10 January 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?
Keith Grammar School was inspected in September 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 structure 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, chemistry and S1/S2 science and business education 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.
Keith Grammar School is a non-denominational school serving Keith, Drummuir, Mulben, Newmill, Grange, Deskford and Rothiemay. At the time of the inspection, the roll was 490. The percentage of pupils entitled to free school meals was well below the national average. Pupils’ attendance was above the national average. There was a unit for pupils with complex additional support needs within the school.
HM Inspectors identified the following key strengths.
Almost all the parents who completed the questionnaire were pleased with the school. They felt welcome in the school and found parents’ evenings helpful. Most felt that the school was well led and had a good reputation locally. Around one-fifth felt that the school was not good at telling them how they could support their children with their homework. Pupils were positive about most aspects of the school. Almost all felt they got on well with other pupils, and that teachers expected them to work hard. Around one-quarter did not think that pupils’ behaviour was good or that the school dealt effectively with instances of bullying. Some thought that poorly-behaved pupils were unjustly rewarded. Staff were less positive in their views of the school. A significant minority of staff felt they were not fully involved in decision-making. Around half of the staff felt that pupil indiscipline was not dealt with consistently or effectively. Many teachers expressed concerns about the effectiveness of teamwork amongst senior managers, and some had concerns about leadership.
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 adequate. The school had introduced changes to the structure of its curriculum which had the potential to improve pupils’ motivation and achievement. Indeed, there were some signs of improved motivation and attitudes to learning in S2. The most significant change was provision for all pupils to begin Standard Grade courses at S2, rather than at S3 in order to provide better-paced progression to subsequent National Qualification levels. Whilst it was too early to evaluate the overall success of this initiative, it was clear that its current effectiveness had been limited by gaps in the school’s capacity for successful implementation. Learning and teaching were not of a sufficiently high quality to deliver the new curriculum effectively. In addition, there was a lack of rigour in planning for the outworking of the new curriculum, and for timetabling and resourcing its delivery in transitional and subsequent years. The progress of the initiative, and of the pupils involved, was not systematically monitored.
At S1, the curriculum was well balanced overall. Pupils’ skills in information and communications technology (ICT) were developed effectively. A programme of activities to improve pupils’ thinking skills was not sufficiently well planned to ensure that all pupils benefited fully. Several subjects had formed productive curricular links with associated primary schools. At S2 to S3 almost all pupils studied eight Standard Grade courses or equivalent National Qualifications (NQs). Most pupils followed well balanced programmes of study. At S4 to S6, the curriculum included a wide range of NQ courses at Intermediate 2, Higher and Advanced Higher levels, as well as vocational options and a variety of interest-based courses. The school had extended pupils’ choices of subject through very good links with external agencies, including further and higher education establishments. Pupils could study up to six Higher courses over two years. In the current session, class organisation had to take account of pupils completing Standard Grade courses at both S3 and S4. Despite steps being taken by the school too many pupils were in shared and composite classes which often included pupils studying too broad a range of courses in one class. In consequence, it was proving difficult for teachers to meet the full range of pupils’ needs in these classes. Timetabling difficulties meant that a significant minority of pupils were unable to study their preferred options. Around half of the new vocational courses set up for some pupils had so far not met their needs effectively.
In most lessons, teachers interacted well with pupils and made appropriate use of praise. Their explanations and instructions were expressed clearly, but the purpose of lessons was not always shared with pupils. There were some good examples of direct, interactive teaching. In the best lessons, teachers effectively reinforced previous learning and provided pupils with advice on what they needed to do to improve. However, teaching approaches were not always sufficiently well matched to the demands of the new curriculum and to the pupils’ needs. Too often teachers did not give pupils sufficient feedback on their learning. In a small number of lessons, the pace of learning was too slow and teachers did not always provide pupils with sufficiently challenging work. Most pupils were generally well motivated and worked steadily in class. However, teachers did not give pupils sufficient opportunities to take responsibility or to be actively involved in their own learning. Some departments made good use of homework to reinforce and extend learning, but others issued homework which was insufficiently regular or challenging. Teachers and support staff gave some good support to pupils experiencing difficulties and planned a range of tasks to take account of their different abilities. More account needed to be taken of pupils’ prior learning and assessment information in matching coursework to their needs at all stages. This was particularly so with regard to literacy and numeracy in the S5 to S6 vocational courses.
Achievement
The overall quality of attainment at S1/S2 was good. Most pupils at S2 were highly motivated and making steady progress in their work at Standard Grade. The majority of pupils achieved standards broadly in line with appropriate national levels in reading and writing. In mathematics, attainment had steadily improved in recent years and in 2005 the majority of pupils achieved appropriate national levels.
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 adequate. Attainment could have been raised through improved learning and teaching, and better approaches to meeting pupils’ needs. In 2005, the school presented all S3 pupils for Standard Grade for the first time. Most of the pupils achieved awards at level 4 or better and more than one-third achieved success at
level 5. This represented a broadly comparable performance to the previous year’s S4, but achieved one year earlier. Reliable comparisons with the national average were not possible due to the relatively small numbers of S3 pupils presented nationally for Standard Grade. At S4, the proportion of pupils achieving five or more awards at level 4 was above the national average. The proportion achieving five or more awards at level 5 was below the national average. In 2003 to 2005, the school performed less well overall than other schools with similar characteristics at level 4, and notably less well at level 5.
The overall quality of attainment at S5/S6 was weak. Attainment at S5/S6 too could have been raised through improved learning and teaching, and better approaches to meeting pupils’ needs. The proportion of pupils achieving three or more awards at level 6 by the end of S6 was broadly in line with the national average. In 2003 to 2005, the school performed notably less well overall than similar schools. The proportion of pupils achieving one or more awards at SCQF level 7 was broadly in line with the national average. The school performed less well than similar schools.
Information on the subjects inspected is given later in the report. Significant features of attainment in the subjects not inspected were as follows.
A-C grades had increased from well below to well above the national average.
Pupils developed their wider achievements through a variety of out-of-class activities including sport, music, citizenship and enterprise. A number of pupils had achieved notable successes in public speaking and debating competitions and in music festivals and performances. Many had participated in a bi-annual musical show or broadened their horizons through trips to various destinations in the UK and abroad. Some pupils were participating successfully in the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme. Others had been involved in creating a sensory garden with a pond and raised beds. Senior pupils were very positive about the opportunities provided by the school and their successes in them. Many were developing a sense of responsibility, for example by supporting younger pupils and through involvement in successful enterprise activities and fundraising for a range of local and worldwide charities. They had worked together to produce a high quality year book.
English
Learning and teaching
Teachers gave clear explanations and used questioning well. There was some high quality interactive teaching which challenged pupils to develop their ideas. Pupils completed appropriate homework regularly. Overall, there was too little use of group discussion and independent learning, and the pace of learning was too slow.
Achievement
At S1/S2 the majority of pupils achieved levels broadly in line with national standards in reading and writing. The school was not able to provide reliable assessments in talking and listening by the end of S2. Almost one-third of S3 pupils had achieved a Standard Grade award at Credit in 2005, a year in advance of national expectations for their age and stage.
The proportion of pupils in S4 gaining Credit awards at Standard Grade had fallen to below national averages. At Higher, the proportion of pupils achieving A-C grades had fallen to below national averages at S5. At S5/S6, performance had been too variable. The proportion of pupils achieving A-C grades at Intermediate 2 in S5 was in line with national averages in 2003 and 2004 but below in 2005. Half of the small number of candidates achieved
A-C grades at Advanced Higher. Attainment could be improved overall if the good practice in learning and teaching was extended more fully across the department.
Other features of pupils’ achievement included the following.
Mathematics
Learning and teaching
Teachers explained mathematical ideas well to pupils, often making good use of computer-based presentations. In high-quality lessons, pupils were given time to think for themselves, discuss strategies with each other and explain their reasoning. Teachers made effective use of homework. Almost all pupils worked purposefully and responded well in class. Some pupils were developing good skills in using ICT. However, overall, pupils lacked sufficient experience of extended problem-solving tasks. Teachers made good use of assessment to identify pupils’ learning difficulties and matched tasks well to their prior understanding. They had put in place a range of approaches, such as additional revision, to strengthen performance in external examinations.
Achievement
Pupils in S1 and S2 were making good progress through national 5-14 levels of attainment. The proportions achieving appropriate levels had increased steadily over the last three years. The proportion of S4 pupils gaining a Credit award was above the national average. In 2005, the performance of S3 pupils at Credit was in line with this average. At S5/S6 the proportion of pupils presented for Higher who achieved A-C grades had increased but was still well below the national average. Performance at Intermediate 1 and 2 was also below national averages. At Intermediate and Higher levels the proportions of no-awards were above national averages. The majority of the pupils presented for Advanced Higher achieved
A-C grades. The department was taking steps to continue to improve attainment overall.
Other features of pupils’ achievement included the following.
Chemistry and S1/S2 science
Learning and teaching
Teachers interacted positively with pupils and generally focused their attention well. They provided mostly clear explanations and often used open-ended questioning effectively to challenge pupils’ thinking. In some classes, pupils received very good feedback on their written work. However, teachers did not always respond sufficiently to weaknesses in pupils’ understanding by intervening to provide further explanations or by adjusting coursework. Homework was well used to support pupils’ learning. Almost all pupils showed good levels of motivation. They worked steadily and generally co-operated well during practical activities. Learning was effectively supported by well-developed course materials, but the pace and content of lessons was not always well matched to pupils’ needs. Pupils developed a good measure of independence in their learning, for example through researching using the Internet in S1 science, and by note-making in chemistry.
Achievement
In S1 science, most pupils were achieving well in the knowledge and understanding aspects of their coursework. Pupils’ progress in developing investigative and thinking skills was less good. In Standard Grade chemistry, the first presentations at S3 had resulted in most pupils achieving awards at General or Credit levels. At S4, the proportions of pupils achieving Credit awards had decreased from above to well below national averages. At S5/S6, the numbers achieving A-C grades had varied from above to well below national averages, with no definite trend. The majority of pupils presented for Intermediate 2 and Advanced Higher chemistry had achieved A-C grades. Overall attainment would be improved by increasing the pace of lessons and meeting pupils’ needs more effectively.
Other features of pupils’ achievement included the following.
Business education
Learning and teaching
Teachers gave clear explanations and instructions, and used questioning effectively to develop pupils’ thinking. Teachers made very good use of praise and had an appropriate emphasis on homework to reinforce classwork. Most pupils responded well to the variety of teaching approaches adopted by the department. However, a small number in the interest-based courses were not kept on task sufficiently well and were not encouraged to work to the best of their ability. Very good account was taken of pupils’ prior learning in primary school and this aided their progression in ICT in S1.
Achievement
Most pupils were performing well in their appropriately challenging classwork. Almost all pupils presented for Standard Grade administration and accounting and finance in S3 achieved Credit or General awards. In S4 the numbers obtaining Credit and General awards in administration were above the national average. The small number of S4 pupils presented for Standard Grade accounting and finance performed above the national average. In S5/S6, at Higher, all pupils presented for accounting achieved an A grade. The proportion of pupils achieving A-C grades was above the national average in Higher administration and in line with the national average in Higher business management. All pupils presented for Intermediate 2 in administration and in accounting achieved A-C grades. All pupils presented for Advanced Higher administration in 2005 achieved A-B grades. Pupils attained well overall.
Other features of pupils’ achievement included the following.
The school had generally effective arrangements to ensure the care, welfare and protection of pupils. All staff had been made aware of the procedures outlined in the child protection policy, although some were not sufficiently familiar with them. Commendably, the school acknowledged pupils’ achievements and also alerted parents to their child’s absence through text messaging. Pupils were appreciative of the level of care and support they received and felt safe and secure. The school had clear and effective procedures for dealing with incidents of bullying. Whilst filtering systems were in place for the safe use of the Internet, they were not effective enough at the settings being utilised. There were a range of measures in place to meet the emotional, physical and social needs of pupils. The school was successfully developing its approach to promoting healthy lifestyles. An Active Sports Coordinator had been appointed and pupils were involved in a wide range of sporting and extra-curricular activities.
The programme for personal and social education (PSE) covered an appropriate range of topics. Classes were generally well taught by the guidance staff. The teachers made good use of the expertise of a range of visitors, including the local business community and police officers, to support aspects of the programme. Guidance staff monitored pupils’ progress regularly. Most pupils responded well in PSE classes and were positive about what they had learned. Staff did not provide them with regular feedback on their work in PSE classes. Pupils were actively encouraged to show care and consideration for others.
The overall quality of curriculum and vocational advice was adequate. The careers adviser worked well with guidance staff and the enthusiastic librarian. Pupils had ready access to the careers library and a wide range of appropriate resources. All S4 pupils participated in a well-organised work experience programme. Senior pupils felt well supported when applying for university or seeking employment. A significant number of pupils lacked understanding of their vocational course options at S3/S4. Guidance staff needed to take a more active role in supporting pupils at this stage to make appropriate choices.
The quality of learning support was adequate. Learning support provision had been affected by staff absence over an extended period. The acting principal teacher had been successful in ensuring that young people with individualised educational programmes (IEPs) received appropriate support. Pupils benefited from subject teachers’ involvement in helping them to achieve targets set within IEPs. However, these targets were not always set out in easily measurable form. A significant number of these pupils at S4 and S5 had responded well to staff expectations by achieving a wide range of NQs at Access level and Standard Grade. They were very well supported by the enthusiastic and committed learning assistants. A behaviour support teacher and two behaviour support assistants provided well planned support for some young people with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. Not all staff used consistent approaches to managing pupils’ behaviour across the school.
Pupils with significant complex needs followed broad and appropriate learning programmes, and received a high quality of pastoral care. Pupils’ needs were systematically reviewed with parents and through useful input from support agencies. Individual pupils gained significant numbers of SQA awards at appropriate levels. Several successfully learned alongside mainstream pupils with appropriate support and there was scope for more well-structured access to such opportunities for other pupils. At the time of the inspection, staff and management absences had reduced continuity in learning and limited pupils’ progress. Support staff related well to pupils and those with training and experience made a very effective contribution to pupils’ education. However, the mainly temporary staff did not have appropriate specialist approaches. They were not able to identify or meet pupils’ needs effectively, for example with mobility, and relating to others.
The acting depute headteacher with responsibility for pupil support led the team well. In many aspects of their work, including pastoral care, and behaviour and learning support, staff co-operated well with each other and with a wide range of outside support agencies. Together they provided an appropriate range of support for individuals and groups of pupils. They needed to focus more clearly on identifying the necessary improvements in provision and on implementing these improvements more systematically.
Aspect |
Comment |
Quality of accommodation and facilities |
The very good accommodation provided effective, modern facilities well suited to pupils’ needs. The school was situated in an open area and had adjacent sports pitches. A number of improvements had been achieved over recent years. External funding had enabled the development of additional ICT resources and specialist facilities for teaching dance, drama and hairdressing. The school was almost fully adapted for the needs of pupils with physical disabilities. Effective use of the library was actively and successfully promoted by the school librarian who ensured that facilities were very well used for a wide range of learning activities. The dining area was bright and spacious. ICT resources were plentiful and of a good standard. A number of classrooms were small and this restricted the range of activities which could be attempted. Poor drainage and problems with temperature control caused problems for both staff and pupils. There were no designated social areas for pupils. |
Climate and relationships, expectations and promoting achievement and equality |
Almost all pupils and staff identified closely with the school and were proud to be associated with it. Relationships between staff and most pupils were very good. Almost all pupils were well-behaved, courteous, caring and related well to each other. Senior pupils provided very good support to younger pupils. Almost all staff used praise in class to motivate pupils, and care was taken to acknowledge pupils’ wider achievements. Most staff set appropriate expectations of pupils’ behaviour and work rate. A large number of staff and pupils successfully and enthusiastically took part in a wide range of extra-curricular activities. Whilst the school was committed to promoting equality and fairness it was not wholly successful. For example a number of pupils from S4 to S6 were unsuccessful in obtaining their first subject and interest choices to study. Attitudes of tolerance and empathy, including racial equality, were strongly encouraged. Regular assemblies and religious observance promoted a strong sense of community and included valued contributions from the school chaplains. |
Partnership with parents and the community |
Partnership with parents and the community was very good. The school had strong links with the active School Board and the KGS Association. Parental enquiries were dealt with promptly and effectively. Parents were appropriately consulted on important developments affecting the school. The school provided parents with helpful information about their children’s progress through regular reports and parents’ evenings. Regular newsletters, a comprehensive and very well presented handbook and course choice booklets provided further information about the school. Senior pupils helped to organise a programme of flu inoculations for older members of the local community. Links with local primary schools, with further and higher education institutions and with local businesses were good. Staff and pupils regularly took part in community events. Pupils and staff members worked closely with the local radio station and were involved in presenting shows. |
Pupils at Keith Grammar School benefited from a strong school ethos and a committed and supportive staff. Pupils were beginning their Standard Grade courses in S2 and sat their Standard Grade examinations at the end of S3. The time allowed for pupils to study for Highers had been increased by enabling them to start at the beginning of S4 and sit their examinations at the end of S5. A greater breadth of choice had been provided in the senior school with the introduction of vocational, interest and higher education courses although pupils were not always able to access courses which met their needs. Whilst the aims of these changes were appropriate, the developments had not been sufficiently thought through, supported or monitored with a view to providing prompt and effective support where required. Timetabling problems meant that in some subject areas pupils were being taught at too many levels in the same class, and teachers were having difficulty in meeting their learning needs. In a number of subjects pupils were being taught by more than one teacher, which caused a lack of continuity in pupils’ learning at times. Whilst most staff were committed to supporting these initiatives, pressure resulting from the range and complexity of change resulted in some courses not being fully prepared or operating as they would wish.
The headteacher was generally respected by stakeholders, and was committed to inclusion and high expectations for pupils’ achievements. He had initiated innovative and challenging changes to the school curriculum. However, he and his senior management team had not planned, monitored and evaluated the curriculum innovations rigorously enough for prompt action to be taken to ensure that pupils gained from them at all stages. He needed to increase the school’s capacity for implementing innovation through giving a stronger lead in improving the overall quality of learning, teaching and meeting pupils’ needs. He also needed to give a clearer lead in ensuring that developments were monitored, evaluated and supported. The depute headteachers were committed to taking the school forward and provided the headteacher with generally good support, but they did not always act effectively as a team. They did not all use the same guidelines, particularly with regard to encouraging positive behaviour. Most principal teachers managed their departments well, however some needed to give a stronger lead in improving learning, teaching and achievement.
The school had a range of procedures in place for monitoring and evaluating the quality of its work. Members of the senior management team regularly attended department meetings and helped teachers to analyse examination performance. They observed individual teachers’ lessons to gain information on learning and teaching but provided insufficient feedback on how to improve. All departments had made some use of quality indicators to evaluate aspects of their work, though some principal teachers had not ensured that staff used them effectively in planning for improvement. Approaches to self-evaluation generally lacked rigour and had not been used systematically to evaluate the progress of curricular initiatives.
The headteacher and his senior management team now shared a view of what was needed to bring about further improvement. They recognised the need to focus more on curricular planning, attainment, the quality of learning and teaching, and to continuously and rigorously monitor the effectiveness of the school’s major innovations. They had begun to take appropriate steps to bring this about. Through working closely with the education authority, and by fully involving all staff, the school should be well placed to take forward its innovations in ways that will provide educational gains for pupils at all stages.
Main points for action
The school, working closely with the education authority, should take action to improve curriculum planning, timetabling and meeting pupils’ needs. In doing so it should continue to take account of the need to:
What happens next?
The school and the 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. They will publish an interim report on progress within one year of the publication of this report. Thereafter, HM Inspectors 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 a further report to parents and carers, within two years of the publication of this report, on the extent of improvement that has been achieved.
David M Martin
HM Inspector
10 January 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 |
Adequate |
|
The teaching process |
Good |
|
Pupils’ learning experiences |
Adequate |
|
Meeting pupils’ needs |
Weak |
|
Overall quality of attainment: S1/S2 |
Good |
|
Overall quality of attainment: S3/S4 |
Adequate |
|
Overall quality of attainment: S5/S6 |
Weak |
|
How well are pupils supported? |
||
Pastoral care |
Good |
|
Personal and social development |
Good |
|
Curricular and vocational guidance |
Adequate |
|
Learning support |
Adequate |
|
How good is the environment for learning? |
||
Accommodation and facilities |
Very Good |
|
Climate and relationships |
Good |
|
Expectations and promoting achievement |
Good |
|
Equality and fairness |
Good |
|
Partnership with parents, the School Board and the community |
Very good |
|
Improving the school |
||
Leadership |
Adequate |
|
Effectiveness and deployment of staff with additional responsibilities |
Adequate |
|
Self-evaluation |
Adequate |
|
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 |
Almost all felt that:
|
Around about one-fifth felt that improvement was needed in:
|
What pupils thought the school did well |
What pupils think the school could do better |
Most felt that:
|
Around about one-quarter felt that:
Around about one-third felt that improvement was needed in:
|
What staff thought the school did well |
What staff think the school could do better |
All, or almost all, teaching and support staff felt that:
|
Around half of the teachers and support staff felt that improvement was needed in:
|
Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF) levels: |
Percentage of relevant S4 roll attaining by end of S4
2003 |
2004 |
20053 |
||
English and Mathematics @ Level 3 |
Keith Grammar School |
95 |
97 |
97 |
Comparator Schools4 |
95 |
94 |
94 |
|
National |
91 |
91 |
90 |
|
5+ @ Level 3 or Better |
Keith Grammar School |
94 |
96 |
97 |
Comparator Schools |
94 |
94 |
94 |
|
National |
91 |
91 |
90 |
|
5+ @ Level 4 or Better |
Keith Grammar School |
78 |
88 |
83 |
Comparator Schools |
85 |
85 |
85 |
|
National |
76 |
77 |
76 |
|
5+ @ Level 5 or Better |
Keith Grammar School |
26 |
32 |
25 |
Comparator Schools |
42 |
39 |
43 |
|
National |
34 |
35 |
34 |
|
Percentage of relevant S4 roll attaining by end of S5
2003 |
2004 |
20053 |
||
5+ @ Level 4 or better |
Keith Grammar School |
82 |
79 |
89 |
Comparator schools4 |
89 |
87 |
87 |
|
National |
78 |
78 |
78 |
|
5+ @ Level 5 or better |
Keith Grammar School |
53 |
39 |
49 |
Comparator schools |
54 |
52 |
52 |
|
National |
45 |
45 |
45 |
|
1+ @ Level 6 or better |
Keith Grammar School |
47 |
36 |
51 |
Comparator schools |
49 |
47 |
44 |
|
National |
39 |
39 |
38 |
|
3+ @ Level 6 or better |
Keith Grammar School |
18 |
14 |
24 |
Comparator schools |
30 |
31 |
25 |
|
National |
23 |
23 |
22 |
|
5+ @ Level 6 or better |
Keith Grammar School |
4 |
6 |
7 |
Comparator schools |
14 |
11 |
11 |
|
National |
10 |
9 |
9 |
|
Percentage of relevant S4 roll attaining by end of S6
2003 |
2004 |
20053 |
||
5+ @ Level 5 or better |
Keith Grammar School |
44 |
56 |
41 |
Comparator schools4 |
59 |
55 |
56 |
|
National |
47 |
47 |
47 |
|
1+ @ Level 6 or better |
Keith Grammar School |
44 |
48 |
41 |
Comparator schools |
53 |
52 |
51 |
|
National |
44 |
44 |
43 |
|
3+ @ Level 6 or better |
Keith Grammar School |
29 |
32 |
28 |
Comparator schools |
39 |
39 |
38 |
|
National |
31 |
31 |
30 |
|
5+ @ Level 6 or better |
Keith Grammar School |
17 |
16 |
12 |
Comparator schools |
26 |
27 |
24 |
|
National |
20 |
20 |
19 |
|
1+ @ Level 7 or better |
Keith Grammar School |
7 |
14 |
10 |
Comparator schools |
17 |
16 |
16 |
|
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 Director of Educational 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, Argyll House, 3rd Floor, 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 Pre Appeal
4 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).