24 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?
Lochaber High 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, languages, including French and Gaelic, and religious and moral 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, a group of parents and some members of the local business community.
Lochaber High School is a non-denominational school serving the town of Fort William and the wider surrounding area. At the time of the inspection, the roll was 934. The percentage of pupils entitled to free school meals was below the national average. Pupils’ attendance was below the national average.
HM Inspectors identified the following key strengths.
|
Around 40% of parents who received questionnaires responded. Almost all felt that their children enjoyed school and found the work challenging and stimulating. They felt that staff were very supportive and made them feel welcome in the school. Most did not agree that the school buildings were kept in good order. Around a quarter of parents who responded thought that the school did not have a good reputation in the community. They did not feel that the school was well led or that it dealt effectively with poor behaviour. Most pupils enjoyed being at school and were glad of the help they received from teachers. However, around a quarter did not feel that teachers explained things clearly. Many did not feel that the school was good at dealing with bullying and that the school did not treat all pupils fairly. Many pupils at S1/S2 did not feel safe and secure in school. A majority of pupils felt the behaviour of some pupils was not good. All staff felt that the school set high standards for pupils’ attainment and showed concern for their care and welfare. The majority of teachers thought that the school was not well led, that senior managers did not work well as a team, and that communication between them and staff was not effective. Almost half of the staff felt that they did not receive good professional development.
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 curriculum provided by the school was broad and balanced and met the needs of most pupils. The S1/S2 curriculum consisted of an appropriate range of subjects. The S1 enrichment course provided some opportunities for problem solving, library induction and other skills for learning, but it was not planned sufficiently well to help pupils use the skills they learned in other curriculum areas. All pupils studied courses in French and Gaelic in S1 and one or both of these languages in S2. At S3/S4, pupils were able to take up to nine Standard Grade courses or the equivalent. In S4, a small number of pupils were presented successfully at Higher in music and history. There was no structured personal and social education (PSE) programme for pupils with additional support needs. Selected groups of pupils at S3/S4 followed vocational programmes in hairdressing and beauty, caring and construction. However, the school did not have a clear rationale for choosing which pupils followed these programmes or gave them sufficient support to catch up on missed lessons. The number of pupils choosing to follow a modern language at S3/S4 was low. At S5/S6, the school offered a very good range of courses at Intermediate, Higher and Advanced Higher, including Intermediate 2 Electronics. There was no element of religious and moral education in the personal and social development programme for all pupils in S5/S6, including pupils with additional support needs. The physical education curriculum did not include swimming. A broad Enterprise in Education programme was offered to all year groups and a wide range of enterprise activities permeated almost all subjects. Overall, the quality of the curriculum was adequate.
Almost all teachers gave clear explanations and instructions. Some teachers shared and reinforced the purpose of lessons well with pupils, but this was not consistent across the school. Interactions between teachers and pupils were positive. In some lessons, teachers were skilled at asking questions and using a variety of approaches to encourage pupils to think about and take responsibility for their learning. In almost all lessons, pupils completed their coursework conscientiously. However, the pace of learning was not consistently brisk, stimulating or challenging. In a few lessons, pupils were given tasks which did not provide a suitable degree of challenge. Teachers were improving arrangements for assessing pupils’ progress. They were beginning to provide feedback to help pupils develop a clear understanding of what they needed to do to improve. There were some very good examples of the use of ICT, particularly in science subjects. This included very good opportunities in chemistry for pupils to access homework and other resources through the Internet in school and at home. However, across the school, homework did not consistently complement or build sufficiently upon pupils’ coursework. In some subjects at S1/S2, teachers made good use of information on pupils’ prior learning when planning coursework. In other subjects at these stages, teachers did too little to ensure that coursework was matched appropriately to the needs of all pupils. There were some very good examples of support for pupils’ learning in mainstream classes, particularly in S1 in English.
Achievement
The overall quality of attainment at S1/S2 was good. It had improved over the last three years. Most pupils performed well in their coursework. Pupils’ attainment had improved in reading, writing and mathematics. By the end of S2, most pupils were making good progress from the levels of attainment they had achieved at the end of primary school and a significant number had achieved beyond the expected 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 good. The proportion of pupils achieving five or more awards at level 5 or better, by the end of S4, had improved and was above the national average and better than in schools with similar characteristics. However, the proportion attaining five or more awards at level 3 or above was below the national average and notably below schools with similar characteristics.
At S5/S6, the quality of attainment was good. The proportion of S4 pupils who went on to gain three or more awards at level 6 or better by the end of S6 had also improved and was in line with the national average. The proportion who achieved five or more awards at level 6 or better had also improved to above the national average. Pupils performed much better than those in schools with similar characteristics.
Information on the subjects inspected is given later in the report. Significant features of attainment in the subjects not inspected were as follows.
Pupils’ wider achievements included sport, music, drama, enterprise and community activities. In particular, pupils taking part in music in various bands achieved a number of successes. For example, the string quartet reached national finals in London and pupils in the Lochaber Schools Pipe Band regularly performed in the local community. Some pupils were successful in gaining entry to the National Children’s Orchestra of Scotland and the National Youth Orchestra of Scotland. Many pupils developed their self-esteem and sense of teamwork by taking part in sport and outdoor activities. Some pupils represented their area and country in football, sailing and hockey. The school shinty teams had been successful in competitions, including Scottish Schools Championships. Many of the pupils with disabilities represented Highland Council in Scottish football tournaments and some pupils were medal winners in the Special Olympics. On average 15 pupils each year completed the Duke of Edinburgh bronze award which had improved their fitness levels and had developed their social and survival skills. Pupils in the Young Engineers’ Club had developed their sense of global citizenship and awareness of other cultures by taking part in Computers for Africa project, which included a visit to schools in Africa to install the equipment. The Club was successful in many competitions, including the BT Excellence in Innovation competition.
English
Learning and teaching
Teachers gave clear explanations and instructions. In the majority of lessons teachers used a wide range of teaching approaches, including well-planned opportunities for pupils to work in groups. Pupils responded positively to working together. They were enthusiastic, well motivated and engaged in thinking about their learning. In other lessons, pupils’ learning was more passive and there was a lack of pace and challenge. Overall, teachers met pupils’ learning needs well. However, pupils needed more frequent and regular opportunities to develop their writing skills for a range of purposes. In most classes, homework was largely limited to the completion of classwork.
Achievement
By the end of S2, the majority of pupils achieved the appropriate national levels in listening, talking, reading and writing. Overall, there was an improving trend, particularly in writing. In S4, the proportion of pupils presented for Standard Grade was generally well below the national average but the numbers achieving a Credit award was consistently in line with or above the national average. An increasing number of pupils were achieving Access 3 qualifications. Pupils generally performed less well than in their other subjects. At Intermediate 1, and Intermediate 2, the proportion of pupils achieving A-C grades was generally below the national average. In S5, the proportion of pupils presented for Higher who achieved A-C grades was generally below the national average. The majority of those presented for Advanced Higher achieved A-C grades.
Other features of pupils’ achievement included the following.
Mathematics
Learning and teaching
Teachers gave clear and helpful explanations. They used homework well. At times they used questioning very well to assess pupils’ understanding, help them think for themselves and develop their problem-solving skills. This very good practice was not sufficiently consistent across all classes. Almost all pupils were attentive and well motivated to learn. Lessons were usually conducted at a suitable pace. Higher-attaining pupils made effective use of graphing calculators. Teachers suitably matched tasks to pupils’ prior attainment, and, overall, met pupils’ learning needs well. Some pupils, particularly at the earlier stages, needed better support in mental calculation.
Achievement
A majority of pupils in S1/S2 were achieving appropriate national levels of attainment. However, by the end of S2 a significant minority of pupils were achieving well beyond these levels. In 2003 and 2004, around half of all S4 pupils achieved Credit awards at Standard Grade. In 2005, Standard Grade courses in S3/S4 were replaced by National Qualifications courses. The proportion of S4 pupils achieving A-C grades at Intermediate 2, decreased to around two-fifths. In 2005, over half of the pupils presented in S4 at Intermediate 1 or 2 achieved A grades. At S5/S6, the proportion of pupils who achieved A-C grades at Higher was in line with the national average in 2003 and 2004 and well above this average in 2005. The proportions of pupils who achieved A-C grades at Intermediate 1 or 2 were above or well above the national average. A majority of pupils presented at Advanced Higher achieved A-C grades.
Other features of pupils’ achievement included the following.
French
Learning and teaching
There were important weaknesses in learning and teaching in French. Teachers did not always share the purpose of activities with pupils. In some lessons, they did not explain the work clearly enough or make suitable use of praise. Overall, they did not use a wide enough range of teaching approaches. Too many activities were too teacher led and did not provide opportunities for pupils to think for themselves or work together. Most pupils worked well in class but their learning experiences were not sufficiently varied. Teachers did not always ensure that higher-attaining pupils were sufficiently challenged or that low-attaining pupils received the support they needed. They generally used homework effectively.
Achievement
At S1/S2, most pupils coped well with their coursework. However, the tasks given often lacked challenge and did not enable them to attain the levels of which they were capable. In S4, the proportion of pupils presented for a National Qualification in French was well below the national average. Of the small numbers presented for Standard Grade, the proportion who achieved a Credit award was above the national average. At S5/S6, the proportion of pupils presented for Higher French and who gained an A-C grade was overall in line with the national average.
There were no other notable features of pupils’ achievements.
Gaelic
Learning and teaching
Teachers gave clear explanations and instructions. In fluent speakers’ classes, Gaelic was very well used as the teaching medium. In these classes, teachers organised lessons well and provided varied and interesting contexts for learning which caught pupils’ interest. In both Gaelic learners and fluent speakers’ classes, new work was explained in detail and what was to be learned was shared and reinforced with pupils. Teachers had high expectations for learning to which pupils responded very well. Teachers varied their methods from stage to stage and provided good oral feedback to pupils on how they could improve their work. They used homework well to reinforce learning. Fluent speakers responded well to a variety of appropriately challenging texts. Some tasks set for pupils in Gaelic learners’ classes lacked sufficient challenge. The needs of pupils fluent in Gaelic were well met through effective questioning to ensure understanding. Almost all pupils were keen to learn and responded well to opportunities to work independently. Relationships between pupils and staff were very good.
Achievement
Almost all pupils from S1 to S6 were performing well in their coursework. At S3/S4, most pupils achieved Credit or General awards in Standard Grade in Gaidhlig and Gaelic learners’ examinations. Pupils performed less well than in their other subjects. At S5/S6, most pupils achieved A-C grades at Higher in Gaidhlig or Gaelic learners.
Other features of pupils’ achievement included the following.
Religious and moral education
Learning and teaching
Teachers gave clear explanations and instructions and questioned pupils effectively. They used praise well. However, they did not share the purpose of lessons with pupils. Overall, lessons were too teacher directed and did not sufficiently involve all pupils. Teachers did not use a sufficiently wide variety of approaches, including allowing pupils to work more collaboratively in pairs and groups. They had not sufficiently developed approaches to help pupils remember prior learning. Homework was given regularly and tasks were varied. Pupils worked diligently in class, remained on task and answered questions well. In some classes, the pace was often too slow and some tasks were not sufficiently challenging.
Achievement
At S1/S2, most pupils were making good progress in their learning. Most demonstrated good knowledge and understanding of work they had recently studied. At S3/S4, pupils were able to discuss issues of morality and the aspects of religions they had studied recently. However, they were not good at giving personal responses to the issues and their ability to recall what they had learned was not strong. There was no element of religious and moral education in the S5/S6 personal and social development programmes. The department did not present pupils for National Qualifications.
Other features of pupils’ achievement included the following.
The overall quality of pastoral care was adequate. The school had developed some generally effective arrangements for ensuring the care, welfare and protection of pupils. The development of a healthy lifestyle was promoted appropriately across the school. There were important weaknesses in the school’s approaches to ensuring the safety of pupils on work experience and for those who had specific difficulties in learning. All staff had received training in child protection procedures but would benefit from further, more specific, training. Pupils at S1/S2 did not always feel safe in the school. The school was developing guidelines but staff did not know the procedures to be adopted in different situations.
The overall quality of personal and social development was good. Staff and pupils undertook a large number of residential trips, and active citizenship was well developed through the school’s Computers for Africa scheme and a Christmas parcel initiative. The personal and social education (PSE) programme included a wide range of appropriate activities. Staff regularly reviewed the content and delivery of the PSE programme, but did not always explain to pupils the reasons for the topics to be studied. Pupils made good progress in their personal and social development but some required further support. Most pupils had developed good levels of self-esteem and were able to think independently. Guidance staff did not report to parents in sufficient detail about their children’s personal and social development, wider achievements and growing maturity in school.
The overall quality of curricular and vocational guidance was good. There were appropriate arrangements to prepare pupils for making choices at key transition stages. These included the provision of a good range of support materials including informative booklets and individual interviews with a careers specialist. Almost all S4 pupils took part in a work experience programme. Arrangements for evaluating the programmes required further development. The PSE programme included appropriate opportunities for pupils to develop good presentation skills and interview techniques. The school supported pupils to visit a range of college or university open days and other training opportunities. Guidance staff offered individual interviews to parents and pupils and provided sound advice on the links between curricular choices and careers pathways. However, across the school, there was insufficient recording of pupils’ progress.
Staff supported a wide range of pupils in mainstream classes and pupils with complex additional support needs. There was scope to integrate some pupils with less complex additional support needs into more mainstream classes. There were important weaknesses in the arrangements for meeting the learning needs of pupils with complex additional support needs. There was no system in place for recording incidents which concerned pupils’ health and safety in the support for learning bases. Support for learning staff gave all teachers detailed information on pupils with specific learning needs. S6 pupils helped some younger pupils in classes and in the support for learning bases. In the bases, interesting displays created a good environment for learning. Staff in the support for learning bases were caring and gave good support to individual pupils. Teachers produced a large number of individualised educational programmes (IEPs). However, many of them had weaknesses in the way that targets were set and reviewed. It was difficult for staff to track progress and to establish the next steps in pupils’ learning. The system for storing Records of Need and the completion of relevant sections was not sufficiently systematic which meant that staff were not clear about the needs of pupils.
Pupils with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties were very well supported by staff in the Pupil Support Base. Staff had developed very good partnerships with parents who felt they could contact the Base at any time. Staff set high standards for pupils’ attendance, effort and behaviour. Some pupils responded very positively and had achieved National Qualifications. Staff in the Base communicated well with the rest of the school. An effective referral system ensured appropriate consultation took place before a pupil was assigned to the Base.
Aspect |
Comment |
Quality of accommodation and facilities |
The overall quality of accommodation and facilities was weak. Strengths included spacious classrooms, improved science laboratories and a very good all-weather sports pitch. However, some classrooms were in need of refurbishment and water leaked into many of the buildings, especially in physical education. Broken floor tiles in many areas of the school presented safety hazards. The high number of entrances meant that the school was not secure and the fire alarm system and procedures needed immediate review. Display around the school was too variable in quality. The education authority planned to improve the quality of accommodation as part of the council’s major refurbishment programme. |
Climate and relationships, expectations and promoting achievement and equality |
Relationships between staff and pupils were generally good and most pupils were cooperative and well behaved. However, not all pupils and staff fully shared a sense of loyalty and identity with the school. Pupils felt that issues of bullying were dealt with effectively but many pupils at S1/S2 did not feel safe in the school. The school council gave pupils at all stages the opportunity to be involved in decision making. In the last year it had had some successes in working with architects on the proposed refurbishment and in improving the quality of food in the dining room. The school was reviewing the membership of the council to encourage better participation and develop citizenship skills. Individual teachers set high standards for the quality and presentation of pupils’ work and used praise effectively but practice was too inconsistent across the school. Annual awards ceremonies and regular assemblies celebrated pupils’ successes. However, assemblies did not offer sufficient opportunities for religious observance. The recently introduced positive behaviour policy had not yet made an impact in the school. Pupils felt that good behaviour was not sufficiently well valued in the school. Expectations of what pupils could achieve varied too much across the school. Teachers were developing an ethos of achievement but it had not yet fully impacted in some classes. The school had recently achieved health promoting school status. The religious and moral education department played a significant part in promoting equality and fairness through the curriculum. The school had an appropriate race equality policy in place but had not yet developed approaches to promoting good relations between people of different racial groups. |
Partnership with parents and the community |
The school had generally effective links with parents. Staff in the Pupil Support Base had developed very good partnerships with parents whose children they supported. The school’s handbook for parents contained inaccuracies and was not completely up-to-date. The school was about to launch an informative website. Teachers provided parents with helpful information about their children’s progress. However, the school needed to monitor the quality of reports to parents to ensure the accuracy of information. There was a strong partnership with the supportive School Board. There were strong links with some local employers, police and other external agencies. |
Lochaber High School had many hard-working teachers who gave a lot of time to providing activities for pupil’s outwith the formal curriculum. Most pupils were well behaved and conscientious. Attainment had steadily improved over the last three years. In a number of measures, pupils now performed better than in schools with similar characteristics. However, some pupils were not making sufficient progress. Pupils and staff did not all have sufficient pride in their school. There were significant weaknesses in ensuring the safety of some pupils and the policy on promoting positive behaviour had not yet had sufficient impact on the climate and relationships in the school. Learning and teaching varied across the school but was good overall.
The headteacher had a clear vision for the school but had not been fully successful in communicating it to staff and gaining their support. The school had been successful in steadily improving attendance and achievement. However, there were insufficient guidelines in place to direct the work of the staff to ensure consistency of practice. Senior managers had failed to create a climate of mutual trust, respect and confidence among staff. Many staff did not have confidence in the school leadership and felt that consultation was weak. There were major weaknesses in the arrangements for safeguarding the health and safety of some pupils. There was a lack of clarity and openness with regard to budgets. The four depute headteachers had achieved some success in aspects of their individual remits but had had limited impact on the overall quality of the school’s provision. Their remits were too focused on administrative tasks rather than strategic aspects of school management. Their links with subject departments were not sufficiently challenging or supportive. Senior managers did not work coherently as a team. One had been successful in developing aspects of ICT in the school. The school had recently appointed principal teachers of curriculum who each had responsibility for a number of subjects. These principal teachers demonstrated good potential and some were beginning to have an impact on their respective areas.
There were important weaknesses in the school’s approaches to evaluating its work. Senior managers visited classes to monitor and evaluate learning and teaching. They provided teachers with feedback on what they had seen but there were no agreed action points discussed and monitored. The headteacher discussed examination results annually with some but not all principal teachers. The discussions were not always followed by clear action plans to ensure continuous improvement. Some teachers were involved in visiting each other’s classrooms but this good practice was not consistent across the school. The headteacher and the education authority needed to provide better leadership in the school in order to direct the energy and skills of all staff towards improving the education of their pupils.
Main points for action The school and the education authority, in liaison with HM Inspectors, should take action to:
|
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. They will publish an interim report on progress within one year of the publication of this report. 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 another report to parents and carers, within two years of the publication of this report, on the extent of improvement that has been achieved.
John Brown
HM Inspector
24 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 |
Good |
Meeting pupils’ needs |
Adequate |
Overall quality of attainment: S1/S2 |
Good |
Overall quality of attainment: S3/S4 |
Good |
Overall quality of attainment: S5/S6 |
Good |
How well are pupils supported? |
|
Pastoral care |
Adequate |
Personal and social development |
Good |
Curricular and vocational guidance |
Good |
Learning support |
Weak |
How good is the environment for learning? |
|
Accommodation and facilities |
Weak |
Climate and relationships |
Adequate |
Expectations and promoting achievement |
Adequate |
Equality and fairness |
Weak |
Partnership with parents, the School Board and the community |
Adequate |
Improving the school |
|
Leadership |
Weak |
Effectiveness and deployment of staff with additional responsibilities |
Weak |
Self-evaluation |
Weak |
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 parents thought that:
|
Many thought that:
|
What pupils thought the school did well |
What pupils think the school could do better |
Most pupils thought that:
|
Many thought that:
|
What staff thought the school did well |
What staff think the school could do better |
All or almost all staff thought that:
|
Many thought that:
|
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 |
Lochaber High School |
84 |
92 |
80 |
Comparator Schools4 |
92 |
94 |
92 |
|
National |
91 |
91 |
90 |
|
5+ @ Level 3 or Better |
Lochaber High School |
81 |
91 |
83 |
Comparator Schools |
90 |
92 |
91 |
|
National |
91 |
91 |
90 |
|
5+ @ Level 4 or Better |
Lochaber High School |
72 |
80 |
74 |
Comparator Schools |
76 |
79 |
78 |
|
National |
76 |
77 |
76 |
|
5+ @ Level 5 or Better |
Lochaber High School |
35 |
43 |
38 |
Comparator Schools |
34 |
34 |
35 |
|
National |
34 |
35 |
34 |
|
Percentage of relevant S4 roll attaining by end of S5
2003 |
2004 |
20053 |
||
5+ @ Level 4 or better |
Lochaber High School |
76 |
73 |
82 |
Comparator schools4 |
79 |
78 |
79 |
|
National |
78 |
78 |
78 |
|
5+ @ Level 5 or better |
Lochaber High School |
40 |
47 |
49 |
Comparator schools |
43 |
46 |
45 |
|
National |
45 |
45 |
45 |
|
1+ @ Level 6 or better |
Lochaber High School |
33 |
38 |
45 |
Comparator schools |
40 |
40 |
40 |
|
National |
39 |
39 |
38 |
|
3+ @ Level 6 or better |
Lochaber High School |
26 |
21 |
31 |
Comparator schools |
21 |
23 |
22 |
|
National |
23 |
23 |
22 |
|
5+ @ Level 6 or better |
Lochaber High School |
11 |
13 |
17 |
Comparator schools |
8 |
7 |
8 |
|
National |
10 |
9 |
9 |
|
Percentage of relevant S4 roll attaining by end of S6
2003 |
2004 |
20053 |
||
5+ @ Level 5 or better |
Lochaber High School |
44 |
43 |
47 |
48 |
47 |
47 |
||
National |
47 |
47 |
47 |
|
1+ @ Level 6 or better |
Lochaber High School |
39 |
39 |
43 |
Comparator schools |
45 |
45 |
46 |
|
National |
44 |
44 |
43 |
|
3+ @ Level 6 or better |
Lochaber High School |
26 |
28 |
31 |
Comparator schools |
31 |
30 |
29 |
|
National |
31 |
31 |
30 |
|
5+ @ Level 6 or better |
Lochaber High School |
18 |
20 |
21 |
Comparator schools |
19 |
18 |
17 |
|
National |
20 |
20 |
19 |
|
1+ @ Level 7 or better |
Lochaber High School |
7 |
12 |
8 |
Comparator schools |
12 |
10 |
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 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, 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).