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 outcomes from the third year of support for departments in secondary schools carried out by subject inspector/advisers, as part of the Education Development Plan (EDP).

2 Background

2.1 This work is an established strand of 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. The selection of schools is 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 1999, a total of 31 out of 71 schools and 56 departments were identified for inspector/adviser support in 1999/2000. This large number of schools is not an indication of the schools that cause concern. It simply illustrates the point that, even in effective schools, there are sometimes pockets of practice where targeted support could secure improvement.

3 Support

3.1 Activities were planned to focus on the nature of the weakness and this was explored with the school beforehand so that an appropriate programme of support could be agreed. Examples of the range of support activities that were undertaken include:

· involving the whole department in a review of teaching methods and their effectiveness;

· improving the quality of pupil assessment;

· addressing weaknesses in subject knowledge;

· supporting a new, inexperienced 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 2002 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 projects where there were measurable data available at the beginning and end of the programme, there was an increase in subject residuals in 80% of cases. In many of the programmes where no improvement was noted, either changes in staff or staff shortages were contributory factors. This is because these programmes involved a number of interactions with a department, over a period of time, and the staff discontinuity prevented much of the effort becoming embedded in the practice.

4.2 The average improvement, taking increases and decreases together, was 0.34 (about a third of a grade at GCSE) compared with 0.43 for the previous year's programme of support. Whilst the success rate for this cycle of support is lower than the figure of 87% in 1999/2000, the overall programme still represents an effective use of resources.

4 Lessons Learned

4.1 As a result of the evaluations carried out each year by inspector/advisers it has been possible to identify a set of strategies that seem to provide the best opportunity for success, with such a programme:

· Agreeing outcomes and the support that is likely to be most effective beforehand, and involving the line manager/leadership team in this stage;

· Setting specific expectations for the department's actions between visits;

· Training of staff to monitor classroom practice using subject-specific criteria;

· Joint lesson planning, teaching, work sampling;

· Regular e-mail contact for ongoing discussion during period of support;

· Coaching on assessment criteria and moderation of teacher assessments;

· Production of exemplar material for the department to model;

· Ensuring that the line manager is present in debriefing sessions;

· Progress chasing to ensure that the school remembers its own monitoring and support responsibilities during the programme of support;

· Target setting for future growth at point of disengagement from the programme;

· Ensuring that subject-specific advice is commissioned for key staffing appointments, to ensure that initial mistakes are not made.

5 Future Work

5.1 There are now few schools that do not see the benefit for themselves in investing in longitudinal support activities such as this. Given that schools are also being encouraged to develop a rigorous culture of self-evaluation, this particular programme will remain available to schools in the future, but with a reduced level of support from the EDP.

Recommendations

1. That the report be noted.

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.