Integrated Inspection by the
Care Commission and
HM Inspectorate of Education of
Portlethen Primary School
Nursery Class
Aberdeenshire Council
18 January 2006
Portlethen Primary School Nursery Class
Cookston Road
Portlethen
Aberdeenshire
AB12 4PT
The Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act, 2001, requires that the Care Commission
inspect all care services covered by the Act every year to monitor the quality of care
provided. In accordance with the Act, the Care Commission and HM Inspectorate of
Education carry out integrated inspections of the quality of care and education. In
doing this, inspection teams take account of National Care Standards, Early Education
and Childcare up to the age of 16, and The Child at the Centre. The following
standards and related quality indicators were used in the recent inspection.
National Care Standard
Child at the Centre Quality Indicator
Standard 2 – A Safe Environment
Resources
Standard 4 – Engaging with Children
Development and learning through play
Standard 5 – Quality of Experience
Curriculum
Children’s development and learning
Support for children and families
Standard 6 – Support and Development
Standard 14 – Well-managed Service
Management, Leadership and Quality
Assurance
Evaluations made using HMIE quality indicators use the following scale, and these
words are used in the report to describe the team’s judgements:
Very good
Good
Fair
Unsatisfactory
:
:
:
:
major strengths
strengths outweigh weaknesses
some important weaknesses
major weaknesses
Reports contain Recommendations which are intended to support improvements in
the quality of service.
Any Requirements refer to actions which must be taken by service providers to ensure
that regulations are met and there is compliance with relevant legislation. In these
cases the regulation(s) to which requirements refer will be noted clearly and
timescales given.
HOW TO CONTACT US
If you would like an additional copy of this report
Copies of this report have been sent to the headteacher, staff and
the education authority. Copies are also available on the Care
Commission website: www.carecommission.com and HMIE website:
www.hmie.gov.uk.
If you wish to comment about integrated pre-school inspections
Should you wish to comment on any aspect of integrated pre-school
inspections, you should write in the first instance to Kenneth Muir,
HMCI, at HM Inspectorate of Education, Denholm House,
Almondvale Business Park, Almondvale Way, Livingston EH54 6GA.
Our complaints procedure
If you have a concern about this report, you should write in the first
instance to either:
Complaints Coordinator
Headquarters
Care Commission
Compass House
Riverside Drive
Dundee
DD1 4NY
Hazel Dewart
HM Inspectorate of Education
Denholm House
Almondvale Business Park
Almondvale Way
Livingston
EH54 6GA
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 can
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.
A copy of the HMIE complaints procedure is available from the HMIE
website at www.hmie.gov.uk or by telephoning 01506 600 258.
Crown Copyright 2006
Care Commission
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.
_______________________________
Integrated Inspection by the
Care Commission and
HM Inspectorate of Education of
Portlethen Primary School
Nursery Class
Aberdeenshire Council
Introduction
Portlethen Primary School Nursery Class was inspected in
October 2005 as part of the integrated inspection programme by
the Care Commission and HM Inspectorate of Education. An
inspection of the primary school was carried out at the same time
by HMIE and is the subject of a separate report. The nursery
catered for pre-school children aged three to five years. It was
registered for 80 children attending at any one session. At the
time of the inspection the total roll was 37.
The environment
Standard 2
The children were cared for in a pleasant, safe, hygienic
environment. The surroundings were generally in a good state of
decoration and repair. They were maintained through the
implementation of a comprehensive set of policies and
procedures relating to health and safety. Regular recordings and
evaluations were kept of fire alarm tests and drills.
The children had access to secure outside play areas and were
well supervised. Risk assessments were in place for managing
children outside the school grounds.
The layout of the room allowed the children to play independently
or in small groups. However, the staff could review the layout of
the resources in the nursery to maximise the potential for
independent learning and exploration.
The nursery was accessed up a long flight of stairs or through the
main entrance which had a staggered gate. Neither of the
entrances made suitable provision for disabled access. As funds
permit, it will be necessary to make suitable provision in the light
of recent legislative change.
Quality of children’s experience
Standard 4 & 5
Staff were caring and had established good relationships with
children. They welcomed children individually on arrival, helping
them to gradually settle into the daily routines. Staff used praise
and encouragement to develop children’s self esteem. Children
were confident and enthusiastic in their chosen play. Most
children cooperated well with each other and shared resources.
Staff interacted positively with children, but did not make enough
use of questions to extend and challenge their learning.
1
Staff planned an appropriate range of topics and seasonal
interests. However, planning did not focus clearly enough on
what children were expected to learn. Staff kept useful records of
children’s progress. They observed children to record
assessment information, but did not make sufficient use of their
findings to plan effectively for individuals and smaller groups.
Overall, a broad range of activities was on offer for children to
choose. Some activities were not sufficiently challenging to meet
the needs of all children.
Staff had started to compile helpful folders of children’s work.
Parents and children were not yet involved in collecting samples
of work to add to these folders. Sharing of these files would more
effectively engage children’s interest and help celebrate their
achievements with parents.
Features of the programmes for children included the following.
2
•
The programme for emotional, personal and social
development was good. Children were happy and settling
well into the nursery routine. Most children were able to
cooperate and share with each other in their play. Some had
established close friendships and shared similar interests.
Children were developing independence when washing their
hands before snack, pouring from a jug, putting on aprons
and helping to tidy away materials. Children did not have
sufficient opportunities to express choices, make plans or
take part in decision making in their play setting.
•
The programme for communication and language was good.
Children spoke freely to each other during their chosen play
experiences. Most children could recognise their own name
in print and a few could write it. Use of children’s written
marks around the playroom and opportunities to write in
purposeful play contexts would engage children’s interest
further. Some children could identify the sound of the letter at
the beginning of their name. Children listened well and
enjoyed a story read by an adult. Staff did not use, organise
or present books effectively enough to interest children in
looking at books for pleasure.
•
The programme for knowledge and understanding of the
world was good. Staff made effective use of visitors,
including the police liaison and road safety officers, to
develop children’s knowledge of the world of work. Children
had good opportunities to develop their understanding of
early mathematics through counting, shape and pattern
games. Children poured sand and floated home-made boats
on water. Staff were developing children’s knowledge and
interest in technology through using the computer and digital
camera. A walk outdoors to the woodland area provided
some opportunities for children to learn about trees and birds.
Children did not have sufficient opportunities to test and try
out ideas, or delight in new discoveries, through simple
problem solving activities.
•
The programme for expressive and aesthetic development
was good. Children developed their imagination and
expressed their feelings in holiday role-play in the house
corner. Dressing-up clothes allowed children to enter into
other imaginary worlds and places. Some children revisited
real-life situations and experiences, using small world figures.
Children had opportunities to use paints and access a good
range of collage materials set out by an adult. A member of
staff played the piano and sang songs with children at times
during the week. There were too few occasions for children
to access or learn how to use simple percussion instruments.
Children had limited opportunities to be creative by freely
selecting, combining and using a wider range of art tools and
craft materials.
•
The programme for physical development and movement
was good overall. Staff had provided a range of activities for
children to develop control of their fingers and hands using
construction toys, jigsaws and puzzles. Staff had time
allocated in the school gym hall on a daily basis for physical
movement. This was not always used. Children had access
to the school playground and outdoor physical area, where
they had opportunities to explore and play. Staff needed to
extend opportunities for children to develop an appropriate
range of physical skills. Children did not have enough
opportunities to use large apparatus and equipment on a
regular daily basis.
Support for children and families
Standard 6
Staff had established positive relationships with children and their
families. Staff shared information with parents through daily
contact, regular newsletters, helpful notice boards and
informative curriculum meetings. Parents who responded to the
pre-inspection questionnaire were mostly satisfied with all
aspects of the nursery’s work. A few wanted more opportunities
to discuss their children’s progress and share in their learning.
Parents who were spoken to expressed high regard for the
nursery and its work.
Formal arrangements for reporting to parents included planned
interviews twice yearly and a helpful annual written report.
Opportunities for parents to become involved in the life of the
nursery were planned. A parent helper system to involve parents
more in the work of the playroom was being developed. Parents’
skills, hobbies and work interests were also used. Parental links
led to a Harris hawk and police dog visiting the nursery.
Staff had developed general working relationships with support
agencies including the speech therapist. These contacts had yet
to be further extended to support children’s needs more fully.
Staff showed knowledge of children’s needs, but they were not
able to address them consistently and effectively. They had
drawn up individualised educational programmes for children
requiring support. These were not compiled in consultation with
other agencies. The targets set within the support plans did not
ensure that children’s additional needs were effectively met.
Parents were not sufficiently included in the review process to
help them support their child’s learning at home.
Staff provided some support for children with English as an
additional language. However, there was not a strong enough
focus within the nursery to raise awareness of, and project
positive images of, racial and cultural difference.
Staff had developed appropriate links with the receiving primary
schools to ease children’s move to P1. The nursery shared
3
information about children’s progress with the P1 teacher.
Parents and children were involved in induction meetings and
planned visits at the end of the nursery year. The nursery
received detailed reports and profiles of children’s progress from
the community playgroup. Better use of this information would
help provide a good starting point in learning, to match the needs
of individual children.
Supportive procedures to welcome new children settling into the
play routines had been effectively put in place. Prior visits to the
playroom by parents and children helped build children’s
confidence in the setting and develop initial relationships with
staff.
Management
Standard 14
The headteacher had been in post for seven months. The depute
headteacher of early years had overall responsibility for the
management of the nursery and primary stages one to three. Her
remit included the role of nursery teacher with a class
commitment for the majority of the week. This work was both
complex and demanding. As a result, leadership of the nursery
was fair. Both the headteacher and depute had expectations of
high-quality provision in the nursery and now needed to provide
clearer direction to improve the curriculum and children’s learning
experiences further. The depute headteacher had managed the
day-to-day organisation of the nursery well and formed a
supportive team with the nursery staff. She worked closely with
staff to effectively support the development of the daily
programmes offered to children. She had formed positive
working relationships with staff, parents and children. Staff were
well organised and hard working. They effectively shared tasks
and demonstrated helpful work practices.
A broad range of policies and procedures was in place. Policies
on the curriculum had been identified for review, to ensure they
linked more specifically to the five key areas of learning. This
review needed to be done in collaboration with staff.
Staff had not yet participated in a formal system of staff
development and review. This had been highlighted
appropriately within the nursery development plan. Staff
attended helpful training to support their work with children. All
staff were aware of policy and procedures for the protection of
children. Some staff had attended child protection training
provided by the primary school. Staff had knowledge of the
Scottish Social Services Council Codes of Practice and the
implications for the service.
Priorities in the development plan were being progressed.
However, the plan did not focus clearly enough on improving the
quality of children’s learning. An audit had been carried out by
the depute headteacher to identify priorities for improvement.
Staff had not been significantly involved in the self-evaluation
process. The views of parents and children did not yet influence
the choice of priorities for improvement.
Some informal monitoring of the nursery had been undertaken.
The depute headteacher was fully aware of the need to introduce
a more formal system of monitoring and evaluating to improve all
aspects of the nursery’s work.
4
Key strengths
•
The bright, attractive environment created by staff to
welcome parents and children.
•
The confidence and enthusiasm of the children.
•
The positive relationships between the depute headteacher
and nursery staff.
•
Parents’ positive views of the service.
Other Issues
Response to
recommendations or to
requirements made at
previous inspection
There were no recommendations or requirements from the
previous inspection.
Recommendations for improvement
•
Staff should further develop skill in questioning to extend and
challenge children’s learning.
•
Staff should review planning and assessment procedures to
ensure that information gathered is used to plan for children’s
next steps in learning.
•
Staff should further develop systems for supporting children
with additional support needs.
•
Senior management should implement more rigorous and
systematic procedures to monitor and evaluate all aspects of
the nursery’s work.
•
The service should ensure it meets the National Care
Standards for Early Education and Childcare up to 16,
Standard 2 – A safe environment and disabled access to the
nursery should be reviewed in line with recent legislative
changes to ensure that it is fit for purpose.
Care Commission Officers and HM Inspectors have asked the
pre-school centre and education authority to prepare an action
plan indicating how they will address the main findings of the
report. Where requirements are made, the action plan should
include timescales to deal with these. The plan will be available
to parents and carers. In liaison with the pre-school centre and
education authority, Care Commission Officers and
HM Inspectors will monitor progress to ensure improvements are
in line with the main findings of the report.
Miriam Smith
Care Commission
Liz Oliver
HM Inspectorate of Education
5