Nairn Academy
The Highland Council

19 June 2007Contents

Contents

1. Background
2. Key strengths
3. How well does the school raise achievement for all?
4. How good is the environment for learning?
5. Leading and improving the school
Appendix 1 Indicators of quality
Appendix 2 Summary of questionnaire responses
Appendix 3 Attainment in Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) National Qualifications
How can you contact us?

1. Background

Nairn Academy was inspected in March 2007 as part of a national sample of secondary education. The inspection covered key aspects of the school’s work at all stages.

HM Inspectors evaluated how well the school was raising achievement for all pupils, taking into account the extent to which pupils’ learning needs were met by the curriculum and teaching. They also analysed pupils’ attainment in national examinations (see Appendix 3), the school’s processes for self-evaluation and innovation, and its overall effectiveness and capacity for improvement. HM Inspectors focused particularly on English, mathematics, geography, and physical education.

The inspection team also evaluated aspects of the school's progress in implementing national recommendations related to improving aspects of school meals provision.

HM Inspectors observed teaching, learning and achievement in lessons and other contexts and examined pupils’ work. They analysed responses to questionnaires¹ issued to a sample of parents² and pupils and to all staff. They interviewed groups of pupils, including representatives of pupil councils, and staff. Members of the inspection team also met representatives from the School Board, the parent-teacher association and the local community, a group of parents and one of the school chaplains.

Nairn Academy is a non denominational school serving the town of Nairn and surrounding rural communities. At the time of the inspection, the roll was 822. The percentage of pupils entitled to free school meals was below the national average. Pupils’ attendance was declining and overall in line with the national average. The school had a unit for a small number of pupils with a wide range of additional support needs. The school had experienced an unsettled period including extended staff absence during the session.

2. Key strengths

3. How well does the school raise achievement for all?

To evaluate how well the school was raising achievement for all, HM Inspectors considered the extent to which the learning needs of all pupils were met through the curriculum and teaching. They evaluated the effectiveness of the school in promoting the learning and personal development of all pupils in lessons and in other, broader contexts. They also considered the standards attained in specific aspects of learning.

Curriculum

The quality of the curriculum was adequate. A number of changes had been introduced to the curriculum over the past two sessions. Overall, recent changes were well-founded but others, planned prior to the appointment of the current headteacher, lacked sound rationale and appropriate consultation. The school was continuing to develop more flexibility in the curriculum to meet the needs of all pupils more effectively. Particular features of the curriculum included the following.

• Pupils were developing an increased awareness of citizenship through the annual cross-curricular global awareness and citizenship days.
• Pupils at S1/S2 studied information and communications technology (ICT). Their skills were not developed further in an integrated and progressive way across other subjects in the curriculum.
• The school did not ensure that all S1 courses built effectively on what pupils had learned in primary school.
• At S1/S2, the enterprise education course provided pupils with an effective basis for developing skills in enterprise.
• S1/S2 pupils, especially those in shared classes, had contact with too many teachers each week. This had an impact on continuity and progression in pupils’ learning.
• Curriculum flexibility helped pupils at S3/S4 to personalise their programmes of study through choosing from a range of academic and vocational subjects.
• At S3/S4, small groups of pupils took vocational programmes at college which emphasised skills-based practical learning. The school had not fully monitored the impact of these programmes on their progress in other subjects.
• The programme for personal, social and health education (PSHE) for pupils at S1 to S4 was effective but the programme at S5/S6 required further development.
• The school did not provide appropriately for physical education and religious education in the core curriculum at S5/S6.

Teaching and meeting pupils’ needs

Overall, the quality of teaching was good. Teachers’ explanations were clear and helpful and there was some very effective use of questioning to check pupils’ understanding and extend their thinking. In a number of lessons, teachers engaged pupils well and stimulated an interest in learning. There was scope for teachers to use a wider range of approaches to engage pupils actively. Some teachers shared learning outcomes with pupils and reviewed these at the end of lessons but this was not a consistent practice. Throughout the school, there was effective whole-class, direct teaching. A number of departments were developing the use of ICT through research-based work for pupils and the use of interactive whiteboards. However, insufficient pupil access to ICT limited its use to enrich lessons.

The school’s arrangements for meeting pupils’ needs were adequate. The principal teacher of learning support provided class teachers with detailed information on meeting individual pupils’ learning needs. Teachers knew pupils well but they did not all cater effectively for the range of learning needs in their class. A number of teachers did not consistently set appropriate activities and tasks. As a result, higher attaining pupils often received insufficient challenge. Support for learning staff provided well-targeted support for pupils in classes and in the additional support base. The structured support provided to individuals and groups was effective. A few departments had systematic approaches to monitoring pupils’ progress. However, there was little discussion with pupils about their targets for learning and many were unclear about how to improve. A few pupils followed individualised educational programmes (IEPs). Their targets were not always set and recorded appropriately and, as a result, their progress was not tracked and reviewed rigorously. The librarian made a very positive contribution to supporting pupils’ learning needs particularly in reading and in research and study skills. The school was developing the range of vocational programmes for pupils in S3 and S4.

Staff in the additional support unit reduced barriers to learning for a few pupils who had a wide range of needs, some of them complex. The quality of teaching in the unit had important strengths. Teachers and support staff gave clear directions and used praise effectively to motivate pupils. Specialist teachers for art, craft, design and technology, and physical education provided experiences which enhanced and enriched pupils’ learning. Staff in the unit dealt sensitively and effectively with the different learning needs of pupils. They worked well as a team and shared information with specialist staff from outside agencies. However, some pupils were not sufficiently challenged and should have been presented for National Qualifications. Where appropriate, pupils from the unit were integrated effectively into some mainstream classes. Pupils had a number of beneficial experiences to support their learning, including excursions in the local community and college links. They were well included in the life of the school, for example, through meeting friends at breaks and lunchtimes. Overall, IEPs were variable in quality and lacked clear long- and short-term targets. Links with parents were effective and supported pupils’ learning.

Learning and personal development

The quality of pupils’ learning varied widely across, and at times within, subjects and was adequate overall. In most classes, pupils behaved well, cooperated with their teachers and did as they were asked in lessons. In a few lessons, pupils’ learning experiences were stimulating and engaging. In some classes, especially practical ones, pupils interacted well with each other and took some responsibility for their learning. In some subjects, pupils made very good use of the library to research topics and carry out tasks set by their teachers. Overall, pupils had too few opportunities to work collaboratively and to be independent in their learning. Too often, the very poor behaviour of a few pupils, especially at S2, disrupted the learning of others. This also affected the learning of other classes in areas where noise travelled easily across open spaces. At times the pace of learning was too slow and pupils did not make appropriate progress. In a few departments, teachers gave pupils helpful feedback and advice on how they could improve their learning.

Overall the school had good approaches to pupils’ personal development. Pupils were developing responsible attitudes through acting as buddies and paired readers to younger pupils and contributing to the pupil council. Activities such as the citizenship day and running a Fair Trade tuck shop encouraged pupils to develop tolerance and concern for others. International links with schools in Latvia and Malawi challenged pupils’ perceptions of life and encouraged global citizenship. Pupils developed teamworking, leadership and problem-solving skills through a wide range of activities including an activities day, global awareness day and sports coaching. A notable number of pupils developed interpersonal skills and self-confidence through participating in musical and sporting events. The PSHE programme focused on developing an appropriate range of skills for pupils at S1 to S4. The quality of pupils’ learning experiences in PSHE classes varied and pupils did not always engage actively in lessons. Pupils did not have sufficient opportunity to take responsibility for their learning. Pastoral care staff, the librarian and the careers adviser provided helpful information to pupils on curricular and career choices. Work experience and advice on interview skills provided pupils with sound preparation for future progress into employment.

English

The quality of teaching varied widely. In some instances where high quality teaching approaches were evident, teachers responded successfully to pupils’ needs and learning was very good. In a minority of classes where expectations were high and a brisk pace was set, pupils worked well independently, and with other pupils. In too many lessons, pupils’ progress was limited by the lack of challenging tasks. Some pupils had contributed their writing to public displays and nationally published anthologies of poetry.

Overall, the quality of teaching and learning was adequate and meeting needs was weak. Attainment was adequate. Particular features included the following.

• At S1/S2, the majority of pupils attained appropriate national levels in reading, writing, and listening. Standards had improved steadily in talking and most pupils now attained appropriate national levels.
• At S3/S4, pupils performed less well in English than in their other subjects. The proportion of pupils attaining Credit and General awards at Standard Grade was below the national average.
• At S5/S6, the proportions of pupils attaining A-C grades at Higher and Intermediate 2 were well below national averages. Almost all pupils presented at Intermediate 1 attained A-C grades. At Advanced Higher, half of the pupils were successful.

Mathematics

The quality of lessons was variable. Almost all teachers gave clear instructions and explained work well, and the majority used interactive approaches effectively to involve pupils. Pupils were generally well supported but more challenging tasks were required, particularly for the higher attaining pupils. In the most successful classes, pupils worked together and learned from each other. In some lessons, pupils’ learning was limited by the slow pace.

Overall, the quality of teaching was good, and meeting pupils’ needs and learning were adequate. Attainment was adequate. Particular features included the following.

• At S1/S2, attainment was improving and the majority of pupils attained appropriate national levels. The proportion of pupils exceeding these levels was increasing.
• At S3/S4, the proportion of pupils attaining an award at Intermediate 2 was generally above the national average.
• At S5/S6, the proportion of pupils attaining A-C grades at Higher was in line with the national average but had declined. At Intermediate 2, the proportion of pupils attaining A-C grades had declined notably and was below the national average overall. Less than half of pupils presented for Intermediate 1 and for Advanced Higher attained A-C grades.

Geography

Teachers provided clear and helpful explanations. They generally used ICT well to engage and motivate pupils. A good range of school-based and residential fieldwork activities developed pupils’ independent thinking and presentation skills. Teachers did not set tasks which were sufficiently challenging for all pupils. Most pupils behaved well and worked hard on the tasks set. They had too few opportunities to work collaboratively or independently.

Overall, the quality of teaching was good, and meeting pupils’ needs and learning were adequate. Attainment was good. Particular features included the following.

• At S1/S2, most pupils performed well in their coursework.
• At S3/S4, the proportions of pupils attaining Credit and General awards were in line with the national average.
• At S5/S6, the proportion of pupils attaining A-C grades in Higher was in line with national average. Of the small numbers of pupils presented for Intermediate 2 and Advanced Higher in the last two years, the majority had been successful.

Physical education

The quality of teaching and learning varied too much. Teachers used praise well to motivate pupils, including those in the additional support unit. Questioning often did not sufficiently extend pupils’ thinking. Some tasks enabled pupils to work together effectively and learn from each other but teachers did not give pupils focused feedback to improve their performance. The range of activities was generally too limited. Most pupils were motivated, enthusiastic and well behaved. On occasion, lessons were slow to start and pupils’ progress was limited.

Overall, the quality of teaching was good, and meeting pupils’ needs and learning were adequate. Attainment was adequate. Particular features included the following.

• At S1/S2, most pupils were performing well in their coursework but would benefit from opportunities for choice.
• At S3/S4, the proportion of pupils attaining Credit and General awards at Standard Grade was above the national average.
• At S5/S6, the proportion of pupils attaining A-C grades at Higher was overall in line with the national average. The proportion of pupils presented at Intermediate 2 was well above the national average and almost all were successful. The proportion of girls studying physical education was notably lower than that of boys.

Attainment

Information about the subjects inspected has been given earlier in the report. Across the school, particular features of pupils’ progress, results in examinations and other qualifications, including those awarded by the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) within the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF)³ for the three year period 2004-2006, are included below.

By the end of S2 attainment was adequate. Particular features included the following.

• Overall, most pupils were making appropriate progress in their learning although there was headroom for improvement. The majority of pupils attained appropriate national levels in reading, writing, listening and mathematics, with most pupils attaining the appropriate national level in talking.
• Pupils’ skills in ICT were not developed sufficiently throughout the curriculum.

By the end of S4 attainment was weak. Standards had declined, although a recent improvement at SCQF level 5 was encouraging. Particular features included the following.

• The proportions of pupils attaining five or more awards at SCQF levels 3, 4 or 5 were respectively below, in line with, and above national averages. At SCQF levels 3 and 4, the school performed notably less well than similar schools. School performance at SCQF level 5 was overall in line with that in schools with similar characteristics. The proportion of pupils attaining SCQF level 3 in English and mathematics was declining and the school performed less well than schools with similar characteristics.
• The proportion of pupils gaining a Credit award at Standard Grade was above the national average in computing, history, physics and religious studies. It was well above in French although presentations were well below the national average. It was below in business management and chemistry and well below in administration.

By the end of S6 attainment was weak. Since 2004, standards in all aspects had improved slightly at S6 but they had declined at S5, some notably. Particular features included the following.

• The proportions of pupils attaining one or more, three or more or five or more awards at SCQF level 6 were below the national averages and pupils performed less well than in schools with similar characteristics.
• The proportion of pupils attaining at least one award at SCQF level 7 was below the national average and pupils performed less well than in schools with similar characteristics.
• At Intermediate 2, the proportion of pupils who gained A-C grades was well above the national average in art and design, history and woodworking skills.
• At Higher, the proportion of pupils who gained A-C grades was well above the national average in art and design, business management, chemistry, computing, graphic communications, music and physics, and below in human biology and religious, moral and philosophical studies.

4. How good is the environment for learning?

5. Leading and improving the school

Nairn Academy was at an important stage of its development. The notable improvement in relationships with pupils, staff and parents was a clear outcome of the headteacher’s aims and the efforts of staff and the wider school community. Teaching was good overall but the quality of learning and meeting pupils’ needs varied too much across the school. The expectations of teachers and pupils were improving but were not yet high enough. Some pupils achieved well but overall levels of attainment had declined, particularly at S4 and S5. The school should continue to build on the willingness of staff and pupils to improve pupils’ learning experiences and raise attainment.

The leadership of the headteacher had important strengths. She had been in post for 18 months and had set a clear direction for the school, gaining the respect and support of teachers, parents and pupils. As a result of her efforts, aspects of ethos and teamworking had improved notably. Her teaching was a model of very good practice. She should implement the school’s quality assurance procedures more rigorously, further challenge and support departments, and communicate more clearly to all staff their roles in achieving improvement. The senior management team were hard working and had provided good support to the headteacher in taking forward her plans for improvement. They carried out their individual remits with commitment and enthusiasm. They now required to work more consistently as a team and to adopt a more strategic and proactive role in school improvement. The majority of principal teachers and faculty heads led effectively and some had a strong influence on whole-school developments. A few had not allocated sufficient time for this role. The librarian and principal teacher with responsibility for development had successfully led a number of initiatives to improve the life and work of the school. The headteacher needed to develop further the capacity of managers to lead improvements in learning and teaching across the school. The education authority’s links with the school were not sufficiently strong to have a positive impact on the school’s capacity to improve.

Self-evaluation was weak. The headteacher had introduced a number of approaches which had the potential to enable staff to monitor and evaluate more systematically the quality of its performance. These included meetings with departmental managers to analyse examination results and plan for improvement. The headteacher had not provided managers with sufficiently clear guidance to enable them to support and challenge departments to be more accountable for improving learning. Senior managers had recently begun to monitor aspects of learning and teaching, and good practice identified had been shared with staff. These approaches had not yet resulted in improvement. The school was seeking the views of parents but had not engaged pupils in evaluating aspects of their learning. Departmental approaches to tracking pupils’ progress and evaluating the quality of pupils’ learning experiences varied widely across the school. Staff needed to be clear about their role in school improvement and involved more directly in the self-evaluation process.

As well as building on the strengths and addressing the issues raised throughout this report, the school and the education authority should address the following main points for action.

What happens next?

The school and the education authority have been asked to prepare an action plan indicating how they will address the main findings of the report, and to share that plan with parents and carers. HM Inspectors will continue to engage with the school and the education authority in monitoring progress. Within two years of the publication of this report parents and carers will be informed about the progress made by the school.

Eleanor Harkness
HM Inspector
19 June 2007

Appendix 1 Indicators of quality

The following quality indicators have been used in the inspection process to contribute to the evaluation of the overall effectiveness of the school in promoting learning and achievement for all pupils.

This report uses the following word scale to make clear the judgements made by inspectors:

Appendix 2 Summary of questionnaire responses

The following provides a summary of questionnaire responses. Key issues from the questionnaires have been considered in the inspection and comments are included as appropriate throughout the report.

Appendix 3 Attainment in Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) National Qualifications

Percentage of relevant S4 roll attaining by end of S4

Percentage of relevant S4 roll attaining by end of S5

Percentage of relevant S4 roll attaining by end of S6

How can you contact us?

If you would like an additional copy of this report

Copies of this report have been sent to the headteacher and school staff, the Director of Education, Culture & Sport, local councillors and appropriate Members of the Scottish Parliament. Subject to availability, further copies may be obtained free of charge from HM Inspectorate of Education, 1st Floor, Endeavour House, 1 Greenmarket, Dundee DD1 4QB or by telephoning 01382 576700. Copies are also available on our website at www.hmie.gov.uk.

HMIE Feedback and Complaints Procedure

Should you wish to comment on any aspect of secondary inspections, you should write in the first instance to Frank Crawford, HMCI, at HM Inspectorate of Education, Europa Building, 450 Argyle Street, Glasgow G2 8LG.

If you have a concern about this report, you should write in the first instance to our Complaints Manager, HMIE Business Management Unit, Second Floor, Denholm House, Almondvale Business Park, Almondvale Way, Livingston, EH54 6GA. You can also email HMIEcomplaints@hmie.gsi.gov.uk . A copy of our complaints procedure is available from this office, by telephoning 01506 600200 or from our website at www.hmie.gov.uk .

If you are not satisfied with the action we have taken at the end of our complaints procedure, you can raise your complaint with the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO). The SPSO is fully independent and has powers to investigate complaints about Government departments and agencies. You should write to The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, 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.

Footnotes

1. See Appendix 2

2. Throughout this report, the term ‘parents’ should be taken to include foster carers, residential care staff and carers who are relatives or friends.

3. Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF) levels:
7: Advanced Higher at A-C/CSYS at A-C
6: Higher at A-C
5: Intermediate 2 at A-C; Standard Grade at 1-2
4: Intermediate 1 at A-C; Standard Grade at 3-4
3: Access 3 cluster; Standard Grade at 5-6

4. Comparator schools are the 20 schools statistically closest to the school being inspected in terms of the key characteristics of the school population.