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 evaluates the structures and processes put in place initially by schools in 2001/2002 to manage the implementation of the Key Stage 3 Strategy.

2 Background

2.1 The National Key Stage 3 Strategy commenced in September 2001 following launch conferences and other preparatory work led by the LEA in the previous summer term. The purpose of the strategy is to improve the quality of learning and teaching for 11-14 year old pupils, so that a greater proportion of them reach at least the National Standard in tests at the end of the key stage.

2.2 This support has been phased in with a focus on literacy, then numeracy in 2001/2002 and, in 2002/2003, an expansion to include science, information and communication technology together with teaching and learning across other subjects. The programme is essentially one of curriculum and teaching development, backed by high quality training and local support from subject-specific consultants, who have been employed by the LEA for this purpose. The total Standards Fund budget assigned to this work in Hampshire in 2002/2003 is £3.2 million, of which £885,000 supports LEA costs and also pays for the additional consultants.

2.3 In many respects, schools should be able to embrace the strategy within their existing school improvement activities. However, it has become a significant focus across schools, both in Hampshire and nationally. Consequently, for a similar reason to that which has led the LEA to identify a Key Stage 3 Strategy Manager, all secondary schools have been encouraged to do the same.

3 Evaluation Process

Secondary attached inspectors visited 70 of the 71 mainstream schools and carried out semi-structured interviews with the strategy manager, or nominated member of the senior management team, strand leaders and those that line managed the strand leaders. The visit included a scrutiny of school development or improvement plans. In those schools where targeted support was being provided through consultants, work undertaken to date was noted. However the primary focus was on organisation, communication and management at whole school level rather than the specific work of other LEA staff with individual teachers or departments. This is being monitored by the county subject teams.

4 Launch Conferences

4.1 All secondary schools and the vast majority of special school and pupil referral units were represented at the launch conferences held in the summer term of 2001. In most instances all headteachers, heads of department and special needs co-ordinators (SENCOs) attended as requested. Feedback on these sessions was very positive although some SENCOs and special school representatives would have appreciated a stronger focus on their role. The inclusion in the launch sessions of information about LEA activities in relation to teaching and learning in 2001/2002 (High Impact Teaching - HIT) helped to maintain an appropriate balance. This was important for those schools with mostly high-attaining pupils who will have seen the focus on remedial programmes for pupils achieving below the Nation Standard in a different light from other schools.

4.2 Separate briefings were arranged for governing bodies. Attendance at these local sessions was good although, at nearly 60%, not up to the participation level of schools. Feedback from these sessions was also positive, especially in relation to additional guidance given by the LEA on how governing bodies could build the monitoring of Key Stage 3 into their routine business.

5 Leadership

5.1 Whilst the lead, initially, was taken by the headteacher, in the vast majority of cases, the school soon identified an existing member of the leadership team to steer the strategy. This was usually the curriculum deputy, if such a person existed in the structure, or whoever had current oversight of KS3. However in a few instances the school identified someone else on the team, at assistant headteacher level such as the person currently leading on teaching and learning development in the school. In a small minority of cases, the school elected to share the role between people or preferred to operate through a steering group. Whilst these arrangements were usually satisfactory for literacy and numeracy in the first phase, these schools were asked to reconsider the potential for these arrangements not to remain so when the other strands became operational.

5.2 The importance of the audit was emphasised at the launch conferences and was underlined through separate LEA guidance on teaching and learning - the High Impact Teaching (HIT) programme. However some schools were relatively slow to address this immediately in the summer term. The work of consultants accelerated this process but, on the whole, it was not until later that, for example, line managers picked up this aspect in their routine work with heads of department and/or strand co-ordinators. In those schools where leadership is strong, the relative roles of members of the leadership team were thought through at an early stage in relation to the support of others, the monitoring of progress and the identification of effective practice.

5.3 In a significant minority of instances, staffing difficulties influenced the extent to which a school could fully engage with the strategy from the outset. One school had an incomplete leadership team and this has hindered the establishment of a coherent whole school approach to literacy. Of more general concern has been the inability of some schools to engage fully with the strategy because of staffing shortages at department level. In one instance, the LEA took the lead in launching the numeracy strand because of the staffing situation in the mathematics department. In other instances, progress has been, properly, controlled by the school according to staff workloads and other priorities.

6 Management

6.1 The staggering of the training for literacy and numeracy strands has been a necessary approach as shown by the fact that many schools were unable to plan the cross-curricular literacy day until quite late in the autumn term of 2001. For a significant number of schools this involved the school returning to a theme that had been the focus for staff development at some point in the preceding two years because of a previous similar LEA focus by the county English team.

6.2 In schools where literacy had previously been a priority, there was often not an equivalent focus on numeracy, or mathematics across the curriculum. Where there has been any slippage in the timescale for implementation of the two cross curricular strands, this has been more noticeable with numeracy than with literacy. For example, two schools have delayed training until staffing matters are resolved; one is planning for a July launch whilst a fourth, where an OFSTED inspection identified cross curricular numeracy as good, has also delayed implementation. A further school that has been proactive with literacy and especially HIT has delayed involvement with numeracy until 2002/2003 to avoid staff overload and also because this is consistent with a school judgement about where it should focus its efforts

6.3 For many schools decisions about how to manage the Literacy Progress Units (LPUs) had to be made quickly or too late in the 2000/2001 year for the information to be built into the timetable planning cycle. (These are short burst programmes for pupils who are operating just below the National Standard when they join the school in Year 7). A few schools attempted to manage LPUs through an additional group or through the modification of materials for whole class use. Both strategies have proved to be less effective than the recommended approach of small group short time duration sessions. A minority of schools pre-planned staffing to accommodate the additional small group withdrawal sessions but in most cases this was not possible without incurring additional staff costs beyond that which could be set against part of the Standards Fund grant. Some of the more imaginative strategies for managing LPUs have involved graduate teachers and learning support assistants. The structure of the equivalent programme in mathematics (Springboard) largely allowed schools to accommodate arrangements within existing timetable plans.

6.4 Overall the management of implementation is good. It is very good in one school in seven, good in nearly three in seven and satisfactory in the vast majority of the remainder. Where progress has been slow (in six cases) the reasons have been largely outside of the control of the school and linked to staffing difficulties.

7 Effective Practice

7.1 There is considerable evidence that the work of consultants with those departments identified for additional targeted support is both valued by the schools and leading to improvement. Some schools have decided to adopt an `immersion' approach to HIT in order to involve all curriculum areas in development at KS3. In the main, however, a typical response has been as suggested - that is to reflect on the principles of the Key Stage 3 Strategy: expectations, progression, engagement, transformation and prioritise accordingly.

7.2 For example, in schools that are already highly effective, a specific focus is being followed, such as lesson structure. Selective use has been made of HIT to involve specific departments alongside the whole school literacy focus, thereby engaging all staff and doing so through major staff development activities.

7.3 Programmes of monitoring to identify effective practice are not yet secure in all schools. In the majority they are at an early stage. In some the strategy has provided an extra impetus to existing monitoring provision. In a few they are embedded.

8 LEA Monitoring in 2002/2003

8.1 Whilst the LEA has decided that it will only be active across up to three strands in any one school from September 2002, it is too early to judge how all schools may manage the whole programme. In those schools where evaluation has identified that progress is satisfactory or slow, contact will be maintained especially if the schools are receiving targeted support.

8.2 The three main challenges for schools over the coming period are:

· maintaining a comprehensive overview of the strategy and providing appropriate leadership;

· ensuring that roles, responsibilities, communication and monitoring are firmly established for all strands;

· agreeing strategies with the LEA for securing progress in schools or with strands where there remain staffing difficulties.

Recommendations

1. That the report be noted.

2. That schools are commended for the conscientious way in which they have started to implement the Key Stage 3, given the problematic staffing situation that many find themselves in at present.

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