between the capital programme and
Council priorities.
6
The authority was at the stage of concluding evaluation
of bids from two consortia to deliver their approved
Public Private Partnership (PPP) project, Investment in
Learning. This £100 million project would deliver two
new all-through schools, two secondary schools and three
primary schools by 2007/2008. In addition to the PPP
project, the capital budgets for 2004/2005, 2005/2006 and
2006/2007 included £7.2 million, £11.5 million and
£6.5 million respectively to address other ECS capital
priorities, including new schools, significant upgrades of
facilities at existing schools and ICT replacement. The
SEMP had been used to inform the Council’s capital
programme. ECS had also been successful in attracting
£3.7 million of additional external funds over the period
of 2004/2005 to 2006/2007 to enhance some of the
projects undertaken.
Some aspects of financial monitoring remained strong
with continuity of staff allowing for consistency during
the restructuring of the service. Improvements included
the revision of the ECS Financial Policies and Guidelines
and roll out to all schools of the pilot on three year DSM
budgets for 2005/2006 onwards.
The Council had used the capital budget between
2000/2001 and 2004/2005 to provide new build schools
for Auchterarder Secondary School and Abernethy
Primary School. The Auchterarder project had recently
been reported as £1.9 million over budget and the Chief
Executive had found it necessary to set up an independent
enquiry into the overspend. Weaknesses in management
of the project to build Auchterarder Community School
had resulted in deficiencies in the monitoring of the
capital budget. These weaknesses had been addressed
corporately. Action had been taken, both corporately and
within ECS, to ensure that lessons learned impacted on
ECS as well as on the other departments involved.
The Council had continued to provide good support for
the development of Eco Schools. Three quarters of
7
schools were registered with the programme and ten had
achieved bronze flags, nine silver and six green.
Headteachers and School Board chairs were very positive
about the initiative. The Instrumental Music Service had
extended its programme to a further 27 schools and
offered free music tuition to pupils in P6 on Saturday
mornings. Headteachers and School Board chairs were
generally very positive about central support for music,
dance and drama, which had organised some very
successful events. However, some also held the view that
the cost of transport sometimes made it difficult for
pupils from rural schools to attend.
The range of enterprise activities and work-based
vocational opportunities had improved since the initial
inspection. Almost all primary schools and about half of
secondary schools now offered an annual enterprise
activity to all pupils. The integrated community schools
initiative resulted in some valuable joint-working to
support children, young people and their families.
However, stronger strategic direction was required.
Arrangements for the transition of pupils to secondary
schools had improved. Some schools offered more
activities to support parents and carers. The Active
Schools initiative had been effective in tailoring its
programmes to the needs of individual schools and in
involving and training parents.
Some schools in Perth & Kinross had experienced
difficulties in recruiting permanent and supply teaching
staff. In a few cases, this had resulted in pupils having
learning experiences of variable quality over a sustained
period of time, with potentially negative impact on the
quality of their overall experiences and achievement.
Overall, despite improvements at operational level in a
number of areas of the authority’s work, there were some
important weaknesses in aspects of leadership and in the
management of capital projects. Pupils’ attainment and
achievement had not improved significantly and, in some
8
respects, had declined. The position of the Depute
Director needed to be strengthened and clarified so that
he could contribute more formally and effectively to the
leadership and management of school improvement. The
Director needed to ensure that the hard-working Lead
Officer team was held more accountable and received
more effective direction and support. Following the
overspend on Auchterarder Community School, ECS and
corporate managers should ensure that the action they
have taken to deal with the weaknesses in project
management is effective.
4. Progress towards the main points for action
The initial inspection report published in May 2003
identified six main points for action. This section
evaluates the progress the authority has made with each
of the main action points and the resulting improvements
for pupils and other stakeholders.
4.1 Develop a framework for strategic policy
and decision-making.
Overall, the authority had made fair progress in
addressing this main point for action.
The new administration elected in 2003 had introduced a
number of changes to the political decision-making
process which impacted on ECS. The former Standards
Sub-Committee had been replaced by a corporate
Standards and Scrutiny Committee which considered
issues relating to performance, including HMIE school
inspection reports. One of the five themed committees
recently established, was the Lifelong Learning
Committee which considered relevant matters relating to
the work of ECS. Thus the Council had tightened its
arrangements for monitoring policy and making
decisions. Relationships between elected members and
officers were generally positive and senior members and
9
officers met on a regular basis to hold structured
discussions on key issues. Members needed to increase
the degree of challenge in relation to the performance of
its schools.
The Council had produced an appropriate range of
corporate documents to direct its work and that of the
education authority, including the Community Plan, the
Corporate Plan and the Children’s Services Plan (CSP).
In line with the CSP, ECS had developed a range of
potentially valuable inter-agency and partnership
initiatives in support of young people and learners.
However, strategic partnership working between ECS
and external agencies required to be further developed.
The Council now needed to work with other agencies to
agree the strategic direction of joint-working and ways of
measuring its effectiveness.
ECS had made a start on a more strategic and coherent
approach to policy development and decision-making.
The vision, values and aims of ECS were fully reflected
in its annual Service Plan and Standards and Quality
Report, the latter structured to report against national and
local priorities and targets. The Lifelong Learning
Committee had approved, in April 2005, ECS’s policy
statement, Framework for Strategic Policy and
Decision-Making, drawn up following consultation with
key stakeholders. The report had the potential to
establish a clear and consistent framework for policy
development and decision-making across ECS. It aimed
to improve the effectiveness of consultation and
communication, to define the respective roles of the
Directorate Team, the Senior Management Team and the
Service Management Teams, and to extend the range and
roles of Strategy Groups, Reference Groups and other
key stakeholders in policy development and decisionmaking. Although the Framework for Strategic Policy
and Decision-Making had only very recently been
approved, many of its component processes had already
been established.
10
ECS’s wide range of policies covered administration,
finance, procedural aspects, learning and teaching, and
the curriculum. The policy, Framework for
Improvement, was viewed by staff as providing a helpful
strategic focus for improving quality across the service.
Procedures were in place to review a number of policies
and some had already been reviewed. However, ECS had
not specified how it would monitor and evaluate its
policies in a systematic way. There was also no
overarching structure relating to the strategic direction of
the service within which the policies were developed and
organised.
The authority had taken a number of appropriate steps to
meet this main point for action. However, the pace had
been slow. A clearer approach to decision-making was
now in place, and stakeholders were appreciative of the
opportunities they received to contribute their views.
Schools Board chairs interviewed were supportive of the
improved opportunities to engage with educational
personnel, and to engage in regular consultation on issues
such as the Investment in Learning programme. Despite
these strengths, weaknesses in strategic leadership and
management within ECS reduced the effectiveness of
decision-making and the implementation of policies to
secure improvement.
4.2 Improve the strategic management of
services to support pupils, including those with
special educational needs, and further develop
integrated working with other agencies and
services.
The authority had made good progress overall with this
point for action.
Since the inspection, ECS had improved overall
management of services to support pupils. It had
introduced a three-stage Framework for Intervention and
11
reviewed its success. A co-ordinator of Central Support
Services managed the allocation of resources for pupils
who required significant support beyond their own
schools. Pupil support co-ordinators were now in post,
the co-ordinator for secondary schools since January
2003 and the coordinator for primary schools for about
eight months. ECS had also introduced a useful annual
audit of additional support needs across all schools and
had subsequently broadened the audit to include
behaviour support. These audits were effective in
determining the allocation of resources for pupil and
schools. Heads of pre-school, primary and secondary
schools interviewed thought that pupil support services
had improved in terms of accessibility and
responsiveness. The audit had also increased
transparency and fairness in the allocation of resources
such as support for learning teachers and assistants.
However, some support staff were not yet in place
because of ongoing restructuring within ECS.
ECS had taken other steps to promote greater inclusion of
pupils with special educational needs. Staff in special
schools now provided support and advice to mainstream
schools. A special school was being built on the campus
of Viewlands Primary School and Perth Academy as a
replacement for the existing Glebe and Cherrybank
Special Schools. Schools received good information
about national developments in provision for additional
support needs, and access to training had also improved.
Parent forums had recently been reinstated at a local
level, a development welcomed by those parents
involved. The forums provided good opportunities for
the Service Manager for Support for Young People to
engage with parents and respond to their concerns. This
approach was not yet fully established across all local
areas.
There was evidence of ECS having improved its work
with other agencies in respect of services for children
with special educational needs. Three-year service level
12
agreements were now in place with a range of voluntary
agencies and other services. The services and support
provided by specific agencies and local projects were
being mapped with a view to providing more detailed
information for officers, establishments and stakeholders.
As a result of improved joint-working the number of
pupils educated outwith the authority had fallen.
Educational and social work staff were developing more
integrated approaches to planning for individual pupils.
The establishment of an Additional Support Needs
Reference Group had the aim of improving consultation
and co-ordination of support. It was too early for its
impact to be evaluated. An Early Years Support
Co-ordinator had been appointed with a view to
improving early identification of pupils with additional
support needs, better co-ordination of support services
and improved transition arrangements from pre-school
provision into primary schools. Early Years
Inter-Agency support was well organised. Overall, good
support measures were provided through integrated
services to children, for example through Family Change,
Surestart, the Drugs and Alcohol Team and other
agencies.
ECS had the commendable aim of developing consistent
approaches to quality assurance and improvement across
education and children’s services. This development was
at a very early stage, and some postholders had only just
been appointed. Strategic management of pupil support
services and children’s services had changed more than
once since the initial inspection. However, the rationale
for the current structure needed further clarification.
A number of improvements had been made to provision
for behaviour support. Integrated teams which included
representatives of the police, health services and
community learning were now established in all
secondary schools and had improved co-ordination of
support for young people. Behaviour needs were also
signalled more consistently, particularly at key transition
13
stages. Individual secondary schools were beginning to
consider more flexible approaches to the curriculum but
there was no overall strategic approach across the
authority. Integrated teams were not yet in place in all
primary schools. Staff in primary schools expressed
concerns about poor levels of support for pupils with
behaviour difficulties.
The Chief Executive had established and led an
inter-agency strategic forum on child protection, in order
to give a stronger strategic lead to this area of work. The
Chief Executive had requested the Depute Director of
ECS to lead a comprehensive review of child protection
across all services. The Council should implement the
action plan arising from this review.
Support for pupils had improved at operational level.
There were indications that strategic management had
also improved although the impact was not yet fully
apparent. Overall, children, young people and families
were benefiting from better co-ordinated services.
4.3 Improve the deployment of
centrally-employed staff.
The Council had made good progress with this main
point for action.
Since the inspection in 2003 the organisation and
deployment of Service Managers responsible for
provision and quality development had been changed. In
the current arrangements, five Service Managers
provided direct support and challenge to schools within
the School Improvement Service. Four of these Service
Managers were responsible for primary schools, and one
for secondary. One Service Manager (Learning and
Teaching) was due to take up post immediately after the
follow-up inspection. This key post had not been filled
on a substantive basis since its establishment. Other
posts, for example the Improvement Officers under the
14
Children and Family Services Manager, were only
currently being filled. Thus the new structure was not yet
fully operational and had left some gaps in quality
improvement.
However, headteachers reported that they appreciated the
advice and support provided by the School Improvement
Team. The three principles of Improvement, Inclusion
and Impact formed a sound basis for the new School
Improvement Framework which directed the work of the
School Improvement Service. This framework provided
clear guidance on the nature and purpose of each visit by
an officer to a school. The School Improvement Team
worked with teachers in classrooms and provided
welcome advice and support to headteachers on a range
of aspects. Schools were generally positive about
improved consistency in School Improvement visits and
their impact on helping them improve their practice in
self-evaluation. Headteachers were more confident about
the judgements made by Service Managers. HMIE
reports found greater consistency between the authority’s
evaluations of schools and their own findings.
The Lead Officer (School Improvement) met regularly
with his team and used these opportunities to monitor
their work and ensure consistency. Good induction had
enabled Service Managers to identify individual strengths
and their contribution to the team as a whole. The team
discussed solutions to issues relating to their individual
groups of schools. The Executive Director, Depute
Director and Lead Officer also accompanied them on
Learning and Achievement visits which focused on
schools’ performance data and strategies for
improvement. Local Management Group meetings
ensured that the work of Headteacher Strategy Groups
generally reached headteachers and provided an
opportunity for local debate and information sharing.
Currently the Learning and Teaching Improvement
Teams were line-managed effectively by individual
15
Service Managers. Individually, they provided valuable
support for 5-14 developments and Support for Pupils,
modern languages, expressive arts and early years
education. They were helping schools to address
underachievement in mathematics. They demonstrated a
strong ethos of support and development both across all
schools and in targeted schools. Mathematics
co-ordinators, for example, had produced support
packages and worked alongside staff in schools,
modelling appropriate strategies. There was clear
evidence of integrated working among the Pupil Support
Team. Overall, however, the Learning and Teaching
Improvement Teams required stronger leadership and
direction and better co-ordination.
The capacity and time of the five Service Managers in the
School Improvement Team were being stretched by four
school improvement visits per year, annual Learning and
Achievement visits, headteacher review visits and dealing
with complaints. ECS were considering how to be more
proportionate in the challenge and support they provided
for schools. Such an approach was urgently required.
Also, schools and Service Managers would be assisted by
having more comprehensive comparative information on
benchmarks against which to evaluate a school’s
performance.
Overall the School Improvement Service had the
potential to be a key driver in ensuring continuous school
improvement and raised attainment. It was too early for
the service to have had an impact on raising attainment.
The Education Psychology Team was now fully staffed,
although staffing levels were still below the national
average and delays in recruitment had affected the service
available to schools. Schools were generally positive
about the effectiveness of communication with
Psychological Services and the quality of case work.
Nevertheless, they still regarded time allocations and
psychologists’ contributions to continuous professional
16
development as insufficient. Psychologists were now
increasing their support for children’s services beyond
education.
Section Heads and their teams provided very good
business and administrative support to central services
and schools. An enthusiastic and well-established team,
they provided a solid structure for integrated working.
Overall ECS had made good progress in improving the
deployment of centrally-employed staff. The
commitment and hard work of Service Managers and
School Improvement Officers contributed to the
effectiveness of the overall service. The authority should
ensure that the sustainability of the current structure is
reviewed and that progress with service and quality
improvement plans is evaluated and target deadlines met.
4.4 Improve attainment, particularly in
mathematics in primary schools and at S3/S4 in
secondary schools.
Overall, the authority had made fair progress in
addressing this main point for action.
There had been little time following the HMIE inspection
for any improvements to have an impact on attainment in
primary and secondary schools by the end of the school
session 2002/2003. Between 2003 and 2004, in a few
areas attainment had improved but generally there had
been a drop in standards.
The proportion of primary school pupils reaching
appropriate national levels of attainment in reading and
mathematics had increased between 2003 and 2004. The
proportion reaching these levels in writing had remained
broadly steady. Attainment in primary schools in
reading, writing and mathematics was broadly in line
with the average for comparator authorities in 2004. In
secondary schools the proportions of pupils reaching
17
appropriate national levels of attainment in reading,
writing and mathematics by the end of S2 were above the
average for comparator authorities in 2004. Attainment
in all three aspects had, however, dipped between 2003
and 2004.
The proportions of pupils achieving awards in English at
SCQF2 Level 3 or better, five or more awards at Level 3
or better, and five or more awards at Level 5 or better by
the end of S4 had all remained broadly steady between
2003 and 2004. The proportion achieving awards in
mathematics at Level 3 or better, and the proportion
achieving five or more awards at Level 4 or better had
both decreased slightly between 2003 and 2004. Most
attainment levels, including those for lower-attaining
pupils, were below the average for comparator authorities
in 2004.
The proportion of pupils achieving one or more awards at
SCQF Level 7 by the end of S6 had increased slightly
between 2003 and 2004. The proportions achieving one,
three or five or more awards at Level 6 had all dropped
slightly between 2003 and 2004. While the majority of
S5/S6 attainment levels were in line with or above the
average for comparator authorities in 2004, levels of
attainment of lower-attaining pupils were below the
average for comparator authorities.
Overall, there were few signs of attainment increasing.
The authority needed a more coherent strategy for
improving attainment, especially in terms of closing the
gap between the attainment of lower attaining pupils and
the rest of the pupil population.
2
18
Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework.
Level 1 = Access 1. Level 2 = Access 2.
Level 3 = Standard Grade at Foundation Level or Access 3.
Level 4 = Standard Grade at General Level or Intermediate 1 at A - C.
Level 5 = Standard Grade at Credit Level or Intermediate 2 at A - C.
Level 6 = Higher at A - C.
Level 7 = Advanced Higher at A - C.
4.5 Enable all centrally-deployed staff and
heads of establishments to benefit from a
process of professional review and
development.
The Council had made unsatisfactory progress with this
main point for action.
In the 22 months since publication of the initial
inspection report, the implementation of Employee
Review had been inconsistent. The work of the Lead
Officer team had been reviewed and they had been set
agreed personal targets for improvement. They in turn
had reviewed some of the Service Managers but these
reviews would not be completed until June 2005. None
of the Service Managers in the School Improvement
Service had been reviewed to date. They had been
involved in training headteachers and peer reviewers and
in the review of headteachers. Some teams had a record
of completed and planned reviews but some still had to
be arranged.
The programme of headteacher reviews had been swift in
recent months with some headteachers and peer
reviewers feeling that the process was rushed and
unproductive. The authority was committed to
completing the reviews of headteachers by June 2005.
Generally, review of staff in schools was well established
and development needs informed much of the schedule of
opportunities for continuing professional development
(CPD). In the survey of its work, carried out by ECS in
September 2004, only a third of heads of establishment
agreed that ECS had a good knowledge of their
performance through staff review, a similar proportion to
that in the HMIE survey carried out in November 2002.
The provision for CPD, albeit it in some cases unrelated
to personal review, had been strong at the time of the
initial inspection and had remained so. The acting
19
Support Services Manager had been diligent in consulting
with groups to determine training needs in relation to
whole-authority and whole-school needs. Where
Employee Review had been established, Section Heads
played a key role in scrutinising development needs from
the Employee Review and Development proforma and
could submit bids for CPD funding to target key areas for
improvement. The acting Support Services Manager was
working to develop an authority-wide overview of
specific training undertaken and possible gaps, for
example in child protection procedures. This gap had
been identified during the initial inspection. While the
quality of the multi-agency training was good, the
Council’s own child protection review had judged the
training for education staff to be ‘ad hoc and piecemeal’.
Overall professional review had not yet been established
for all centrally-deployed staff and heads of
establishments. The authority had only very recently
taken steps to rectify this. There were too few links
between the outcomes of review and planned priorities
for development.
4.6 Ensure that initiatives designed to improve
pupils’ achievement and attainment have a
measurable impact.
The Council had made unsatisfactory progress in
addressing this main point for action.
At the time of the initial inspection, HMIE found that the
lack of baseline measures of performance established at
the outset of each improvement project meant that gains
in pupils’ performance were difficult to ascertain.
Evaluation of the impact for pupils of the improvement
activities that were undertaken within the authority was
not sufficiently clear or consistent across all projects.
In the survey of heads of establishment carried out by
ECS in September 2004, almost all primary and
20
pre-school heads thought that the authority had a good
range of initiatives to support improvement, but only a
third of secondary heads held this view, fewer than in the
HMIE survey carried out in November 2002. The
post-inspection Action Plan listed a range of processes
designed to help the authority monitor and improve
attainment at the level of individual schools. Although
the Service Manager raised issues relating to the lowest
performing 20% of pupils with individual secondary
schools and departments, ECS did not have an
authority-wide strategy for improving their performance
and for closing the gap between their performance and
that of their peers. Approaches to developing appropriate
curricula for lower attaining pupils were at an early stage.
The expected outcomes recorded in the Action Plan for
Raising Attainment at S3/S4 were not specific enough.
They did not specify measurable targets for improvement
but referred in general terms to monitoring of
performance and improvements in processes.
Other Action and Improvement plans also contained only
generalised descriptions of improvement activities and
expected outcomes. They also lacked specific actions to
address individual targets. Many of these plans related to
worthwhile activities and there was little doubt that
officers and establishment staff in front-line services
were working hard to improve the experiences and
achievements of groups of children and young people.
However, without a process for clearer specification of
the expected impact and interim targets and the
establishment of clear timescales with checks at regular
intervals, it was difficult for the authority to know
whether improvement activities were bringing about
planned benefits for children, young people and other
stakeholders. This was true not only of the improvement
activities going on across the authority, but also in
relation to the specific Action Plan established in
response to the HMIE report of 2003.
21
5. Conclusion
Perth & Kinross Council had taken a number of steps to
improve the quality of education for children and young
people. However, the extent of progress had been
adversely affected by continuing organisational and
management restructuring within Education and
Children’s Services. Good and effective work had been
carried out by a range of committed and hard working
staff working in front-line services in establishments and
at the centre. However, weaknesses in strategic
leadership and direction had resulted in only modest
improvements. Management weaknesses had resulted in
a significant overspend on a major capital project. The
respective roles, remits and line management
responsibilities of the Executive Director and Depute
Director needed to be reviewed and clarified.
Improvements were evident in some aspects of support
for pupils and monitoring the performance of schools.
However, there had been significant delays in addressing
key priorities arising from the original inspection. As a
result significant weaknesses remained, notably in
professional review of centrally-deployed staff and heads
of establishments and in evaluating the impact of
initiatives to improve pupils’ experiences and attainment.
Training in child protection still needed to be made more
widely available for education staff.
22
As a result of the overall limited progress made by the
authority, HMIE will make a further visit to the education
authority in connection with this inspection by March
2006 and report on progress. The District Inspector will
continue to engage with the authority to monitor
progress.
Margery Browning
Acting HM Chief Inspector
Directorate 5
August 2005
23
How can you contact us?
If you would like an additional copy of this report
Copies of this report have been sent to the Chief
Executive of the local authority, elected members,
the 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 HM Inspectorate of
Education, Directorate 5, Denholm House,
Almondvale Business Park, Almondvale Way,
Livingston, EH54 6GA or by telephoning 01506 600
380. Copies are also available on our website:
www.hmie.gov.uk.
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 Mrs Margery Browning, Acting
HM Chief Inspector, 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 600 265 or from our
website at www.hmie.gov.uk.
24
If you are not satisfied with the action we have taken
at the end of our complaints procedure, you can raise
your complaint with the Scottish Public Services
Ombudsman. The Scottish Public Services
Ombudsman is fully independent and has powers to
investigate complaints about Government
departments and agencies. You should write to The
Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, 4-6 Melville
Street, Edinburgh EH3 7NS. You can also telephone
0870 011 5378 or e-mail
enquiries@scottishombudsman.org.uk. More
information about the Ombudsman’s office can be
obtained from the website:
www.scottishombudsman.org.uk
Crown Copyright 2005
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.
25