14 March 2006
1. Background
2. Key strengths
3. What are the views of parents, pupils and staff?
4. How good are learning, teaching and achievement?
5. How well are pupils supported?
6. How good is the environment for learning?
7. 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?
Douglas Ewart High School was inspected in November 2005 as part of a national sample of secondary education. The inspection covered key aspects of the school’s work at all stages. It evaluated the quality of the curriculum, analysed pupils’ performance in examinations (see Appendix 3) and assessed the quality of pupils’ broader achievement. It also evaluated the quality of learning and teaching and pupil support, the environment for learning, the school’s processes for self-evaluation, and its overall effectiveness and capacity for improvement. There was a particular focus on the work of the English, mathematics, history and home economics departments.
HM Inspectors observed learning and teaching and examined pupils’ work. They analysed responses to questionnaires issued to a sample of parents1 and pupils and to all staff. They interviewed groups of pupils, including the pupil council, and staff. Members of the inspection team also met the chairperson of the School Board, representatives of the parent-teacher association and a group of parents.
Douglas Ewart High School is a non-denominational school serving the town of Newton Stewart and an extensive rural area. At the time of the inspection, the roll was 755. The percentage of pupils entitled to free school meals was in line with the national average. Pupils’ attendance was below the national average. There was a learning centre within the school for pupils with additional support needs.
HM Inspectors identified the following key strengths.
Just over a quarter of the parents sampled returned the questionnaire. A significant number had concerns about many aspects of the school. These included the school’s reputation in the community, the relationships between teachers and pupils and the quality of its partnership with parents and the community. Pupils’ views about the school were very mixed. Many did not think that pupils were treated fairly and were worried at the school’s ability to deal with their concerns, including bullying. They did not feel listened to or included within the school. Many did not feel safe and secure in the school. The views of teaching staff in the questionnaires offered a contrast. All thought that they showed concern for pupils’ care and welfare and set high standards for pupils’ attainment. Most enjoyed being in the school and thought that staff worked hard to promote and maintain good relations with the community. Very few thought that standards for pupils’ behaviour were consistently maintained by the school. Staff had significant concerns about the management of the school including the quality of teamwork and communication, their involvement in decision making and the school’s ability to deal with indiscipline. As a priority, the school needed to address the disparities in the perceptions of pupils, parents and staff.
Further details about what most pleased parents, staff and pupils, and what they would most like to see improved, can be found in Appendix 2 of this report.
The curriculum, learning and teaching
The quality of the curriculum was weak overall. S1/S2 pupils followed a balanced curriculum. The school had reduced the number of teachers with whom pupils came into contact through the use of subject rotas, but these rotas did not always lead to continuity in pupils’ learning. The school made too limited use of pupils’ previous learning in primary schools. Pupils in S3/S4 had the opportunity to study a balanced range of eight Standard Grade courses, or their equivalent. Some pupils’ individual timetables were unbalanced. Fewer than half studied a modern language. Through an education authority Skills for Work initiative, S3 pupils were given good opportunities to pursue a wide range of college vocational courses. In addition, small groups of pupils with particular needs followed courses in personal and life skills. Some subjects had made promising moves to meet the wide range of pupils’ needs by developing new Access 3 and Intermediate courses. There had also been successful early presentation of a high attaining group of pupils for Standard Grade English in S3. The S5/S6 curriculum was unsatisfactory. Pupils’ choices had not always proved feasible to timetable. Subsequent changes in the timetable had been made too late. Some pupils did not have an appropriate curriculum. Staff did not monitor the use of study time. The school did not provide adequate physical education, social education or religious education. Neither did it have effective links with colleges or provide short courses to enhance and broaden pupils’ experience. The lack of rigour and a clear rationale for the S5/S6 curriculum had had adverse effects on pupils’ progress, motivation and morale.
The quality of teaching was variable, both within subject departments and across the school. The majority of teachers used whole class teaching effectively. They prepared lessons well, gave good explanations and made appropriate use of homework. The range of teaching approaches was limited, however, and pupils had too few opportunities to work collaboratively or to think for themselves. Some lessons did not engage pupils enough or stimulate their interest. Some teachers made effective use of information and communications technology (ICT), but there was scope to extend this further. A few teachers were good at giving feedback to pupils on their learning, but overall pupils were not given sufficient information on what they needed to do to improve their learning.
Most pupils were well behaved, attentive and keen to succeed. When given interesting activities and an appropriate level of responsibility, they responded well. In many lessons, however, the pace of learning was too slow and the tasks set were insufficiently challenging. Teachers’ expectations of what could be achieved varied widely from class to class. Too many expected pupils to be passive rather than to think for themselves. A few pupils were not motivated to learn and presented challenging behaviour. While some staff responded appropriately and managed these situations well, others were much less effective. Some teachers provided effective individual support and varied tasks for pupils encountering difficulties in their learning. Others lacked enough awareness of how to identify and address pupils’ needs. Much further work was needed to meet pupils’ needs more consistently and ensure effective contributions from learning support staff and class teachers.
Achievement
The overall quality of attainment at S1/S2 was weak. By the end of S2, the majority of pupils were attaining appropriate national levels in reading, writing and, in 2005, in mathematics. The school had not made effective use of national assessments to monitor pupils’ progress accurately. Standards of attainment in other areas of the curriculum were not monitored sufficiently closely by the school.
The following comments are based on Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) data, using the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF)2 for the three year period (2003-2005) and also draw on the overall evaluations of the quality of learning, teaching and meeting pupils’ needs.
The overall quality of attainment at S3/S4 was weak. The proportions of pupils attaining five or more awards at SCQF level 3 or better, and level 4 or better, were below the national averages. In both measures the school performed less well than schools with similar characteristics. The proportion of pupils attaining five or more awards at SCQF level 5 or better had been in line with the national average, although it had declined in 2005. The proportion of pupils attaining English or mathematics at SCQF level 3 was decreasing.
The overall quality of attainment in S5/S6 was adequate. By the end of S5 and S6, the proportion of pupils attaining one or more and five or more A-C grades at SCQF level 6 was consistently above the national average. The proportion of pupils attaining three or more A-C grades at SCQF level 6 had been above the national average by the end of S5 and in line with the national average by the end of S6. In these measures the school performed better than schools with similar characteristics. The trend had not been improving. The proportion of pupils attaining five or more awards at SCQF levels 4 and 5 by the end of S5 had been decreasing. The proportion of pupils attaining one or more A-C grades at SCQF level 7 by the end of S6 was consistently above the national average.
Information on the subjects inspected is given later in the report. Significant features of attainment in the subjects not inspected were as follows.
When opportunities were offered, many pupils achieved well. At all stages, a commendable number demonstrated good levels of participation and achievement in a wide range of sports, including rugby, hockey, athletics, badminton, gymnastics and lifesaving. Some senior pupils developed citizenship skills through helping younger pupils at swimming and in classes. Links with the local community had contributed to raising pupils’ self-esteem, including activities with local nurseries, and senior citizen groups. Pupils’ teamworking skills were developed through taking part in raising money for charities and working for an Eco-Schools award at bronze level. Involvement in enterprise activities, residential trips and the Duke of Edinburgh Award scheme was helping to develop the self-confidence of participants. Involvement in the pupil council was beginning to allow pupils to contribute more directly to school decision making. Pupils showed initiative and teamwork in organising rock concerts and talent shows, but otherwise there had been limited opportunities for pupils to demonstrate achievement in school musical performances. Overall, there was considerable scope for developing a more sustained approach towards encouraging the achievements of younger pupils.
English
Learning and teaching
Most teachers provided clear statements for pupils of the aims of each lesson and the work they would do. Most pupils paid attention in class and worked hard. They responded well to teachers’ questioning. Most were making good progress, particularly in analysing and discussing texts. However, in a few classes pupils worked too slowly. A few needed more effective class management to improve their behaviour so that they learned more productively and did not distract others. Teachers assessed pupils’ work carefully and made constructive comments. They needed to make more consistent use of this information to identify pupils’ individual strengths and areas for improvement and to match tasks to their prior levels of attainment, particularly in S1/S2.
Achievement
At S1/S2, the majority of pupils attained or exceeded appropriate national levels in reading and writing. Attainment had remained broadly the same over the last three years. The department was unable to provide evidence of pupils’ attainment in listening and talking. In 2005, about a third of pupils in S3 were presented early for Standard Grade, of whom most gained an award at grades 1-2. The proportion of S4 pupils attaining a Standard Grade award at grades 1-2 had been in line with national levels until 2005, when it had fallen to below the national average. The proportion of pupils not attaining any award had increased and was well above the national average. At S5/S6, the proportion of pupils presented for Higher was below the national average. The proportion attaining grades A-C had fallen from being above the national average to being below in 2005. A lower proportion of pupils was presented for Intermediate 2 than was the case nationally, and the proportion attaining grades A-C was consistently below national averages. Pupils were presented for Advanced Higher in 2003 and 2005, and around half gained an award at A-C.
Other features of pupils’ achievement included the following.
Mathematics
Learning and teaching
Teachers gave clear explanations and questioned pupils well to check their factual knowledge and understanding. They generally made effective use of direct teaching to classes and individuals. Overall, however, they did not adopt a wide enough range of teaching approaches to ensure that pupils’ learning experiences were suitably varied and stimulating. Most pupils worked conscientiously in class and co-operated with their teachers. They responded best when teachers set high expectations and a brisk pace of learning. However, the pace of learning was often too slow. In a few classes, the behaviour of some pupils disrupted the learning of their peers. Pupils responded well to the opportunities offered in a few classes for them to work together in groups. However, tasks given did not always take full account of pupils’ skills and abilities to ensure that they achieved the most effective progress in their learning.
Achievement
At S1/S2, pupils were making appropriate progress with their classwork. The majority of pupils in S2 had reached appropriate national levels of attainment. This proportion was improving overall. The proportion of S4 pupils attaining grades 1-4 at Standard Grade was well below the national average. The proportion of pupils attaining grades 1-2 was generally above the national average but there was a clear drop in 2005. The proportion of pupils in S5/S6 attaining A-C grades at Higher was declining and was below the national average. Around a third of those presented for Higher did not achieve A-C grades. At Intermediate 2, the proportion of pupils in S5/S6 attaining A-C grades was generally in line with the national average. The proportion of pupils in S5 attaining A-C grades at Intermediate 1 was generally well above the national average.
Other features of pupils’ achievement included the following.
History
Learning and teaching
The quality of learning and teaching varied across the department. Some lessons were very well delivered and paced. A few lacked enough focus, pace and challenge. A wider range of teaching approaches and pupil tasks was required in some courses. Available ICT facilities were used effectively. Pupils listened attentively and responded well when given opportunities to participate actively in lessons. They needed more opportunities for discussion and debate in some classes. Most pupils’ needs were appropriately met, although some courses did not provide enough challenge for higher attaining pupils. An Access 3 course in social subjects was addressing well the needs of a particular group of pupils. Feedback in jotters and on assessments lacked enough emphasis on helping pupils to progress and improve their learning.
Achievement
At S1/S2, the majority of pupils were performing well in classwork. At Standard Grade, the proportion of S4 pupils gaining grades 1-2 was in line with or above the national average, as was the proportion gaining grades 1-4 or better. The proportion of S5/S6 pupils gaining A-C grades at Higher was in line with or just below the national average.
Other features of pupils’ achievement included the following.
Home economics
Learning and teaching
Teachers organised lessons well and interacted effectively with pupils to support and encourage their learning. Their instructions and explanations were clear and often linked to pupils’ everyday experiences. However, teachers did not consistently explain to pupils the intended learning outcomes or reinforce these at the end of lessons. They did not make enough use of searching, open-ended questions to challenge pupils and extend their thinking. Homework was an integral part of all courses but was not used effectively to support pupils’ progress. Almost all pupils were focused on their work and responded enthusiastically to the tasks they were given. Teachers knew their pupils well. However, they gave them limited feedback or suggestions for improvement on their written work. Teachers needed to extend the range of teaching approaches to meet pupils’ differing needs and styles of learning more effectively. A shortage of resources limited the use of ICT to enhance pupils’ learning.
Achievement
At S1/S2 most pupils were performing well in their coursework. At Standard Grade, the proportion of S4 pupils attaining grades 1-2 had improved recently and in 2005 was above the national average. Most pupils presented gained an award at grades 1-4. At S5/S6, almost all pupils presented for Intermediate 2 gained an A-C award and a majority of pupils presented for Higher attained an A-C award.
Other features of pupils’ achievement included the following.
The school’s arrangements for ensuring the care and protection of pupils were weak. Policies to ensure the protection of pupils, including child protection and anti-bullying, were in place. However, some staff had not been trained in child protection procedures and in promoting race equality. The school’s handling of incidents of bullying had not always been effective in restoring pupils’ confidence. Principal teachers of pupil support, who were responsible for overseeing the pastoral care of pupils within an assigned year group, worked hard to create a positive approach. However, pupils were unclear about whom they should go to with concerns. The school’s discipline procedures did little to encourage positive behaviour. The number of exclusions had risen over the last three years and was now well above the norm for the education authority.
The school had some useful approaches to developing pupils’ personal and social skills. The personal and social education programme contained a suitable range of topics for each year group and was taught effectively. However, the programme needed to be updated and the continuity from stage to stage made clearer. The school encouraged a healthy approach to diet and exercise. Some pupils were developing an awareness of the values of citizenship and the needs of others through planning charity events. In addition, S6 pupils supported younger pupils in a good buddying programme and in aspects of their learning. Pupils responded well to these opportunities. However, the school as a whole did not have a clear enough approach towards developing pupils’ values and sense of responsibility.
The arrangements for curricular and vocational guidance were adequate. Pupils in S2 and S4 were supported individually in their course choices. However, the structure of the guidance system placed too heavy demands on a few staff at each stage. Pupils were given appropriate careers advice through their personal and social education programmes. They were well supported by a careers adviser who regularly spoke with individuals and groups of pupils to give informative advice on appropriate career options. Pupils also had access to a suitable careers library which included ICT facilities. Most S4 pupils took part in work experience programmes and gained SQA certification. Senior pupils were generally well supported in their applications to further education establishments.
The quality of provision for supporting pupils’ learning was unsatisfactory. At all stages, the provision of support for learning lacked focus and the needs of pupils were not properly identified. This included pupils within the learning centre and in the alternative curriculum programme. Individualised educational programmes (IEPs) were not yet fully in place for some pupils who needed them. Support for learning staff had built good relationships with pupils. They provided support in subject classes and in small groups. However, this was poorly planned and lacked continuity because of inadequate collaboration with subject teachers. A few pupils within the alternatives to exclusion programme were receiving good individualised support. Staff worked well with partner agencies in providing additional support for specific pupils.
The school had yet to establish clear roles and functions for its support for learning staff. The climate, relationships and morale within the department hindered the development of a co-ordinated approach to the support of pupils. The department now required to re-establish a clear strategic direction and much closer teamwork with all staff in supporting the learning of all pupils within the school.
Principal teachers of pupil support worked hard and were committed to their pupils. However, their organisation and deployment had not been conducive to good communication and teamwork. Current systems and procedures were ineffective in meeting pupils’ needs. The new headteacher and senior staff had recognised as a priority the need to develop more robust arrangements to ensure the pastoral and learning needs of all pupils were fully addressed.
Aspect |
Comment |
Quality of accommodation and facilities |
The quality of accommodation was weak overall. Classrooms were adequate overall for the purposes of learning and teaching. ICT facilities were appropriate. The school hall, the dining area and the library were positive aspects of provision. There were very good facilities for physical education. However, the school’s accommodation and facilities had a number of important weaknesses.
Not enough steps had been taken to minimise the constraints on learning and teaching caused by these weaknesses. |
Climate and relationships, expectations and promoting achievement and equality |
Relationships between staff and pupils were variable across the school. Most pupils were pleasant, friendly and behaved well in classes and around the school. A small minority did not behave well. The application of the school’s discipline policy was ineffective. Staff did not take enough collective responsibility for the behaviour and welfare of pupils. Staff morale had been exceptionally low. They did not think they had been adequately included in the management of change, but felt things were now beginning to improve. Pupils did not have enough opportunities to be involved in decisions affecting their lives in the school. Relatively few felt particular pride in, or identification with, their school. Individual members of staff made efforts to offer praise and promote achievement in particular classes and at assemblies. However, the school did not yet have an appropriate overall strategy for recognising achievement, promoting positive behaviour, or encouraging pride in work. The school had not developed an appropriate policy or provided recent staff development for promoting equality and fairness. Few staff were aware of the school’s race equality policy. Assemblies had not been used well enough to promote positive attitudes or extend awareness of other cultures and values. Arrangements for religious observance were inadequate. |
Partnership with parents and the community |
The relationship between the school, parents and the community had been difficult over the past year. The school’s reputation had suffered from adverse publicity about pupils’ behaviour and the quality of communication with parents. The new headteacher had taken immediate steps to survey the views of parents and the community about the school. The situation was slowly beginning to improve. A new School Board was in the process of being elected. The Friends of Douglas Ewart High School continued to offer loyal and valuable support to the school. Communication with parents through newsletters had been reviewed. The headteacher had accepted fully the need for more effective communication and was in the early stages of reviewing the school’s overall strategy. Through good links, a number of community agencies, particularly the community police, made a valuable contribution to pupils’ safety education. Pupils from the school contributed to a number of community events. The school now needed to build on these strengths to help improve its relationships with parents and the community. |
Douglas Ewart High School was not meeting the needs of its full range of pupils. Attainment at some stages was weak, particularly for lower attaining pupils. The quality of learning and teaching was uneven. The arrangements for the support of pupils were ineffective, despite the efforts of some committed staff. Relationships with parents and the community had been poor, but were recently beginning to improve. Staff morale was low and relationships with pupils were too variable. The school had made few concerted efforts to promote positive pupil behaviour or to acknowledge pupils’ achievements. There had been little quality assurance. The very recent appointment of a new headteacher was beginning to generate the momentum for necessary improvement, although there had been little time for him to achieve a sustained impact on school life.
The lack of adequate self-evaluation and quality assurance, the weaknesses in the support for pupils, the lack of confidence in the school from many pupils and parents, and the low level of staff morale reflected unsatisfactory corporate leadership, both within the school and on the part of the education authority. The headteacher had recognised the urgent need to establish clear and manageable priorities for school improvement based on accurate self-evaluation. He was beginning to establish a climate where more staff felt involved in the school and pupils were beginning to feel they mattered. He had begun to review the remits and functions of senior and middle management. He was addressing issues of perception about the school and pupils’ behaviour within the school.
Until very recently, the senior management team had not worked effectively as a team. At the time of the inspection, some had been confirmed in post for just over a year. Individuals had tried to address their remits conscientiously, but the team had not made the sustained collective impact on the school that was required. Despite some recent improvements, the current team had still to gain the full confidence of the rest of the staff. Individuals had the potential to make an impact on school improvement, but only within the context of realistic remits and a strategic approach within the school for supporting pupils. The new structure of principal teachers with responsibility for the curriculum and pupil support respectively had been in place for under a year. The structure had yet to impact on the quality of the curriculum, teaching and the monitoring of pupils’ progress. Until recently, principal teachers had had little opportunity to develop teamwork, share experience or be proactive in planning for improvements. The management of the school was well supported by the school support manager.
Self-evaluation and quality assurance within the school were unsatisfactory. The school had not recently evaluated the quality of its work on a systematic basis. Some staff had discussed examination results in subjects, but many did not feel confident in interpreting the statistical data available to them. The education authority had taken action by commissioning an external consultant to conduct an audit of management and communication within the school and to identify priorities for action. The headteacher had now introduced more effective approaches to evaluating learning and teaching in order to improve pupils’ experience through sharing good practice. The headteacher had also agreed with the education authority to defer a standards and quality report and associated school improvement plan, to allow a systematic analysis of evidence and the involvement of pupils, parents and staff in determining future priorities. The headteacher was realistic in his view of the degree of challenge facing the school and concerned to engage staff in the process. Under his leadership, the capacity to bring about the necessary improvements within the school was beginning to develop.
Main points for action The school and education authority, in liaison with HM Inspectors, should take action to ensure improvement in:
|
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 engage with the school and the education authority to monitor progress and have requested a report within six months on progress with addressing security issues within the school. HM Inspectors will publish an interim report on overall progress within one year of the publication of this report. Thereafter, they will continue to engage with the school and the education authority in monitoring progress, and will undertake a follow-through inspection. This will result in another report to parents and carers, within two years of the publication of this report, on the extent of improvement that has been achieved.
Lachlan MacCallum
HM Inspector
14 March 2006
The sections in the table below follow the order of this report. You can find the main comments made about each of the quality indicators in those sections. However, aspects of some quality indicators are relevant to other sections of the report and may also be mentioned in those other sections.
| How good are learning, teaching and achievement? | ||
| Structure of the curriculum | Weak |
|
| The teaching process | Adequate |
|
| Pupils’ learning experiences | Weak |
|
| Meeting pupils’ needs | Weak |
|
| Overall quality of attainment: S1/S2 | Weak |
|
| Overall quality of attainment: S3/S4 | Weak |
|
| Overall quality of attainment: S5/S6 | Adequate |
|
| How well are pupils supported? | ||
Pastoral care |
Weak |
|
Personal and social development |
Adequate |
|
Curricular and vocational guidance |
Adequate |
|
Learning support |
Unsatisfactory |
|
How good is the environment for learning? |
||
Accommodation and facilities |
Weak |
|
Climate and relationships |
Weak |
|
Expectations and promoting achievement |
Weak |
|
Equality and fairness |
Weak |
|
Partnership with parents, the School Board and the community |
Weak |
|
Improving the school |
||
Leadership |
Unsatisfactory |
|
Effectiveness and deployment of staff with additional responsibilities |
Weak |
|
Self-evaluation |
Unsatisfactory |
|
This report uses the following word scale to make clear the judgements made by inspectors:
excellent |
excellent |
very good |
major strengths |
good |
important strengths with areas for improvement |
adequate |
strengths just outweigh weaknesses |
weak |
important weaknesses |
unsatisfactory |
major weaknesses |
What parents thought the school did well |
What parents think the school could do better |
Most parents felt that:
|
Only half thought there was mutual respect between teachers and pupils and that the school dealt effectively with bad behaviour. A similar proportion did not think that they had a clear idea of the school’s priorities for improving the education of pupils and that the school was good at consulting them on matters of concern. Over a third felt the school had not explained how they could help pupils with homework, made clear to parents the standards of work it expected from pupils, or would do something about it if they raised a matter of concern. Around a third did not think that the school had been well led or had a good reputation in the community. They did not feel that the school set high standards for attainment or teachers were good at letting them know their child’s strengths and weaknesses. A quarter did not think that their children were treated fairly in the school or that the school encouraged children to work to the best of their ability. |
What pupils thought the school did well |
What pupils think the school could do better |
Almost all pupils thought that:
Most pupils thought that:
|
Over half of the pupils did not think the school was good at dealing with bullies or that the behaviour of the pupils in the school was good. Half did not think all pupils were treated fairly within the school. Over a third did not think that the school was good at sorting things out that worried them. They did not think that teachers listened to what they had to say or that pupils had a say in deciding how to improve the school. A quarter did not enjoy being at schoolor feel safe and secure within the school. They did not think teachers explained things clearly or were good at letting them know how their learning could be improved. |
What staff thought the school did well |
What staff think the school could do better |
All teaching staff thought that:
Most teaching staff liked working in the school and thought that staff worked hard to promote and maintain good relations with the community. |
Very few teaching staff thought that standards for pupil behaviour were consistently maintained or that indiscipline was dealt with effectively. Fewer than half thought there was effective communication among staff, or regular discussion about how to achieve school priorities. They did not think they had good opportunities to be involved in decision making processes. A third did not think there was effective communication between senior managers and staff, mutual respect between staff and pupils, or effective handling of bullying. Only a quarter thought senior managers operated effectively as a team. |
Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF) levels: |
Percentage of relevant S4 roll attaining by end of S4
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
||
English and Mathematics @ Level 3 |
Douglas Ewart High School |
92 |
91 |
84 |
Comparator Schools3 |
92 |
94 |
92 |
|
National |
91 |
91 |
90 |
|
5+ @ Level 3 or Better |
Douglas Ewart High School |
89 |
88 |
88 |
Comparator Schools |
91 |
92 |
92 |
|
National |
91 |
91 |
90 |
|
5+ @ Level 4 or Better |
Douglas Ewart High School |
72 |
73 |
66 |
Comparator Schools |
77 |
80 |
79 |
|
National |
76 |
77 |
76 |
|
5+ @ Level 5 or Better |
Douglas Ewart High School |
35 |
38 |
26 |
Comparator Schools |
35 |
35 |
36 |
|
National |
34 |
35 |
34 |
|
Percentage of relevant S4 roll attaining by end of S5
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
||
5+ @ Level 4 or better |
Douglas Ewart High School |
81 |
74 |
73 |
Comparator schools3 |
79 |
78 |
81 |
|
National |
78 |
78 |
78 |
|
5+ @ Level 5 or better |
Douglas Ewart High School |
49 |
48 |
46 |
Comparator schools |
43 |
47 |
46 |
|
National |
45 |
45 |
45 |
|
1+ @ Level 6 or better |
Douglas Ewart High School |
47 |
43 |
42 |
Comparator schools |
40 |
40 |
41 |
|
National |
39 |
39 |
39 |
|
3+ @ Level 6 or better |
Douglas Ewart High School |
28 |
25 |
25 |
Comparator schools |
22 |
23 |
23 |
|
National |
23 |
23 |
23 |
|
5+ @ Level 6 or better |
Douglas Ewart High School |
15 |
10 |
12 |
Comparator schools |
9 |
7 |
10 |
|
National |
10 |
9 |
10 |
|
Percentage of relevant S4 roll attaining by end of S6
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
||
5+ @ Level 5 or better |
Douglas Ewart High School |
42 |
51 |
51 |
Comparator schools3 |
50 |
47 |
48 |
|
National |
47 |
47 |
47 |
|
1+ @ Level 6 or better |
Douglas Ewart High School |
40 |
48 |
49 |
Comparator schools |
45 |
44 |
45 |
|
National |
44 |
44 |
43 |
|
3+ @ Level 6 or better |
Douglas Ewart High School |
32 |
38 |
30 |
Comparator schools |
31 |
30 |
30 |
|
National |
31 |
31 |
30 |
|
5+ @ Level 6 or better |
Douglas Ewart High School |
23 |
26 |
20 |
Comparator schools |
19 |
19 |
18 |
|
National |
20 |
20 |
19 |
|
1+ @ Level 7 or better |
Douglas Ewart High School |
15 |
17 |
14 |
Comparator schools |
12 |
11 |
12 |
|
National |
12 |
12 |
12 |
|
If you would like an additional copy of this report
Copies of this report have been sent to the headteacher and school staff, the Corporate Director of Education & Community Services, 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, 3rd Floor, Argyll House, Marketgait, Dundee DD1 1QP or by telephoning 01382 349999. Copies are also available on our website at www.hmie.gov.uk.
If you wish to comment about secondary inspections
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.
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 600258 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. 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 2006
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.
1. Throughout this report, the term ‘parents’ should be taken to include foster carers, residential care staff and carers who are relatives or friends.
2. 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
3. Comparator schools are the ten schools immediately above and the ten schools immediately below the school being inspected in terms of the percentage of pupils entitled to free meals (FME).