Archived decisions

Contact: John Clarke, Assistant County Education Officer, Standards and Improvement Branch, County Office. Tel 01962 846459 or
Alan Rawlings, Senior Inspector/Adviser (Secondary) Tel 01962 846917

1 Summary

1.1 This report describes the outcomes of support for departments in secondary schools carried out by subject inspector/advisers, as part of the Education Development Plan.

2 Background

2.1 This work is a key strand of school improvement support for subject departments in secondary schools. It originated as a project to support weaker departments in otherwise successful schools but now has a wider brief of targeted support at Key Stage 4 across all schools, based primarily, but not exclusively on subject residual data (a subject residual is a statistic that compares the attainment of a group of pupils at GCSE with their performance in all subjects taken in that particular set of GCSE examinations. A residual figure of +0.5, for example, would indicate that overall, pupils had achieved a half a grade higher in that subject compared with the other subjects that they took).

2.2 From an analysis of subject residuals for 1998, a total of 38 out of 71 schools and 64 departments were identified for inspector/adviser support in 1999/2000. This does not mean that over a half of Hampshire secondary schools caused concern. It illustrates the point that even in effective schools there are often pockets where targeted support could secure improvement. Some schools received support in more than one subject area although three schools that were the subject of a managed school improvement programme were not included.

3 Support

3.1 Activities were planned to focus on the nature of the weakness. This might have been, for example, the scheme of work in use, a lack of familiarity with the particular requirements of the examination syllabus or the quality of the teaching and learning. In a few instances the support may have been to help a relatively new head of department.

3.2 Inspector/advisers carried out lesson observations, discussions, training and coaching as appropriate and as agreed with the school. Outcomes were judged against GCSE results in 2001 and specifically the subject residuals. This was not always possible where residuals were unavailable or incomplete as in religious education and information and communication technology, for example.

4 Outcomes

4.1 In the 55 projects where there were measurable data available at the beginning and end of the programme, there was an increase in subject residuals in 48 cases. In seven, there was either a decrease or no change. All of these instances can be accounted for by particular circumstances in the schools in question.

4.2 The range of improvement varied from little of no improvement to the equivalent of well over a grade and a half. The average improvement, taking increases and decreases together was 0.43 compared with 0.51 for the previous year's programme of support. Taking all activities together this support continues to be highly effective, with a success rate of 87% which is the same figure as for the previous year's programme.

4.3 The appendix lists the changes in subject residuals for all schools against the subjects that were supported. This analysis confirms that all schools benefited from the support in almost all instances. It also confirms the effectiveness of the individual subject teams in almost all instances. There is, however, some variation in impact.

4.4 The subject leaders who were responsible for this work have carried out a detailed evaluation of the support programme. Common success factors across many of these evaluations were:

· The need to build good relationships with the department including trust.

· Recognition by the department of the need to improve, linked to clear objectives.

· The subject specific and focused guidance that was provided. For example:
- detailed explanation of GCSE assessment requirements;
- targeted support for the written work of low attaining pupils.

· Active support by senior management throughout the project.

· Follow up and monitoring by senior management especially in the intervening periods between inspector activities.

4.5 Where progress was slow or no progress was made, the common reasons were:

· Staffing turbulence in the department or staff absence.

· Weaknesses in departmental leadership that could not be overcome.

4.6 There were three instances where the residuals slipped by over half a grade. The specific issues here were:

· a head of department that was reluctant to accept advice.

· a department that was poorly prepared by the school for the support programme with little follow up or active monitoring.

· an inexperienced new head of department trying to build on weaker previous practice where, despite school and inspector support, progress has been, inevitably, slow.

5 Current Activities

5.1 This work continues within the current EDP and has been refined in the following ways:

· Inspectors use a wider range of indicators to identify which departments to target. This includes factors to take into account the current `health' of the school in general and the capacity of the school to deal unaided with its own difficulties, (This is particularly important in the light of the above findings concerning senior management and difficulties experienced previously in trying to support a department without a full staffing complement).

· Each inspector negotiates the nature of the support with the headteacher including its timing to ensure that the work is focused appropriately.

Recommendations

1. That the report be noted.

2. That further reports be received.

Section 100D Local Government Act 1972 - Background Documents

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

NB The list excludes:

1. Published works

2. Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.

None