13 June 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?
Peterhead Academy was inspected in March 2006 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 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 a group of parents.
The inspection team also evaluated aspects of the school’s progress in implementing national recommendations related to improving aspects of school meals provision.
Peterhead Academy is a non-denominational school serving the town of Peterhead and the surrounding area. The school has bases for pupils with additional support needs and for pupils with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. At the time of the inspection, the roll was 1346. The percentage of pupils entitled to free school meals was well below the national average, but above the average for Aberdeenshire. Pupils’ attendance was above the national average.
HM Inspectors identified the following key strengths.
|
Almost all parents were positive about many aspects of the school. They thought that staff made them feel welcome and that school reports and parents’ evenings were helpful and informative. They felt that the school made clear the standard of work it expected from pupils. Around a quarter of parents did not have a clear idea of the school’s priorities for improvement and did not feel there was mutual respect between pupils and teachers. Almost all pupils thought that teachers expected them to work to the best of their ability and said they got on well with other pupils. However, around a quarter thought that the behaviour of pupils was good and less than half thought that pupils were treated fairly. A significant minority had concerns about how staff dealt with bullying or sorted out things that worried them, and about the condition of the toilets and security. Almost all staff liked working in the school. Most teachers, but just only over half of support staff, felt involved in making decisions about the school. Just under half of teachers thought that pupils were enthusiastic about learning and around a third did not feel there was mutual respect between teachers and pupils. Almost all parents and staff thought that the school was well led.
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
Overall, the quality of the curriculum was adequate. The S1/S2 curriculum was broad and balanced. However, curricular links with primary schools, to support continuity of progress for pupils, were limited. Some pupils were unable to continue with the modern language they had studied at primary school. At S3/S4, most pupils followed a balanced programme of eight Standard Grade courses or their equivalent. Several departments had introduced National Qualifications (NQ) courses at Access and Intermediate levels to provide more appropriate learning experiences for some pupils. This included an innovative approach in technological education which led to an extended period with a training agency as part of an engineering apprenticeship scheme. Through an established partnership with a local college, selected groups of pupils followed vocational courses in a range of subjects. However, there had been no clear evaluation of the effectiveness of this provision. Alternative activities enriched the curriculum for pupils with additional support needs and enabled them to gain awards for their achievements. However, the development of their curriculum was not sufficiently well planned. At S5/S6, pupils had access to a broad range of courses at Intermediate, Higher and Advanced Higher levels. There was no provision for all pupils to have physical education at this stage. Pupils in S5/S6 had too many unsupported study periods. At all stages, the curriculum included opportunities for pupils to develop ICT skills progressively, and senior pupils were able to work towards achieving the European Computer Driving Licence.
There was considerable variation in the quality of learning and teaching. Overall, the quality of teaching was good. Teachers gave clear explanations and instructions and many used ICT very effectively to support their teaching. Most revised previous learning at the start of lessons, but not all shared clearly the purposes of lessons with pupils. Most teachers used questioning to check pupils’ understanding. However, only a minority used questioning very effectively to encourage pupils to think for themselves. Teachers issued and marked homework regularly. Overall, the quality of learning was adequate. In most lessons, pupils were well behaved and attentive. They generally did what teachers asked them to do, but were sometimes passive listeners for too much of the time. However, in some subjects, pupils were enthusiastic and actively involved in their learning. Pupils occasionally took responsibility for their own learning and responded well to challenging assignments and opportunities to work collaboratively, when these were given. Teachers did not always provide enough opportunities for pupils to think for themselves or reflect on ideas and experiences. The pace of learning was sometimes too slow and approaches used did not always provide appropriate levels of challenge for all pupils. In most subjects, teachers took account of pupils’ overall needs when choosing tasks and provided supportive resources. In a few subjects, activities reflected pupils’ learning targets, and support staff were deployed effectively to assist pupils’ learning. However, tasks and activities were not always well matched to pupils’ individual strengths and needs.
Achievement
The overall quality of attainment at S1/S2 was adequate. Most pupils performed well in their coursework, but courses did not always take sufficient account of pupils’ prior learning. Attainment in English and mathematics had improved over the last few years. An increasing number of pupils attained appropriate national levels in reading and writing by the end of S2. In mathematics, the majority of pupils now attained appropriate national levels, and the proportion exceeding national levels had increased steadily.
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. The proportion of pupils attaining five or more awards by the end of S4 at SCQF level 3 and level 4 or better had improved and was around the national average. The proportion of pupils attaining five or more awards at level 5 or better had decreased to below the national average.
The overall quality of attainment at S5/S6 was weak. The proportion of pupils attaining five or more awards at SCQF level 5 or better by the end of S5 had declined and was below the national average. The proportion of pupils attaining one or more, three or more or five or more awards at SCQF level 6 or better by the end of S5 had also declined and was below the national average. The proportion of pupils attaining one or more, three or more or five or more awards at SCQF level 6 or better by the end of S6 had declined. It was around the national average for three or more awards at level 6 or better, but below the national average for one or more and five or more awards at SCQF level 6 or better. The proportion of pupils attaining one or more awards at SCQF level 7 was around the national average. At S6, girls were generally performing better than boys at SCQF levels 5, 6 and 7.
Information on the subjects inspected is given later in the report. Significant features of attainment in the subjects not inspected were as follows.
Pupils had opportunities to achieve in a range of activities. Successful drama productions and musical performances were strong features. Many pupils played in the school orchestra or bands or sang in the choirs. Around 100 pupils took part successfully in the annual Rock Challenge. They had been given the Spirit of Rock Challenge award for their attitude, behaviour and team spirit. Pupils were also able to develop their skills and interests through other out-of-school-hours activities such as the chess, cookery and young engineers clubs as well as Scripture Union. Many pupils developed citizenship skills through fundraising for charity, which was often managed by prefects. Senior pupils also developed organisational skills through arranging their annual dance and producing a year book. Inter-house sports events and other activities and competitions were popular and successful. A number of pupils had represented the school at local or national level in a wide range of sports. Participation in the school’s well-established European exchange programme enabled pupils to develop their language skills and awareness of other cultures. Pupils involved in a concert as part of a visit to Dublin had been congratulated on their performance by the Irish Taoiseach.
English
Learning and teaching
Teaching had major strengths. Teachers shared the purposes of lessons very clearly with pupils. They made very effective use of a range of teaching approaches, including use of ICT and direct interactive teaching. They developed pupils’ thinking through searching questions and set high standards for the amount and quality of work that pupils should produce. Almost all pupils worked conscientiously with minimum supervision. Most worked very productively with each other on paired and group tasks. Some pupils relied too much on others to provide ideas and answers. Teachers provided constructive feedback on pupils’ work, including clear advice on how to improve.
Achievement
At S1/S2, pupils made steady progress in their coursework, which was suitably challenging. Pupils’ attainment had improved and the majority of pupils now attained appropriate national levels in both reading and writing. Less than half overall did so in listening and talking. At Standard Grade, the proportion of pupils who attained Credit or General awards was above the national average. At Access 3, the majority of pupils were successful. The proportion of pupils who attained A-C grades at Intermediate 2 had improved to well above the national average. By the end of S6, the proportion attaining A-C grades at Higher was in line with national averages overall. The majority of pupils presented for Advanced Higher attained A-C grades.
Other features of pupils’ achievement included the following.
Mathematics
Learning and teaching
Teachers organised lessons well and provided clear explanations. They used questioning well to check and develop pupils’ knowledge and understanding. They did not consistently share the aims of lessons with pupils. Most pupils were well behaved, hard working and cooperated well with their teacher. Pupils responded well to opportunities to collaborate with each other. In a few lessons, the pace of learning was too slow and this hindered pupils from making appropriate progress. Pupils benefited from the wide range of additional revision materials provided by their teachers. Teachers had begun to use ICT to meet pupils’ needs more effectively. They did not always take full account of pupils’ earlier learning experiences.
Achievement
Attainment at S1/S2 had improved and the majority of pupils now reached appropriate national levels of attainment. The proportion exceeding these levels had also increased steadily. At S4, the school presented just over half of pupils at Standard Grade and the rest at Intermediate 1 and Access 3. Almost all S4 pupils presented for Standard Grade attained Credit or General awards. About half of the pupils presented for Intermediate 1 attained A-C grades. All of these pupils had attained Foundation awards at Standard Grade in S3 before progressing to the Intermediate 1 course. Almost all pupils presented at Access 3 were successful. At S5/S6, the proportions of pupils attaining A-C grades at Higher and at Intermediate 2 were broadly in line with national averages. At S5, less than half of the small numbers of pupils presented for Intermediate 1 attained A-C grades. At S6, the majority of pupils presented for Advanced Higher were successful.
Other features of pupils’ achievement included the following.
Home economics
Learning and teaching
Teachers organised lessons and homework well and explained to pupils their plans for each lesson. They gave clear instructions, including effective demonstrations to support the development of pupils’ practical skills. They set clear expectations and used praise and constructive oral feedback to encourage pupils to perform well. While teachers also provided helpful comments on pupils’ written work, the frequency varied. In most lessons, teachers made effective use of questioning to check pupils’ understanding. Sometimes, questioning was not used enough to extend pupils’ thinking and encourage discussion. Most pupils worked well and showed good levels of independence when involved in practical activities. They did not always have enough opportunities to take responsibility for their learning and to be involved in setting targets based on their strengths and needs. Teachers provided mostly well-judged support for pupils’ learning. Increasing use of ICT was helping to enhance and support pupils’ learning.
Achievement
Most pupils were making good progress with their coursework. At S4, almost all pupils presented for Intermediate 1 Lifestyle and Consumer Technology attained A-C grades. Most pupils presented for Intermediate 1 Hospitality attained A-C grades. At S5/S6, almost all pupils presented for Intermediate 2 Hospitality attained A-C grades. The proportion of pupils attaining A grades was above national averages.
Other features of pupils’ achievement included the following.
The overall quality of pastoral care across the school was adequate. Pupils trusted their guidance teachers and were confident that prompt, effective action would be taken to deal with any concerns. However, other staff throughout the school did not always act on pupils’ concerns. The school had well-established procedures for dealing with bullying and for informing pupils about drug and alcohol misuse. While it had policies covering child protection and race equality, not all staff had been trained in both areas. The school provided strong support to the families of pupils with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties (SEBD). Contributions from agencies such as social work and community youth work provided effective support for pupils. Arrangements to monitor the progress and attainment of looked after and accommodated children were ineffective. The school had good arrangements to support pupils’ transfer from P7 to S1. These included the very successful summer school which helped to develop pupils’ confidence as they transferred to secondary. Good progress was being made to introduce a range of healthy choices to school lunch menus and products in vending machines. Most pupils were positive about the steps being taken to increase the promotion of healthy eating.
The personal and social education (PSE) programme was well planned. Topics included key aspects of healthy lifestyles, including healthy eating, as well as substance abuse, personal relationships and citizenship. However, the programme offered within the SEBD base lacked structure and did not fully cover topics such as keeping safe. During PSE lessons, guidance staff and visiting speakers successfully encouraged pupils to express their opinions. However, teachers did not always identify expected outcomes of lessons and there was no effective system to measure pupils’ progress and achievement. Guidance staff did not report to parents on pupils’ achievements in PSE. Most pupils responded positively to activities designed to encourage them to develop tolerance and respect for others. Initiatives to promote the development of pupils’ enterprise and citizenship skills included the pupil council and Young Enterprise, as well as involvement of senior pupils acting as buddies for S1 and assisting in some classes. Pupils’ personal and social development was further enriched through the school’s varied range of out-of-school-hours activities and charity events.
Arrangements for curricular and vocational guidance were very good. They included effective vocational advice and support for pupils with additional support needs. Staff provided parents and pupils with helpful curriculum and careers advice. They prepared pupils well to choose courses at S2 and S4. Careers education was broad and well designed and included high quality support from the school librarian and the careers adviser. The school used ICT effectively to enable pupils to access information about careers and post-school opportunities. Pupils’ overall progress was monitored through interviews with guidance staff, regular reviews of information from departments and by reacting to concerns expressed by individual teachers. These processes identified pupils whose progress had improved or declined, but were not always successful in tracking the performance of a small number of pupils who were deemed to be at risk.
Overall, the support for learning provided to pupils was weak. Learning support staff and assistants provided a range of support across the school and within the bases. However, support was not always focused on pupils’ learning needs. Learning support staff had not identified clear learning targets for pupils who required support. Many of the tasks set for pupils did not provide appropriate challenge. While a start had been made to providing individualised educational programmes (IEPs) for some pupils, there were too many pupils for whom programmes had not yet been prepared. The effectiveness of the support provided and the extent of pupils’ progress were not being monitored well. Staff had not been trained sufficiently in recent legislation with regard to pupils with additional support needs. Pupils who required specialist support, such as those for whom English was an additional language (EAL), had regular access to relevant agencies. EAL teachers worked hard to support individuals and small groups, but subject teachers needed to develop a range of strategies to further enhance and support pupils’ learning. Pupils within the SEBD base had good opportunities to learn within the community through the ‘Kick Start’ programme. They were being very well supported both within the base and in the off-site provision. Classroom assistants provided appropriate support to individual pupils. There were major weaknesses in the organisation of records for some pupils receiving support, including Records of Needs.
The recently appointed depute headteacher had identified important strengths and serious deficiencies in key aspects of support for pupils. He had begun to develop a range of strategies designed to draw together all areas of support for pupils to better meet the needs of individual pupils. Staff acknowledged the need to provide a clear strategy for identifying pupils requiring support and for ensuring that staff were deployed effectively to meet pupils’ individual needs.
Aspect |
Comment |
Quality of accommodation and facilities |
The overall quality of accommodation and facilities was adequate. Strengths included spacious, well-equipped teaching areas for many subjects, very good ICT provision, lockers, a rock wall for physical education and access to community facilities such as the swimming pool and theatre. The school also had access to outdoor sports facilities, although not on its campus. Corridor areas were generally spacious. Attractive displays helped to create a stimulating environment in some communal areas and some departments. The school was working with external partners to improve outdoor social areas. However, there were also weaknesses. These included inefficient heating and ventilation, the condition of pupils’ toilets, leaking roofs, insufficient social areas for pupils, and weaknesses in aspects of security and access for disabled users. Areas of the school had been redecorated recently, but some departments needed refurbishment. The school was on the education authority’s priority list for either refurbishment or rebuilding. |
Climate and relationships, expectations and promoting achievement and equality |
The school was working to improve aspects of ethos and many staff appreciated the initiatives introduced by the headteacher and the ethos committee. Successful introduction of a school dress code, in consultation with pupils, was helping to increase pupils’ pride in the school. Many pupils were proud of the school’s successes, but a significant minority of pupils showed little respect for the school and its facilities. Litter was a problem in many areas. While pupils’ behaviour in classes was generally good, there were weaknesses in behaviour in other areas. Relationships between staff and pupils were mostly positive. However, a few staff did not treat pupils with sufficient respect. The school was involving pupils increasingly in decision-making. Where teachers set high expectations for pupils’ behaviour, punctuality and achievement and used praise effectively, pupils responded well. However, teachers’ expectations were not consistently high and pupils were not always encouraged to aspire to high standards of performance. Not enough pupils had opportunities to exercise responsibility. Staff were improving their approaches to celebrating and publicising pupils’ achievements. The praise and reward system was undervalued by some pupils because of inconsistencies in its use. The school had a policy for race equality and took some steps to promote equality and fairness through aspects of the curriculum. Integrated community school staff worked very effectively with some pupils, and their parents, to encourage continuing involvement in education. Insufficient action was being taken to address the needs of pupils for whom English was an additional language. The school worked with its chaplaincy team to provide sufficient opportunities for religious observance. |
Partnership with parents and the community |
A number of parents were actively involved in providing support for key activities, including the Rock Challenge and foreign visits. The school had consulted parents on the introduction of the dress code and received their support. It had not consulted parents on the health education programme. Informative newsletters and the well-presented school handbook and website provided useful information for parents. Almost all parents found parents’ evening helpful, although a few wanted to see improvements in overall arrangements. Written reports to parents were not always effective in providing clear information on pupils’ progress and attainment. Staff from the Integrated Community School service had formed very productive links with a number of parents. The headteacher was keen to re-establish a School Board, which had not been in place for several years, but had not yet secured the commitment of sufficient parents. The school benefited from productive links with local employers, external agencies, and the police and community wardens. |
Led by the headteacher, many staff in Peterhead Academy had recognised the need for change to ensure more consistently effective provision for all pupils. Most staff showed high levels of commitment to the school and its pupils, gave appropriate attention to pupils’ pastoral care and supported activities which developed pupils’ broader achievements. There were, however, variations across the school in the quality of learning and teaching, the support provided for pupils and standards of achievement. In taking forward priorities for improvement, the school will be able to build on several existing examples of effective practice in key aspects of its work.
The headteacher had been in post for just over a year at the time of the inspection. She had already had a positive impact on the work of the school and was providing good leadership. She had established positive relationships with pupils, parents and staff. As part of her approach to improving overall ethos and expectations, she had been successful in introducing the dress code and improving aspects of the overall environment. Pupils’ attendance was improving. Staff felt more involved in identifying future priorities and developing a shared vision for the school. The headteacher’s plans for taking forward these priorities set clear expectations of action required by staff at all levels to secure improvement in key aspects of the school’s work. They included a focus on action to extend the examples of effective practice more consistently across the school in order to improve the overall quality of pupils’ learning and achievement. The headteacher was adjusting the remits of the team of depute headteachers. This was partly to take account of recent changes in the team and also to refocus deployment on key responsibilities for school improvement. The depute headteachers were committed to the school and supportive of each other and the headteacher. In recent months, they had become increasingly involved in more systematic monitoring of the work of departments. However, variations in the effectiveness of their links with departments remained. There were several strengths in the leadership of departments and faculties, and the headteacher was increasingly building on these through staff involvement in working groups to take forward priorities. The work of the behaviour and ethos committees, for example, was beginning to have a positive impact. However, important weaknesses in the leadership of a few departments were hindering improvements in pupils’ experiences in some subjects.
The headteacher had identified improved self-evaluation as a priority for development and had taken steps to introduce a more systematic approach. Senior managers discussed SQA results and development priorities with departments. They had used observations of lessons to monitor the implementation of strategies to promote positive behaviour. Several principal teachers also observed lessons within their own departments. Practice varied, however, and these activities did not always lead to agreed action for improvement. Arrangements for monitoring and tracking pupils’ progress and achievement were not well developed. A few principal teachers carried out more rigorous evaluation of their departments, encouraged helpful discussion on the effectiveness of learning and teaching and pupils’ progress, and shared best practice. Overall, approaches to self-evaluation were not sufficiently rigorous and judgements made were not always based on clear evidence.
Main points for action The school and the education authority, in liaison with HM Inspectors, should take action to ensure improvement in:expectations of pupils’ attendance, punctuality, behaviour and standards of work;
|
What happens next?
The school and the education authority have been asked to prepare an action plan indicating how they will address the main findings of the report, and to share that plan with parents and carers. HM Inspectors will continue to engage with the school and the education authority in monitoring progress, and will undertake a follow-through inspection. This will result in a report to parents and carers, within two years of the publication of this report, on the extent of improvement that has been achieved.
Marjory Robertson
HM Inspector
13 June 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 |
Adequate |
|
Overall quality of attainment: S1/S2 |
Adequate |
|
Overall quality of attainment: S3/S4 |
Adequate |
|
Overall quality of attainment: S5/S6 |
Weak |
|
How well are pupils supported? |
||
Pastoral care |
Adequate |
|
Personal and social development |
Good |
|
Curricular and vocational guidance |
Very good |
|
Learning support |
Weak |
|
How good is the environment for learning? |
||
Accommodation and facilities |
Adequate |
|
Climate and relationships |
Adequate |
|
Expectations and promoting achievement |
Weak |
|
Equality and fairness |
Adequate |
|
Partnership with parents and the community |
Good |
|
Improving the school |
||
Leadership |
Good |
|
Effectiveness and deployment of staff with additional responsibilities |
Adequate |
|
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:
|
Around a quarter of parents:
|
What pupils thought the school did well |
What pupils think the school could do better |
Almost all thought that:
|
|
What staff thought the school did well |
What staff think the school could do better |
Almost all staff thought that:
|
|
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
Percentage of relevant S4 roll attaining by end of S4
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
||
English and Mathematics @ Level 3 |
Peterhead Academy |
93 |
91 |
94 |
Comparator Schools3 |
96 |
97 |
96 |
|
National |
91 |
91 |
90 |
|
5+ @ Level 3 or Better |
Peterhead Academy |
85 |
89 |
92 |
Comparator Schools |
95 |
97 |
95 |
|
National |
91 |
91 |
90 |
|
5+ @ Level 4 or Better |
Peterhead Academy |
74 |
73 |
79 |
Comparator Schools |
87 |
83 |
84 |
|
National |
76 |
77 |
76 |
|
5+ @ Level 5 or Better |
Peterhead Academy |
31 |
31 |
26 |
Comparator Schools |
44 |
42 |
39 |
|
National |
34 |
35 |
34 |
Percentage of relevant S4 roll attaining by end of S5
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
||
5+ @ Level 4 or better |
Peterhead Academy |
82 |
74 |
74 |
Comparator schools3 |
88 |
88 |
85 |
|
National |
78 |
78 |
78 |
|
5+ @ Level 5 or better |
Peterhead Academy |
45 |
40 |
39 |
Comparator schools |
56 |
55 |
53 |
|
National |
45 |
45 |
45 |
|
1+ @ Level 6 or better |
Peterhead Academy |
36 |
36 |
29 |
Comparator schools |
51 |
49 |
47 |
|
National |
39 |
39 |
39 |
|
3+ @ Level 6 or better |
Peterhead Academy |
26 |
19 |
17 |
Comparator schools |
29 |
28 |
26 |
|
National |
23 |
23 |
23 |
|
5+ @ Level 6 or better |
Peterhead Academy |
7 |
3 |
5 |
Comparator schools |
15 |
13 |
14 |
|
National |
10 |
9 |
10 |
Percentage of relevant S4 roll attaining by end of S6
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
||
5+ @ Level 5 or better |
Peterhead Academy |
39 |
46 |
40 |
Comparator schools3 |
58 |
58 |
58 |
|
National |
47 |
47 |
47 |
|
1+ @ Level 6 or better |
Peterhead Academy |
33 |
38 |
37 |
Comparator schools |
56 |
56 |
54 |
|
National |
44 |
44 |
43 |
|
3+ @ Level 6 or better |
Peterhead Academy |
22 |
31 |
25 |
Comparator schools |
40 |
40 |
39 |
|
National |
31 |
31 |
30 |
|
5+ @ Level 6 or better |
Peterhead Academy |
10 |
18 |
12 |
Comparator schools |
26 |
26 |
26 |
|
National |
20 |
20 |
19 |
|
1+ @ Level 7 or better |
Peterhead Academy |
7 |
11 |
8 |
Comparator schools |
18 |
19 |
17 |
|
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 & Recreation, local councillors and appropriate Members of the Scottish Parliament. Subject to availability, further copies may be obtained free of charge from HM Inspectorate of Education, 1st Floor, Endeavour House, 1 Greenmarket, Dundee DD1 4QB or by telephoning 01382 576700. Copies are also available on our website at www.hmie.gov.uk.
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.