Contact: John Clarke, Deputy County Education Officer, Tel 01962 846459 [email protected] or

Alan Rawlings, Senior Inspector/Adviser (Secondary) and Key Stage 3 Strategy Manager, County Office, Tel 01962 846917 email [email protected]

1 Summary

1.1 This report describes outcomes from the fifth year of support for departments in secondary schools carried out by subject inspectors/advisers, as part of the Education Development Plan (EDP).

1.2 The report supports Aim 1 of the Corporate Strategy (maximising life opportunities). Improving subject departments means that more students achieve higher grades, thus improving their life chances

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.

3 Support

3.1 From an analysis of subject residuals for 2001, a total of 35 out of 71 schools and 46 departments were identified for inspector/adviser support in 2002/2003. This large number of schools is not an indication of the number that caused concern at that time. It simply illustrates the point that even in effective schools there are sometimes pockets of practice where targeted support could secure improvement. In fact, seven of the schools that received support were judged to be amongst the most effective in the LEA.

3.2 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. Although it was not a factor that would lead to the offer of support being withdrawn, a judgement had also to be made about the capacity of the school to build on the advice. Consequently if an individual department was suffering acute staffing difficulties at the time, the nature of the support will have been different from, for example, a team with a new head of department.

3.3 Inspectors/advisers carried out lesson observations, discussions, training and coaching as appropriate and as agreed with the school. Usually the programme of support involved several visits to the school. Outcomes were judged against GCSE results in 2004 and specifically the subject residuals.

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 83% of cases. This is a higher figure than last year when the equivalent figure was 74% and more typical of the level of success that has been achieved in the past.

4.2 All subject programmes led to improvement: in seven subject areas there was improvement in every department that was supported. Once again, in the small number of instances where no improvement was noted, there were specific reasons. For example, in the case of one school where two departments were supported and residuals slipped further, the local school improvement team has since been working with the school on a whole school brief. In a further instance when the support was declined by the school, the residual increased by only 0.04 to -0.53, thereby indicating that pupils were continuing to underachieve.

4.3 The average improvement, taking increases and decreases together was 0.59 (over a half a grade at GCSE). This is a significant improvement on the previous year's programme of support when the equivalent figure was 0.32.

5 Lessons learned

5.1 Headteachers will ultimately decide the timing and appropriateness of external support for any subject weaknesses. It is therefore important that the LEA provides schools with the data that help them to make such decisions. As a matter of routine the LEA now shares data annually with schools where a subject residual lies in either the top or bottom 10% of the ranking of residuals. This is in order to help with school self-evaluation whilst also celebrating success when it is merited.

5.2 As last year, this work has underlined the central role of the school leadership team in managing these improvement projects effectively and supporting staff in the intervening periods between the support activities. The direct correlation between effective self-evaluation and the quality of leadership at all levels, as described in revised OfSTED evaluation criteria, simply reinforces the point.

6 Legal implications

6.1 None.

7 Financial implications

7.1 None.

8 Personnel implications

8.1 None.

9 Impact assessment

9.1 Race and equality impact assessment has been considered in the development of this report and no adverse impact has been identified.

10 Crime prevention issues

10.1 None.

11 Views of the Local County Councillor

11.1 Not sought in the drafting of this report.

Recommendations

1 That this report be noted and thanks be offered to County Subject Inspector/Advisers.

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 disclosed exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act

None