Priority Review Report – 2016 Cycle

Craigieburn Secondary College North Western Victoria Region

School number: 8705

Principal: Kate Morphy

School Council President Peter Brookshaw

Regional Office Representative: Vivienne Tellefson

Review Company: Ed Solutions Pty. Ltd.

Accredited School Reviewer/s: Jill Jackson, Julie Chandler &

Robert Miller

Date/s of Review: 9th September, 4th, 6th, 12th, 13th and

20th October.

2

Contents

1. Priority Review Report (Confidential to School Council, staff and

DET) 3

1.1 Analysis of the school’s performance against the Strategic Plan ........................................... 3

1.2 Analysis of the Reviewer’s findings against the Terms of Reference ................................... 11

1.3 Other significant findings ...................................................................................................... 24

2. Priority Review Report Executive Summary (published on school’s

website) ................................................................................................ 25

2.1 School Context ...................................................................................................................... 25

2.2 Summary of the School’s Performance ................................................................................ 26

Appendix 1: Focus for the Priority Review ............................................ 30

1 Focus of the Review .............................................................................................................. 31

2 Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 32

Appendix 2: VRQA Checklist .................................................................. 48

3

1. Priority Review Report (Confidential to School Council, staff and DET)

1.1 Analysis of the school’s performance against the Strategic Plan

Goal/Target Performance Outcomes Enablers/Barriers

Student achievement

Goals:

1. To enhance student

learning and improve

achievements in all subject

areas with a focus on

literacy and numeracy.

2. To improve student

achievement in VCE, VCAL &

VET.

Targets:

Increase students

achieving above the

expected level to

20% (AusVELS 7-10

and Year 9 NAPLAN).

Study scores above

40 to 4%

All Study mean to 28

The target to increase the percentage of students achieving above the

expected level to 20% was partially achieved (data below). Targets to

improve the VCE all study score and percentage of scores above 40

were not achieved.

Percentage of students above expected levels (Target was 20%

above)

The target was partially achieved for some cohorts but not for the

combined data 7-10. In semester 1 2016 the following outcomes were

achieved for Years 7-10:

Reading

&

viewing

Speaking

&

Listening

Writing Measurement

& geometry

Number

&

algebra

Statistics

&

probability

13.5% 7% 8.9% 18.3% 18% 13.1%

In 2013, 20% of the Year 7 cohort achieved above expected levels in

reading and number and algebra demonstrated by teacher

judgements against AusVELS. The same cohort also achieved greater

than 20% above expected levels in 2014 but by Year 9 in 2015

achievement had trended down to 12.95 for number and algebra and

17.29 for reading.

Additional evidence was gained using On Demand testing and

students generally scored better for reading with greater than 20%

above expected levels in reading at Years 7-9 in 2014-15. This was

not replicated in 2016 for Year 9 as 9.64 were above the expected

Enablers

Commencing in 2011, the college developed a Teaching

Code of Practice derived from research including the

former Northern Metropolitan Regional focus on ‘Powerful

Learning’ and ‘High Reliability Teaching Strategies’ (John

Munro, Melbourne University). The college implemented:

yearly professional learning for teachers to self-

select either at a basic level or at a master level

Professional Educational Practice (PEP) teams to

embed a team approach to assessment, planning

and reflection on outcomes

professional learning journals to record each

teacher’s learning progress aligned with the

Australian Professional Standards for Teachers

three observation rounds a year

curriculum mapping (scope and sequence, unit

planners)

assessment practices that included a ‘hurdle task’

or pre-test to establish starting points for teaching

and learning and assessment task proformas.

VCE level teachers had planning meetings to align

their planning to new study designs.

The above actions improved teacher knowledge,

evidenced by the leadership survey result that endorsed

intellectual stimulation (62%) as the highest factor. The

reviewers determined that the above practices enabled

4

levels in semester 1. Year 8 (20.21) and Year 7 (27.5) data continued

to be above the target of 20%. Percentages above expected levels

were less than 10% at each year level for On Demand numeracy with

no student above expected levels at Year 10.

The targeted 20% above expected levels was not achieved on most

NAPLAN measures during 2013-16. The exception was spelling at Year

7 in 2014-15 (24.2% and 20.3%).

Victorian Certificate of Education

The All Study mean score remained below the target of 28.

2013 2014 2015

24.47 25.62 24.38

Table 1: All study mean scores

Scores over 40 trended down from 1.3% in 2013, to 1.0% in 2014

and to 0.5% in 2015. The target of 28 was not met.

Further data

NAPLAN learning growth (Year 7 to 9)

Low growth, above the state average of 25%, was evident for 2013-

16 in most English measures. Numeracy low growth was higher than

the state each year, except in 2015, when low growth was 21.1% and

high growth was greater than the state at 29.8%.

2014 2015 2016

Reading 30.6 31.0 29.9

Writing 36.0 23.5 35.9

Spelling 32.7 41.0 35.2

the improvement in the percentages above expected

levels in some cohorts for reading, but did not have an

impact on improved literacy, numeracy and VCE results,

beyond this.

Barriers

Improvement in learning outcomes was impeded by

inconsistency in teaching practice and lack of collaborative

processes. This was evidenced through reviewer

classroom observations, reports from the leadership team,

teachers and students, which identified the following:

Teachers were expected to demonstrate planning

and assessment for a sample of students and to

discuss this in PEP meetings. Accountability for all

students was not factored into PEP or the

performance and Development processes.

Work samples were not moderated across year

levels, particularly from Year 10 to 11, to establish

common understandings of progressions in

preparation for VCE.

Teachers reported few opportunities for deep

analysis of student data and there was no item

analysis of NAPLAN to identify strengths and

weaknesses.

Professional learning was focused on pedagogy

and skills and knowledge at Years 7-10 with little

in-school VCE focus.

Timetable revisions had reduced the time for

Mathematics at Year 9 to three periods

Reviewers observed that a constant stream of

announcements occurred each period interrupting

continuity of learning time.

Actions to overcome barriers

Testing at Year 7 to determine each student’s

5

Grammar &

punctuation

28.1 34.8 31.5

Numeracy 25.6 21.1 36.0

Table 2. Low growth percentages (State average 25%).

Low numbers of students made high growth in writing with

percentages below the state each year.

NAPLAN means have been below the state at Year 7 and 9.

Adjusted data (comparison to schools with a similar enrolment

profile)

Scores at and above the expected level, measured on

AusVELS, were lower for mathematics and science and

similar for English in 2015

NAPLAN reading and numeracy achievement at Year 9 was

similar

Reading achievement in the top three bands on NAPLAN was

lower across the 4-year average and similar for numeracy.

English as an Additional Language (EAL) was classified as 10% of the

school population in 2015. Achievement for these students on NAPLAN

assessments indicated a similar profile to other students for

numeracy. A larger percentage of EAL students was represented in

bands at and below the National Minimum Standard (NMS) at Year 7

and 9 for reading and writing. At Year 7 50% of students at or below

the NMS were language background other than English (LBOTE) for

reading and 51% for writing and at Year 9 this was 65.9% and 61.4%

respectively. It should be noted that LBOTE is a broader category of

language background students than EAL and represented 42% at ear

7 and 45% at Year 9. Boys were over represented at and below the

NMS in writing. At Year 7 in 2016 there was 73.3% boys and at Year 9

67.3% at and below the NMS in writing.

Victorian Certificate of Education (VCE) and Victorian

Certificate of Applied Learning (VCAL)

point of entry and progress using PAT, On

Demand and Torch testing instruments (2016)

Numeracy and English fluency ability groups

(2016)

Introduction of sequential on-line Mathematics

program at Year 7 in 2016 (Maths Pathways)

Senior school study time supervised

Communities of Practice with local secondary

schools

Domain meetings twice per term to align

curriculum to the Victorian Curriculum.

There was no data to validate that the above actions had

led to improved outcomes.

6

VCE scores were compared to the General Achievement Test

predictions. With few exceptions, most subjects were consistently

below the predicted score.

VCAL completion rates for Intermediate remained steady and were

47% in 2014 and 45% in 2015. Senior level completion was greater

than 80%.

Vocational education and training (VET) successful completion of units

of competence increased from 77.4% in 2014 to 96.7% in 2015.

Student engagement

Goal: To promote

behaviours and attitudes

across the school community

that supports the

achievement of ‘personal

best’.

Targets:

Year 7-12 absences to trend

down and be within similar

schools’ band.

Student Attitudes to School

Survey - all indicators at or

above the 2nd quartile

Parent Opinion Survey -

Classroom Behaviour,

Student Motivation and

Stimulating Learning to be

increasing.

Staff Opinion Survey -

Teaching and Learning

variables above the 2nd

Student engagement targets were partially met. Targets were

achieved for student motivation and retention while staff, student and

parent survey targets were generally not met. Attendance was

variable and targets were partially met.

Attendance

Attendance remained within the middle band of 60% of schools,

meeting the target to be within the band of similar schools. Absence

rates were variable and did not meet the target of trending down. In

2014 absences were below the state mean (16.98 days) but above in

2015 (19.48 days). Year 9 and 10 absences were above the state and

had a higher rate of unexplained absences and suspensions than at

other year levels. Year 11 and 12 average days absent were

consistently below the state mean.

Total suspensions in 2015 were 320 and as at October 2016 there

were 239 for that year. The number of days of schooling lost for

2015-16 through suspension was 1257.

Attitudes to School Survey

The target was for all indicators to be at or above the second quartile.

This wasn’t achieved in the teaching and learning factors, which

remained in the first quartile in comparison to the state. The

exception was student motivation, which was in the 3rd quartile in

2014 and 2016. Gender differences were noted for girls; motivation

Enablers

High expectations for teaching and learning were reflected

in the college vision and the teacher code of practice.

Strategies to embed high expectations that supported

achievement of ‘personal best’ included:

ready to learn program

grade point average (GPA) tracking of student

progress and effort

individual learning plans (ILPs) for funded

students, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

(ATSI) students, and out of home care students

Craigieburn Enrichment and Accelerated program

(CEAP) and Craigieburn High Achievers’ Club

(CHAC)

Corrective Reading program at Year 7-8 and

English as an Additional Language (EAL)

programs.

A School Improvement Team (SIT) met regularly to plan

and monitor school improvement.

A process had been developed to engage students and

their parents/carers in selecting study pathways through

the school. A General Achievement Test designed for Year

10s was administered and together with other student

7

quartile.

A pathways and

transition goal was also

set:

To improve the transition

processes for students and

their families into, through

and out of the school.

Targets:

Real retention to trend up

and be within similar

schools’ band.

10-12 unknown exits to be

zero in three out of four last

years.

and stimulating learning were lower than for boys while other factors

were comparable.

Parent Opinion Survey

The target for student motivation and stimulating learning to be

increasing was met but opinion of classroom behaviour did not

improve and the target was not met. Student motivation was

endorsed by parents and was above the state median, which reflected

the corresponding student opinion outcome. The percentile rankings

increased from the 24th percentile in 2013 to the 51st percentile in

2014 and the 56th percentile in 2015. Stimulating learning was

variable but there was an increase from 62nd percentile to 68.6th

percentile in 2015. Classroom behaviour declined from 40.7th

percentile in 2013 to 19.4th percentile in 2015.

School Staff Survey – School Climate module.

The target for teaching and learning factors on the staff survey to be

in the third quartile was partially met. Endorsement by staff was

higher than the state for collective focus on student learning 70.8%

and guaranteed and viable curriculum (62.5%). Other factors were

lower, including academic emphasis (endorsed by 27.3% of staff),

teacher collaboration (38.3%) and collective efficacy (38.3%).

Real retention

The target for retention to trend up was met. Retention Year 7-12

improved in 2015 (54.1% compared to 48.4% in 2012). Both Year 10

to 11 (76.5%) and 11 to 12 (80.2%) also improved in 2015. There

was also a target for real retention to be within the similar schools’

band and this was met. The school comparison report showed that

real retention was within the SFO potential Years 7-10 and 10-12.

Exit Destinations

The number of unknown exit destinations increased from 1 in 2013 to

9 in 2015. Therefore, this target was not met.

University offers increased and were 43% in 2014 with a further 30%

achievement data formed the basis for career and

pathways planning. Scheduled career nights and

interviews supported the process.

Processes had been developed to improve student

engagement but student survey data did not support that

improvement was embedded in practice.

Barriers

Student motivation was ranked higher than other teaching

and learning factors by students on the Attitudes to

School Survey, endorsed by parents in the Parent Opinion

Survey, and confirmed by reviewer focus groups with

students. Teaching and learning factors remained in the

first quartile on the student survey. Classroom

observations and focus groups with students confirmed

variability in the level of engagement in learning across

the college. Factors, observed by the reviewers, that

hindered students achieving their best included:

inconsistent teaching and learning practices

lack of student agency in learning included few

opportunities for goal setting, self-assessment,

collaborative learning and student choice

a lack of consistency regarding high expectations

for academic outcomes, trust in students and

teacher beliefs about their own capability as a

group to lift school performance.

Actions to overcome barriers

‘Building leadership teams’ was chosen as a

college FISO initiative. Work on building a team of

principal class and leading teachers delivering

consistent messages to staff had begun in 2016.

8

continuing education and 3% entering apprenticeships.

Further data

The school had tracked achievement data for students attending

intervention programs including Corrective Reading and numeracy

withdrawal from Year 7 to 8. Average growth from December 2015 to

June 2016 measured by On Demand assessments was +0.85 for

reading and +0.86 for numeracy. Most students made progress but

their AusVELS levels remained below expected levels.

Student wellbeing

A combined goal and targets

were set for engagement

and wellbeing.

The Annual Implementation

Plan (AIP) set a further goal

for engagement and

wellbeing.

AIP Goal:

Develop and implement a

comprehensive approach to

engaging all staff, families

and students in supporting

high expectations for student

learning outcomes.

Additional targets:

Parent Opinion Survey

variables for parent input,

classroom behaviour and

student safety to improve in

2016.

AIP (2016) targets for the student survey and staff survey were not

achieved and scores trended down.

Attitudes to School Survey

Student survey wellbeing factors were below the state in 2016.

Classroom behaviour had trended down and was in the 1st quartile

and student safety was at the 25.7th percentile.

Parent Opinion Survey

The 2016 AIP target achievement could not be ascertained as data

was not available. Previous patterns indicated that parent input had

been rated with a degree of variability. Percentiles were 12.1 in 2013,

52.7 in 2014 and 37.2 in 2015. Classroom behaviour was also variable

and was at the 19.4th percentile in 2015. Student safety had declined

from 52.5 in 2013 to 15.2nd percentile in 2015. It should be noted

that parent response rates were low from 2013 to 2015 (22.3%, 25%

and 37.3%) and may not have been an accurate representation of the

view of parents.

School Staff Survey

The staff survey in 2015 indicated that 28.8% endorsed that there

was trust in students and parents and parent and community

involvement was endorsed by 30.9% of staff.

In 2016 trust in students and parents trended down from 28.8% in

Enablers

The college developed a suite of strategies to cater for

student wellbeing and support and engagement of families

within the school.

These included:

a structure to plan for and cater for student

wellbeing that included program managers in each

sub-school and a wellbeing team consisting of a

leading teacher, school nurse, chaplain and social

worker

partnerships with external agencies including

Head Space, Dianella, Travencore, Navigator, On

Psych, Hume Youth Workers, Aboriginal

Community Engagement program and Arabic

Welfare

access to Department Student Support Service

Officers

behaviour management process based on Positive

Relationships in Schools (PRiS)

celebrating minority groups. For example, NAIDOC

Week, Purple Day

personal Learning Time sessions one period a

week at Years 7-9 to develop social and emotional

9

Staff Survey – School

Climate to improve (Trust in

students and parents to be

over 62nd percentile).

2015 to 17% endorsement. This was below the 25th percentile and the

target was not achieved.

Further data

Exits from class for misbehaviour had trended up (191 in 2013 to 444

in 2015). Staff explanations varied including that it was indicative of

higher expectations or new staff with different expectations or

increased behaviour concerns. New staff confirmed that behaviour

management could be challenging and some also reported feeling

unsafe in the yard. Reviewers observed that most classrooms were

orderly although there were exceptions. Suspensions remained high

over the period with 1257 days of suspension from February 2015 to

October 2016.

learning (SEL)

all staff were provided with documented behaviour

management agreements and scripts for

conducting a restorative chat.

Enablers had not been sufficient to overcome the

challenges within the school and lead to improved student

wellbeing. The decline in survey outcomes demonstrating

trust in students and parents also reflected the lack of

impact of the enablers.

Barriers

Staff have attended professional learning in a variety of

approaches including Growth Mindsets, Positive

Psychology, School-wide Positive Behaviour Support

(SWPBS). While elements of each have been introduced

by some teachers, there was not an agreed consistent

approach.

The process for referrals of students needing a case

management approach or referral to outside agencies was

not clearly articulated. The response time was reported by

leadership and the wellbeing team to be a barrier to

effective intervention.

Forming positive relationships was identified as essential

for student engagement and wellbeing. However, the

focus on pedagogy had meant little opportunity for whole

school professional learning to develop agreed strategies

for building relationships and providing a ‘wrap around’

support culture for at risk students.

Some staff reported that they were not supported when

dealing with behaviour and safety issues. Program

managers reported that the agreed restorative chats

following an exit for behaviour, were not consistently

followed through by staff.

10

Actions to overcome barriers

A process for referrals had been documented and

implemented for 2016

A student resilience survey was administered and

generated data in 2016 to address issues but

further action had not commenced.

11

1.2 Analysis of the Reviewer’s findings against the Terms of Reference

Terms of Reference Evidence/Findings Impact/Analysis

1. To what extent has

the school been aligned

with FISO? What

evidence of

implementation and

impact is emerging?

Staff teams analysed school practice against each of the

Framework for Improving Student Outcomes (FISO) initiatives

to determine the extent of alignment. Two initiatives, ‘building

practice excellence’ and ‘building leadership teams’ were chosen

as priorities in the Annual Implementation Plan (AIP) 2016.

Some progress was achieved.

Informing the school community about FISO.

The FISO model was discussed by staff and presented to school

council (S.C.) by the principal. This was confirmed in minutes of

staff meetings and S.C. Staff assessment of college practice

against the Continua for School Improvement was either at the

emerging or evolving stage.

1. FISO initiative - Building practice excellence

Instructional model

The Teacher Code of Practice (TCP) was developed and

documented at the beginning of the Strategic Plan period and

formed the basis for building teachers’ understanding of

pedagogy and content knowledge. A learner profile and Student

Code of Practice was developed. Implementation was through

professional learning and the work within PEP teams.

Classroom observations and focus group discussion with leaders,

staff and students indicated inconsistent alignment in pedagogy

with the TCP.

Informing the school community

Staff worked in teams and each analysed one of the FISO

initiatives. Leadership collated and presented the findings in the

PRSR. The AIP was also aligned with FISO with a focus on

building practice excellence and building leadership teams.

Impact: Performance planning was aligned to the AIP ensuring

all staff were working towards AIP goals and alignment with

FISO.

FISO initiative - Building practice excellence

This FISO initiative closely aligned with the professional learning

and practice focus that had been developed over the Strategic

Plan 2013-16.

Instructional model

The Teacher Code of Practice (TCP) documented a clear

expectation for teacher practice with an overview of each

expectation and an elaboration of what this would look like in

practice. While documentation was explicit, implementation had

not supported whole-school changed practice.

Impact: Implementation of the TCP had not led to consistent

teaching practice with high impact teaching strategies.

12

Collaborative professional learning

Each teacher completed a learning journal designed to

reflect action research aligned to the TCP. Responses

were collaboratively developed in PEP teams.

Teachers reported that PEP teams had been a useful

vehicle to understand Powerful Learning and HRTS. They

questioned the relevance of the current format.

Staff survey data indicated lower than the state

endorsement for teacher collaboration and this trended

down to 38% in 2016.

Curriculum teams were observed aligning curriculum

against the Victorian Curriculum. Documented progress

was evident and teams reported that the tasks were

relevant.

Instructional Leadership

The leadership team had led professional learning to

improve pedagogy and curriculum planning (confirmed

in the staff leadership survey with intellectual

stimulation the highest factor and evidenced in the

college professional learning plan).

The survey factors for leadership visibility (19.1%) and

support for change were lower than the state (38.5%)

and leaders agreed that they had ‘little time’ to spend in

classrooms actively giving feedback.

2. FISO initiative - Building leadership teams

A new principal was appointed in 2015 and the purpose of

leadership and School Improvement Team meetings was

redefined.

Feedback on the effectiveness of leadership team development

was gained through individual interviews with leaders,

examining team minutes, observing meetings and reflections

from school councillors and staff.

Collaborative professional learning

While the work in the PEP teams was initially considered

valuable to embed common approaches to teaching and

learning, dissatisfaction with the way teams worked was

expressed by many staff. Choosing three students to track and

plan teaching practice had not enabled all student data to be

analysed, nor had it facilitated common planning and

moderation of work samples to be regular work in teams.

The work in Domain teams to plan curriculum alignment with

the Victorian Curriculum and at VCE, to align practice with the

new study designs, was viewed by staff as relevant to their

teaching practice.

Impacts:

The work in PEP had not built a culture of collaboration or

consistency in teaching practice. Student outcomes had not

improved.

The work of the Domain teams was viewed as relevant to

teaching practice and provided an agreed curriculum.

Instructional leadership

Support to embed the agreed high impact teaching strategies

documented in the TCP was not highly endorsed by staff.

Regular feedback and coaching to support changed practice was

not evidenced.

Impact: Without a culture of distributed instructional leadership

and collaborative teams that shared planning, assessment and

evaluating what works, the TCP had not been embedded in

consistent practice.

Feedback had not been a significant factor to improve and build

teacher practice excellence.

13

Meeting agenda formats had been developed and

minutes were available.

Each meeting started with positives from the group.

The leadership team had used the ‘Five Dysfunctions of

a Team’ by Patrick Lencioni to build a common

understanding around trust, conflict, commitment,

accountability and results.

Feedback indicated that there were some unresolved

tensions and relationship difficulties within the

leadership group and that had prompted the need for

team building.

PEP leaders had undertaken professional learning for

their roles.

Role clarity was raised as an issue by some leaders.

There were role descriptions but responsibilities and

actions did not align.

Commitment to the work in teams was variable with

team members observed moving in and out of SIT,

leadership and review panel meetings without offering

apologies or explanations.

Building leadership teams

Processes for the organisation of leadership meetings were well

developed and documented.

The leadership team demonstrated that they were committed to

building a team with a unified voice on decision making but

could not readily describe what the important strategic

directions for school improvement were that they needed to

lead. Leadership team consensus was that decisions about

school improvement were for the School Improvement Team

(SIT) to make.

The SIT team led professional learning planning, implementation

of the TCP and had developed a student code of practice.

There was little evidence of instructional leadership and for

some leaders there was uncertainty about roles.

Impact: A cohesive coalition of leaders with a strongly

articulated school improvement plan, demonstrated through

instructional leadership that impacted directly on building

teacher practice excellence, was not developed.

2. To what extent has

the school created an

engaging environment

for learning that

challenges and supports

each student to achieve

with focus on those who

are vulnerable or at-risk

of dropping out of

school?

A culture of high expectations and trust in students was not

driving consistent teaching practice that ensured challenge and

support.

High expectations

High expectations for learning were documented in the TCP. The

elaboration included preparedness, quality of work and

completion, not opting out of challenges and for teachers,

awareness not to implicitly communicate low expectations.

Expectations were taught in the Ready to Learn program at the

commencement of each year.

Students reported that teaching varied and there were some

High expectations

High expectations and the elaboration of what this would look

like in practice were documented. High expectations for student

work were not observed in all classrooms and this observation

was supported in focus group discussions. There was a lack of

consistently articulated and modelled high expectations from all

staff.

Impact: A robust culture of high expectations where students

thrived on challenges in their learning had not been built. This

contributed to outcomes above expected declining as students

reached Year 9 and lower than expected VCE outcomes.

14

teachers who expected quality work and that others did not

have the same expectations. This was supported by focus group

discussions with staff and leadership and by classroom

observations.

There was a mindset about students and parents evidenced in

the staff survey factor, trust in students and parents, (trending

down to 17% endorsement in 2016) that mitigated against the

setting of high expectations by some staff. Students reflected

that they did feel not trusted by some staff.

Challenge for students

Select entry, Craigieburn Enrichment and Acceleration

Program (CEAP)

Craigieburn High Achievers Club (CHAC)

Data indicated that students in the CEAP achieved higher scores

in VCE.

Evidence from classroom observations, students and teacher

focus groups indicated that there was little planned

differentiation within classes to cater to students’ zone of

proximal development (ZPD). For example:

Planning for challenge or additional support was not

documented in teaching plans. There was some

evidence that students in Mathematics classes worked

on extension activities.

Unit assessment tasks were not differentiated but

planned assessment rubrics showed a range of AusVELS

levels (especially in English).

Strategies to support at risk students

The Corrective reading program was administered for students

below expected levels at Years 7-9. Anecdotally the program

had some success. The available records were incomplete and

indicated high absence from sessions. On Demand growth

Challenge for students

Programs had been developed with some success for high

achievers. Most class activities were not differentiated based on

assessment data outcomes. Student achievement data indicated

a decrease in the percentage in the top bands on NAPLAN from

Year 7 to 9 and increasing numbers of students achieving low

learning growth.

Impact: Lack of differentiation had limited the extent of

challenging tasks and contributed to low learning growth.

Strategies to support at risk students

The college had introduced a range of strategies to support at

risk students and there was anecdotal evidence and data from

On Demand testing that suggested intervention programs in

15

measures for Corrective Reading students varied from negative

growth to greater than expected gains in learning. Reviewers

observed some effective teaching while other instructors gave

little feedback or encouragement to try different cues for

decoding.

Numeracy withdrawal data for the period December 2015 to

June 2016 was also inconclusive.

Some students reported that the programs had helped them and

given them confidence. Others reported that the sessions were

not engaging and observations indicated that not all students

were actively participating. While staff reported that progress

was being made data was not available to confirm this.

Grade Point Average (GPA) assessments were given each five

weeks and scored out of 4 against effort, behaviour, standard of

work and knowledge of concepts. Students scoring 2.6 were

flagged to be followed and parents contacted if scores were

under 2. Parents reported satisfaction with the system.

Fluency classes based on assessments at the commencement of

Year 7 had been introduced in Semester 2, 2016. Students

attended for the first half of English and Mathematics sessions,

in a group at their level. There was no data available to show

progress. Staff confirmed the initiative had not yet been

evaluated.

Individual Learning Plans (ILPs)

ILPs were developed for students on the Program for Students

with Disabilities (PSD), out of home care (nil at the time of the

review), Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) and

students with special needs. Discussion with curriculum co-

ordinators, the EAL co-ordinator, Education Support staff (ES)

and leadership confirmed that ILPs were not referred to by most

class teachers.

literacy and numeracy had been successful for some students.

GPA had provided regular feedback for students and families. It

did not however provide information on what students needed

to do next to improve learning.

Inconsistent tracking of student progress and some

inconsistency in the delivery of programs such as Corrective

Reading was evident.

Lack of regular communication across teaching staff and with

aides had limited the effectiveness of any follow through for

programs or shared responsibility for implementing ILPs.

Classes for EAL students were not modified nor progress on the

EAL program shared with most teachers.

Impact: Inconsistent strategies to support ‘at risk’ students and

lack of effective communication between staff had not enabled

steady growth for all students to close the gap between their

learning progress and that of their peers. Progress was made for

some students demonstrated by On Demand reading data but

others regressed in their learning.

16

Program for Students with a Disability

Teachers did not plan for PSD students rather ES staff

modified class work.

Time to discuss ILPs with class teachers and ES staff

was not built into the timetable.

Student Support Group meetings were conducted.

English as an additional language students (EAL)

Students had an EAL program when other students had

Language Other Than English (LOTE) classes (two periods per

week at Years 7-8 and one for Years 9-12).

EAL students had modified reports with a

satisfactory/unsatisfactory rating.

Many classes did not cater for EAL students with a

differentiated program (evidenced by analysis of

documented units, discussion with teachers and the EAL

co-ordinator).

By VCE, EAL students were performing as well as other

students.

Provision of pathways

The Careers Framework was addressed during personal learning

time at Years 7-8, through pathways planning at Years 9-10 and

discovery day and careers day at Year 10. A general

achievement test was administered at Year 10 to assist with

pathway planning.

CEAP students had a VCE subject at Year 10 and other students

studied a VET subject to prepare for VCE. VCAL was endorsed by

Year 11 students as an enjoyable pathway due to the

relationships built with teachers and the relevance of learning.

While most students, staff and parents endorsed the career

planning some barriers to smooth pathways were identified:

Pathways in languages were not provided (Italian to

Provision of pathways

Provision of career planning was endorsed by most students and

parents as an effective process. The new approach to VCAL

provision was endorsed by students and the effective

relationships established with core VCAL teachers made learning

engaging.

Barriers to effective pathways and transitions for students and

support for those at risk of dropping out of school were

identified as lack of communication across staff to adequately

plan for student learning support and provision of viable

curriculum pathways in some subjects.

Impact: Where trusting relationships were established and

learning was purposeful, students were encouraged to continue

in education and training. This was evident for the VCAL stream.

Where academic pathways were not provided, or preparation for

VCE was not maximised, VCE subject selection and/or outcomes

17

Year 9).

The Humanities program and electives at Year 10 didn’t

provide a strong Humanities pathway to VCE.

Mathematics extension electives were not offered at

Year 10.

VET electives, such as Work Related Skills and Personal

Development, were not guaranteed to run.

Moderation of work samples across Year 10 to 11 were

not conducted.

were reduced.

3. To what extent has

the school articulated

policy and procedures to

support student safety

and wellbeing that are

reflected in consistent

practice?

Wellbeing policies were documented and effective links with

outside support services were established. However, practices to

ensure student safety and wellbeing were not consistent.

Safe, orderly environment

The college had documented practices to support and manage

behaviour based on Positive Relationships in Schools (PRiS). The

college reported some success but the Pre-Review Self-

Evaluation stated that focus had waned.

Classroom observations indicated generally orderly classrooms

but data and discussion with staff and students suggested

behaviour management was an issue for some. This was

evidenced by the following:

Classroom exits increased from 191 in 2013 to 444 in

2015

Suspension data was high (1257 days of suspension

from February 2015 to October 2016).

The Attitudes to School Survey data indicated a trend

down in student opinion of behaviour with the mean in

the first quartile. Safety was just above the 25th

percentile.

New staff reported feeling unsafe whilst on yard duty.

Building relationships and trust

The staff survey indicated a trend down for school climate

Safe, orderly environment

The college had a documented approach to behaviour

management (PRiS) at the commencement of the Strategic

Plan. Teaching practice had been given a higher priority for

professional learning and consistency of behaviour management

had not been maintained. Students reported to reviewers that in

some classes practices were not fair. Inconsistent approaches

were confirmed by staff.

Impact: An orderly environment for learning was not consistent

resulting in missed learning time for students exited from class

or suspended and disrupted learning for other students.

Building relationships and trust

Trust in students and building positive relationships was mixed

with some staff building rapport with their students whilst in

other classes there was little evidence of mutual respect.

18

factors including low endorsement for trust in students and

parents (17%) and trust in colleagues (41%).

The TCP has ‘establish[ed] and maintain[ed] classroom rules

and procedures and develop[ed] positive relationships in the

classroom’ as an expectation for teacher practice. The increase

in exits from class suggested some teachers focused on

behaviour management to the exclusion of relationship building.

Students reported differing relationships with staff from those

who supported and respected them to others who did not trust

or show concern or respect for them. This was evident for some

ethnic groups who reported that their beliefs and practices were

not respected. Others reported little understanding given for

health issues and gender preferences.

Student opinion was supported by the Wellbeing Hub staff. They

confirmed that positive relationships had not been consistently

fostered and understanding of student issues not always

factored into teaching practices. Other staff reported hearing

concerning conversations about students and families.

It was evident that the school had conducted symbolic special

days to acknowledge different groups within the student body.

For example, Purple Day and NAIDOC Week.

Wellbeing

Approaches included:

weekly personal learning session for Years 7-9

wellbeing staff including a team of social worker,

chaplain, psychologist, school nurse, individual learning

needs co-ordinator and wellbeing leader

professional learning sessions (positive psychology,

growth mindsets, School Wide Positive Behaviour

Support)

a Resilience Survey

wellbeing programs mapped

Classroom observations indicated that lessons were teacher

directed with little opportunity for student collaboration.

Students confirmed this. The Senior study hall was for silent

study and opportunities for students to collaborate in groups

had not been made available.

The Attitudes to School Survey factors of school connectedness,

teacher effectiveness and empathy were in the first quartile.

Student motivation was above the state indicating that students

wanted to learn but there was not a consistent positive climate

for learning.

Impact: Without respect and trust, positive relationships

between students and staff had not been consistently formed

and this had impacted students’ sense of belonging, school pride

and engagement in learning.

Wellbeing

The college had fostered positive partnerships with outside

agencies and had included a social worker in the wellbeing

team. A review of wellbeing approaches and professional

learning on alternative approaches had not led to a whole-school

co-ordinated approach for student wellbeing but rather a series

of programs, and suggested programs, that had been partially

implemented.

Impact: The college had developed positive agency support for

students and families but within-school approaches were not

fully implemented nor aligned and thus support for student

wellbeing was not maximised. The wellbeing factors (morale and

19

partnerships with allied services were formed Links with

aboriginal community engagement programs, Arabic

welfare and Access Ministries were initiated.

Wellbeing staff reported insufficient time to act on all reported

cases and this was confirmed by students reporting a lack of

access to support.

Student leadership

Discussion with student leaders across the school and with staff

provided little evidence of effective student leadership

organisation or the impact of student voice on school policies

and practices.

Middle school leaders reported few opportunities to

show initiative or leadership.

Captains in the Senior school reported more authentic

opportunities for leadership including organisation of

events.

Staff chose leaders and few boys volunteered for roles.

The 2016 Student Representative Council (SRC)

commenced with 16 members but this reduced to six

and students reported that they had little impact on

school practices and no opportunities to canvass

student opinion.

distress) on the Attitudes to School Survey were below the state

for the strategic plan period although there was an improvement

in 2016. Safety had trended down and was at the 25th

percentile.

Wellbeing staff were over-whelmed by the amount of casework.

Student leadership

Student leadership was not well organised nor developed across

the college. Leadership roles in the Middle school had not been

developed and these leaders reported that their leadership

opportunities felt tokenistic. Senior school captains reported that

they organised events. The SRC had no voice or capacity to

initiate or lead change.

Impact: Student leadership had not increased student

engagement nor built capacity to influence school policies and

programs.

4. To what extent is

there a documented

whole school curriculum

and research-based

pedagogy driving

consistent teaching and

learning?

Reviewers were given a sample of the professional learning

journal each staff member used, documented curriculum units

for English and Mathematics and whole school curriculum

mapping. Domain team meetings and the SIT meeting were

observed. Yearly professional learning planners were analysed.

Whole school curriculum and research-based pedagogy

The reviewers viewed the college documented TCP that

articulated expectations for research-based pedagogy.

The TCP was implemented through professional learning and the

Whole school curriculum and research-based pedagogy

The TCP had been in place for the duration of the strategic plan.

Implementation of the instructional model had been through

professional learning and PEP but not all staff had transferred

20

PEP teams. Each team participated in action research and

structured classroom observations. Reflection on practice was

intended but staff shared that this phase had not often

occurred. There was no VCE PEP team to build common

approaches to teaching within the Senior school.

There was no regular coaching and or feedback from school

leaders. The staff leadership module confirmed low visibility of

leadership (endorsed by 19.1% of staff).

Leadership confirmed that previously, AusVELS progressions had

not been established in curriculum designs and curriculum

knowledge was not embedded.

In 2016, curriculum maps were developed and Domain teams

were working on curriculum units that aligned to Victorian

Curriculum. Each had an outline and assessment task and some

had an assessment rubric that enabled differentiated marking of

the task. Common curriculum through-lines had been developed

to achieve continuity across Years 7-10.

The staff survey (2016) indicated that 56% of staff endorsed

that there was a guaranteed and viable curriculum.

Consistent teaching practice

To determine if practice aligned to the TCP and was consistent,

reviewers observed classroom practice and facilitated focus

groups with teachers, students, parents and leadership to

determine how students learnt. The reviewers observed that:

Learning intentions were evident in some classes but not

all. Some students could not describe the purpose of

lessons.

There was little evidence of challenging tasks except for

some CEAP classes.

Most classes were working on the same task (work

sheets, e-programs and text books).

Differentiation was not evident except in some

the learning to their everyday practice. The learning journal was

a mechanism to support staff and to hold teachers to account

through the Performance and Development process.

Impact: The college had an instructional model but while there

was support for implementation the relevance of the PEP team

model had not translated into consistent practice for some staff.

Curriculum design was more recently developed and this was

ongoing work. 44% of staff did not believe that the college had

a guaranteed and viable curriculum.

As a result of not having an agreed whole school curriculum, the

content of lessons had not ensured guaranteed learning

progressions as students moved through the school.

Consistent teaching practice

Some elements of the TCP were evident in some classes but

teaching practice was not consistent. Few classes differentiated

learning to meet students at their point of need. Teacher

directed learning, with little opportunity for student agency in

learning, was the predominant practice observed. The Attitudes

to School Survey indicated that students had rated stimulating

learning below the 25th percentile.

Impact: Without differentiation to meet each student’s point of

need or practices to promote student agency, engagement had

not been maximised, as evidenced by the Attitudes to School

21

Mathematics classes.

Few higher order questions were asked.

Strategies outlined in the Learning Journal to engage

students, explore new knowledge, apply and test its

application or monitor and celebrate progress were not

observed in most lessons.

Except in drama, co-operative group work was not

observed and students and staff confirmed students

usually worked individually on tasks.

Student goal setting was not regular practice.

Feedback was not linked to the learning intention or

success criteria in all classes.

Peer and self-assessment was not observed although

some documented unit assessment tasks had

opportunities for self-assessment.

VCE teachers worked autonomously most of the time,

apart from in English, and team planning, data analysis,

blind marking and moderation had not regularly

occurred.

Behaviour in classes varied including inattention,

engaged participation, passive listening or individual

task completion.

Classrooms had no anchor charts for learning or recent

annotated work.

There was little evidence of furniture arrangements that

facilitated co-operative group work.

Survey result.

5. To what extent has

the college developed

processes and practices

to embed consistent

assessment practices

that inform teaching and

learning, track learning

growth and provide

reliable data for student

The college assessment documentation included a data map,

assessment tasks and assessment rubrics in unit planners.

There was a data leader and data was stored on a learning

management system, the Student Performance Analyser (SPA).

Assessment had not been used consistently to inform planning

nor systematically to track student progress.

Evidence of practice was gained through documented

assessment records, focus groups with teachers and leadership

22

and parent feedback?

and discussion with students and parents.

Assessment practice at VCE

VCE students confirmed that timing for School-

assessed Coursework (SAC) was not co-ordinated.

A teacher trained as a VCE examiner had provided

support on exam technique.

Each teacher received a pack with their individual

exam results to inform future practice. In 2016 VCE

teachers, as a group, had discussed the 2015 data.

Leadership confirmed that teachers with continued low

results were not challenged.

Moderation occurred in English but was not regular in

other subjects.

Practice exams were regularly used by all teachers but

blind marking was not common.

Assessment practice at Years 7-10

The PEP cycle had enabled teachers to assess and plan

for a low, middle and high achieving student. While the

practice was designed for teachers to plan a

differentiated program, few teachers have consistently

differentiated their teaching.

The professional learning modules over the strategic

plan period addressed formative and summative

assessment and assessment proformas were designed.

Assessment on entrance at Year 7 was used to group

students. Progressive Achievement Tests were

introduced for the first time at the start of 2016 to

group students for fluency in English and Mathematics.

Teachers were encouraged to commence units with a

hurdle or pre-test and post-test or assessment task at

the end of a unit.

Assessments were uploaded to SPA but regular

diagnostic analysis was not used to track student

Assessment practice at VCE

Teacher practice and assessment was dependent on individual

teachers. Data was not interrogated with teachers where there

were discrepancies between the outcomes on GAT and each

student’s study score. Staff reported that practice was changing

and greater collaboration was occurring, especially given the

work of the VCE SIT team. Moderation of assessment tasks

across Year 9 and 10 and into Years 11 and 12 had not

happened and common understandings of curriculum content

and knowledge had not been built.

Impact: Given the isolation of some VCE teachers, collaborative

assessment and planning had not developed and accountability

for outcomes had not been developed by leadership.

Some students had been disadvantaged due to lack of

sequential progressions into VCE and the timing of SACs.

Assessment practice at Years 7-10

Documentation confirmed that professional learning to build

consistent school-wide assessment practices had been offered.

Despite this, data collection, collation and analysis had not

regularly informed planning for a differentiated curriculum and

teachers had not regularly analysed data in collaborative

groups. Assessment records were incomplete, especially for

intervention programs. There was no evidence that approaches

to teaching and learning were evaluated for their impact on

student progress.

Impact: The variability in assessment practices and incomplete

electronic data to inform successive teachers of student

progress had impacted provision of a differentiated curriculum

and seamless progressions for students through the year levels.

23

progress. Staff cited technical difficulties that had meant

some data had not been not uploaded.

Progress reports for intervention programs were

incomplete.

Moderation of assessment tasks had not been regular

practice and systematic moderation across year levels

was not evident.

NAPLAN outcomes had been reported to staff but full

item analysis and planning to address areas that were

poorly completed by students was not evident (although

the data plan had this as an action).

Feedback for students and reporting to parents

Students received feedback on assessment tasks and

had some opportunities to provide self-assessment.

Students reported that feedback on assessment tasks

and Year 10 SACs was not always timely.

Feedback on learning intentions and success criteria

was highly dependent on individual teachers.

Maths Pathways, introduced at Year 7, had testing with

instant feedback for students. The program had not

developed rich tasks or problem solving.

Reliance on e-programs for paced learning with

feedback was compromised by unreliable Wi-Fi.

The GPA gave students feedback on effort as well as

their understanding of content and alerted parents if

their child was having difficulties.

Parents who were interviewed reported that they were

kept informed of their child’s progress and alerted if

there were issues.

The Parent Opinion Survey indicated an irregular

pattern for satisfaction with reporting. Given the low

response rate to the survey, ranging from 22% in 2013

to 37% in 2015, it was difficult to gauge what most

parents thought.

Feedback for students and reporting to parents.

Unit planners with set assessment tasks and assessment rubrics

had provided a common platform for staff to give feedback to

students. A lack of collaboration between staff and time for

analysis of data had not informed future planning. An exception

was Year 7 planning time for the introduction of fluency

sessions. The impact of this program had not been evaluated.

The regular GPA scores enabled broad tracking of progress but

not for planning teaching and learning. Feedback to students in

most classes did not focus on learning intentions or student goal

setting.

Impact: Student agency in their learning had not been

consistently developed through timely feedback and goal

setting.

The effectiveness of reporting to parents was not conclusive

given the small sample sizes, both at the reviewer facilitated

forums (5 parents and 2 school councillors) and in the Parent

Opinion Survey.

24

1.3 Other significant findings

Nil

25

2. Priority Review Report Executive Summary (published on

school’s website)

2.1 School Context

Craigieburn Secondary College is a co-educational Year 7-12 college located 30 kilometres north of

Melbourne. The location is within a high growth area of Hume City Council.

The college facilities included an art eco-science building, performing arts centre, middle years

building with traditional classrooms and flexible learning spaces, technology and art studies wings, an

Italian language centre, senior study centre and gymnasium. The Trade Training Centre industrial

kitchen was being upgraded. Grounds included lawn and passive seating areas and extensive astro-

turf playing fields for hockey, rugby, soccer, cricket and baseball as well as a grassed football and

soccer oval, basketball, netball and tennis courts.

The college shared the site with Craigieburn South Primary School and had a common administration

block, canteen and library. Students shared the same uniform and there was a combined School

Council.

Enrolment in 2016 was 825 students drawn from the local area. Enrolment had trended down in

2010 with the opening of a neighbouring secondary college but had since trended up. The student

family occupation index had trended up over the strategic plan period to 0.68 in 2016. This was

above the state average. There was a diversity of cultural and language backgrounds with over 40

different language groups represented. The college provided English as an Additional Language (EAL)

classes to 15% of its students. There was a small number of students from Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Island (ATSI) backgrounds and a Program for Students with Disabilities (PSD).

Craigieburn Secondary College’s sub-school structure included Junior Years 7-8, Middle Years 9-10

and Senior Years 11-12. Pathways for senior students were offered in the Victorian Certificate of

Education (VCE) and Victorian Certificate of Applied Learning (VCAL). Intervention programs were

provided for Junior students who needed additional support in reading and numeracy. The college

offered a select entry enrichment and acceleration program for Years 7-9 leading into Year 10 where

students commenced a VCE subject.

College leadership positions included a principal and three assistant principals, nine leading teacher

positions and 36 positions of responsibility, including year level coordinators. The college was

supported by 19.8 effective full-time (EFT) support staff and aides. The total staff comprised 84.88

EFT. Student wellbeing and management was a priority for allocation of responsibility positions

across the three sub-schools. In addition to wellbeing managers in each sub-school, the college wide

wellbeing team included a leading teacher, individual learning needs coordinator, psychologist, school

nurse, chaplain and social worker.

The college offered a range of extra-curricular activities including visual and performing arts, sport,

camps, a Year 9 City Experience, excursions, creative writing, community service, mentoring and

career exploration opportunities such as the Learn, Experience, Access, Professions (LEAP) program

at Latrobe University.

26

2.2 Summary of the School’s Performance

2.2.1 Summary of the School’s Performance against the Previous

Strategic Plan

Performance was reported against the goals and targets set in the School Strategic Plan (2013-16).

Student achievement

The college sought to enhance student learning and improve achievement in all subjects with a focus

on literacy and numeracy. Improved achievement in VCE and VCAL was also a goal.

The target to achieve 20% of students achieving above the expected level measured against AusVELS

for Years 7-10 was achieved for Year 7 students in 2013 and for the same group in Year 8 in 2014 in

reading and number and algebra, but no other groups achieved the target. The targeted 20% above

expected levels measured by NAPLAN at Years 7 and 9 was not achieved except for spelling in 2013-

14 at Year 7.

Comparison to schools with a similar enrolment profile indicated that NAPLAN numeracy outcomes

were similar, except in reading where outcomes were lower over the four years.

The All Study mean score at VCE was below the target of 28 each year. Scores were 24.47 in 2013,

25.62 in 2014 and 24.38 in 2015. A further target to increase subject scores over 40 to 4% was not

achieved and the percentage was reduced to below 1% in 2015.

VCAL successful completion rates at senior level improved to over 80%.

Student engagement

The college set a goal to promote behaviours and attitudes that supported achievement of personal

best for students. A further goal was to improve transition processes for students and families.

The target for student attendance was for Year 7-12 absences to trend down and be within the same

band as similar schools. The target for absences to trend down was not met. In 2014 average student

absences per year for Years 7-12 was 16.98 days and this increased to 19.48 days in 2015. In each

year of the strategic plan attendance remained within the middle band of 60% of schools and the

target to be in the same band as similar schools was met. Average days absent per student in 2015

at Year 11 was 16.22 days and at Year 12 was 11.31 days. The school achieved better attendance

than the State for Years 11 and 12. At Year 9 the average absence per student was 24.33 days and

at Year 10 the average absence was 23.31 days and this was greater than the State.

The target to achieve responses in at least the second quartile (between the 25th and 50th percentile)

on the Attitudes to School Survey completed by all students was not met. All measures remained in

the lowest 25% of schools except student motivation, which was above the state. The target for

student motivation and stimulating learning was met on the Parent Opinion Survey with ratings above

the State. Behaviour measures were not met on the Parent Opinion Survey.

The School Staff Survey indicated endorsement by staff for a collective focus on student learning and

a guaranteed curriculum was higher than the State while other factors, including academic emphasis

and teacher collaboration, were significantly lower.

Real retention, or the percentage of students who stayed at the college from Years 7-12, improved.

Senior school retention also improved and, in 2015, 80.2% of Year 11 students commenced Year 12.

Student wellbeing

The school had a combined goal for engagement and wellbeing. Student relationship measures

(safety, connectedness to peers and classroom behaviour) and wellbeing measures (student morale

and distress) were in the lowest 25% of schools. Parent opinion surveys had low return rates and

below 50% of parents returned surveys so outcomes may not accurately represent most parent’s

views. Data for student safety, behaviour and parent input varied from year to year but most

measures were below the State.

Productivity

27

The Annual Implementation Plan 2016 sought to allocate funding to optimise student learning

outcomes. The target to maintain a funding surplus was achieved. Additional programs to meet

student learning needs were implemented at Year 7. Teaching and learning measures on the staff

survey did not show improvement.

2.2.2 Summary of the review findings against the Terms of Reference

1. To what extent has the school been aligned with FISO (Framework for improving

student outcomes)? What evidence of implementation and impact is emerging?

The school had analysed the extent of alignment with FISO. The initiatives, building practice excellence

and building leadership teams, were chosen for school focussed improvement.

A teacher code of practice was developed to build teaching excellence. Each teacher had a learning journal

and responses to set tasks were developed in Professional Educational Practices (PEP) teams. Evidence

from focus group discussions and classroom observations indicated that skills learnt through these

activities had not transferred into consistent teaching practice. Building a culture of professional

collaboration had not been embedded.

Curriculum mapping and unit and assessment planning was ongoing work with teachers working in

subject (domain) teams. The staff confirmed the value and relevance of this recent work.

Leadership organisation and meeting structures were well developed. Instructional leadership, where

leaders were involved in and prioritised collaborative professional learning and feedback to staff on their

practice, was not developed. For some leaders, there was a lack of role clarity. A cohesive coalition of

leaders who were able to articulate the school improvement plan to the college community and lead

implementation was not demonstrated.

2. To what extent has the school created an engaging environment for learning that

challenges and supports each student to achieve with focus on those who are vulnerable or

at-risk of dropping out of school?

High expectations for student learning was a key expectation in the teacher code of practice. A lack of

trust in students and between staff, was evidenced on the staff survey and in review discussions. This

inhibited the development of a robust culture with high expectations, where students thrived on

challenges in their learning. The declining percentage of students achieving above expected levels

and low learning growth between Year 7 to 9 indicated few students were challenged in their

learning. Most students worked on the same learning task with some opportunities for extension

activities. Students in the accelerated stream generally had lessons designed to challenge.

The college had introduced a range of strategies and programs to support ‘at risk’ students. There

was anecdotal evidence and some data that suggested intervention programs in literacy and

numeracy had been successful for some students. By Year 12, students with English as an Additional

Language were achieving as well as other students. Individual learning plans (ILPs) had been

developed for selected students. Grade point average scores (GPA) were shared with students each

five weeks and parents notified if there were concerns. Lack of communication between staff to

exchange information about goals for ILPs, to share strategies to achieve learning growth and to

track progress, had reduced effectiveness of ongoing support for students.

Pathways and career planning was structured from Year 7 to 10 and most students and parents

agreed it was supportive. Some gaps in curriculum provision had not facilitated ongoing pathways or

adequate preparation into VCE.

3. To what extent has the school articulated policy and procedures to support student

safety and wellbeing that are reflected in consistent practice?

The college had a documented approach to behaviour management. Observed classrooms were

orderly. Discussions with students, staff and parents indicated that approaches were, however, not

always consistent and data on exits from class and suspensions had increased. This resulted in

28

2

.2.

3

Ke

y

fin

di

ngs

:

are

as

f

or

im

provement

The following items are listed in priority order:

• An inclusive school culture marked by respectful behaviour and positive relationships, trust in

students and parents and between staff, and a belief that all students can achieve was not

highly evident across the college community.

• A coalition of leaders who clearly articulated the school’s improvement goals to the school

students who were exited from class or suspended, missing learning time and disrupted learning for

other students.

Some staff built rapport with their students while other relationships lacked mutual trust. This was

evidenced through observations, surveys and discussions. The student survey indicated that student

motivation was scored above the state, suggesting a willingness to learn and be challenged. Other

factors, including relationships and learning confidence, were within the lowest 25% of schools.

Positive relationships between students and staff were not consistently formed and this had impacted

students’ sense of belonging, school pride and engagement in learning.

The college had fostered positive partnerships with outside agencies to support students’ health and

wellbeing and had increased the number of professionals on the staff wellbeing team to include a

social worker. Wellbeing programs had been audited by the college, which indicated there was not a

unified approach.

There were student leadership opportunities across each sub-school but most roles had not

empowered them as leaders. Student leadership had not increased student engagement nor built

capacity for students to influence school policies and programs.

4. To what extent is there a documented whole school curriculum and research-based

pedagogy driving consistent teaching and learning?

Documentation of the curriculum was ongoing work over the strategic plan. The staff survey indicated

that 44% of the staff did not believe that the college had a guaranteed and viable curriculum.

Curriculum pathways towards VCE and VCAL was not, in some cases, aligned.

The teacher code of practice documented research-based approaches to teaching practice. These

approaches were only observed in some classrooms. Lessons were teacher directed with little

evidence of student collaboration or ownership of their learning. Student engagement and learning

outcomes had not been maximised.

5. To what extent has the college developed processes and practices to embed consistent

assessment practices that inform teaching and learning, track learning growth and provide

reliable data for student and parent feedback?

Documented planning for assessment was thorough and the college had a data management system

although all data had not been consistently uploaded to the system. Processes to pre-test prior to a

unit and assess each unit of work were in place. Teachers had not regularly analysed diagnostic data

and collaboratively planned sequential learning for students. Discussing and comparing assessment of

tasks to ensure consistency was not regular practice. Data tracking to ascertain student progress and

sharing findings across teachers was not regular. At VCE collaborative assessment practices were not

well-developed.

Student agency in their learning had not been consistently developed through timely feedback and

goal setting. Parent opinion of reporting had shown yearly variation. The Grade Point Average scores

shared with parents each five-week cycle enabled parents to track progress and particularly the effort

their child was demonstrating.

The variability in assessment practices and incomplete electronic data to inform successive teachers

of student progress had impacted the provision of timely learning suited to each student’s needs and

seamless progressions for students through the year levels.

29

community and actively engaged in distributed instructional leadership, was not developed.

• Collaborative teams that analysed assessment data, planned differentiated learning and

continually challenged and improved each other’s teaching practice, were not common

practice.

• High expectations for student learning and behaviour were not consistently applied in

practice.

• High impact teaching strategies, that reflected the college teacher code of practice, were not

consistent across classrooms.

• Assessment practices were not consistent across the school and did not regularly inform

planning to meet student learning needs or track progress.

• Student agency in learning and student leadership and voice in school decision making was

not developed.

• Seamless transitions for some students were hindered by non-alignment of curriculum

provision towards pathways at VCE and VCAL and lack of collaboration and moderation across

sub-schools.

2.2.4 Next steps

Craigieburn Secondary College is prepared for the next stage of development. Documented

instructional and curriculum policies and curriculum planning have enabled the college to commence

a strategic approach to building teaching excellence. Planning for a cohesive culture, marked by

respectful relationships, collaborative practices and instructional leadership, has commenced. The

college is well positioned for its next improvement stage.

Page 30

Appendix 1: Focus for the Priority Review

Priority Review – Focus of the Review: Rationale, Terms of Reference and Methodology Craigieburn Secondary College

Principal Name: Kate Morphy

Region: North Western Victoria Region

Year/semester of review: Semester 2, 2016

Review report due date:

31

Accredited School Reviewer/s

Jill Jackson, Julie Chandler, Robert Miller

1 Focus of the Review

1.1 Rationale for Allocation of Priority Review

The school has not met several of the threshold standards related to learning achievement, wellbeing and especially in engagement.

1.2 Theory of Action (optional – if requested by the Region)

1.3 Terms of Reference

1. To what extent has the school been aligned with FISO? What evidence of implementation and impact is

emerging?

2. To what extent has the school created an engaging environment for learning that challenges and

supports each student to achieve with focus on those who are vulnerable or at-risk of dropping out of

school?

3. To what extent has the school articulated policy and procedures to support student safety and

wellbeing that are reflected in consistent practice?

4. To what extent is there a documented whole school curriculum and research-based pedagogy driving

consistent teaching and learning?

5. To what extent has the college developed processes and practices to embed consistent assessment

practices that inform teaching and learning, track learning growth and provide reliable data for student

and parent feedback?

2 Methodology

Overview of Methodology

Key stages of review Resources Who

Pre-field work day preparation

The College evaluated performance against the goals of the SSP 2013-2016.

Input from staff, students and parents informed the Pre-Review Self-Evaluation report. Opinion and feedback was sought via staff meetings, forums and an on-line

survey for parents.

Student achievement data

NAPLAN, teacher assessment against AusVELS, On Demand, PAT achievement tests, VCE data, GPA

Cohort data for EAL, ATSI, CEAP and PSD.

Student engagement data

Exit destinations, retention, and attendance.

Surveys to inform each outcome area

Staff, student and parent surveys.

Additional reports

School summary report School comparison report Intake adjusted report School performance against thresholds

VCE data service Carmel Richardson VCE data report.

The college staff also analysed the college alignment to FISO initiatives.

Management by Leadership team with input from staff,

students, parents and carers and School Council.

Development of Terms of

Reference Pre-Review Self-Evaluation, school data and surveys, School Strategic Plan 2013-

2016, Annual Implementation Plan 2016 and FISO Continuum.

Principal, Lead Reviewer, SEIL, School Council President, 3 x

Assistant Principals

Staff and School Council

briefings on review

Principal

33

Review Work Plan

Fieldwork Day

Purpose, including Terms of Reference that are being addressed

Activity

Participants

Fieldwork Day 1

Friday 9th September

8.45 – 8.55am

9.00-11.30

12.00 – 1.10

12.00 - 1.10

To provide an overview for staff of the terms of reference, protocols and organisation of the

review.

Staff briefing and introduction of review team All staff, Lead Reviewer (LR), Reviewer 1 (R1) and

Reviewer 2 (R2)

To identify evidence from the school’s data

and Pre-Review Self-Evaluation of the school’s achievement of goals and targets. To evaluate the enablers and barriers to achievement.

To identify progress with implementation of

FISO initiatives namely:

Building practice excellence Building leadership teams

(AIP 2016 FISO initiatives)

All TOR addressed with focus on TOR 1.

Review meeting to discuss performance against

the School Strategic Plan (2013-16)

Analyse school performance against the data and evidence in the Pre-Review Self-Evaluation.

What are the trends in the data? What strategies

were successful? Why?

What were the barriers to success? Why?

Who has responsibility for FISO initiatives?

Progress to date?

How do you know if staff are engaging with the work?

What is the impact of building practice excellence?

What is the impact on building leadership teams?

What is the impact on student outcomes? Issues?

Principal, 3 x assistant

principals, SEIL, Challenge partner (Secondary principal), SC President, LR and 2xR.

MORNING TEA

To determine the extent of progress with designing and implementing a sequential English curriculum Years 7-10 and the impact on staff planning and assessment

documentation. Is the design of curriculum units research based? TOR 4

To determine the effectiveness of provision for

Focus group discussion -English curriculum

Analyse Scope & sequence, sample units, assessment tasks, learning logs and rubrics Years 7-10.

How were these introduced to staff?

What is working well?

What needs to be improved?

Curriculum co-ordinator, English LT, representative English teacher from each year level, LR, R1

VCAL and VET co-ordinator.

34

students who have chosen a vocational pathway. What support processes are in place? TOR 2

Focus group discussion - VCAL and VET

Discuss provision (foundation, intermediate, senior). Curriculum documentation, support for students

completing work place skills. Year 10 English and Mathematics courses for VCAL.

R2

1.12-1.57pm Lunch

1.45 – 2.15 Orientation tour

Observe classroom management, relationships. (TOR 3)

To determine what visible evidence of FISO

initiatives and values and vision are evident. (TOR 1)

Tour school Principal, LR, R1, R2

2.15-3.10 To explore the effectiveness of the school’s processes for career goal setting, encouraging school completion and post school options. To

identify the effectiveness of processes to engage parents in partnership to support student goal setting and career planning. (TOR

2)

Discussion with Career co-ordinator

How is the Career Curriculum Framework integrated into the curriculum? How effective are career action

plans?

What partnerships/work experience options have

been developed to support student career planning? What impact is that having on retention and high quality destinations?

How does the school plan for discussing school completion and post compulsory options with

students, parents/carers?

What is working well? Why/why not? Suggestions for improvement.

Career co-ordinator, R2

2.15-3.10 To analyse the processes and practices that have been established for assessment and

tracking student progress in English. To

determine the richness of assessment tasks. TOR 5.

Discussion and analysis of English assessment schedule and sample assessment tasks,

evidence of tracking student learning growth.

How do you know if data is used to plan a differentiated program?

How does the school plan for moderation?

Data co-ordinator, English, R1

35

What is improving teaching practice? How could assessment in English be improved?

2.15-3.45 Compliance and reflection of FISO in minutes/policies and procedures TOR 1

VRQA check and further documentation

Minutes of staff, SC, leadership team meetings.

LR, principal

3.15- 3.45 To gain evidence for college FISO initiatives TOR 1.

Interview with Head of Senior school

What research-based practice has been implemented to improve teacher practice?

How is leadership being developed and distributed in

the senior school?

What has been successful in building collaborative team practices? Two suggestions for improvement.

R1, Head of Senior School

3.15-3.45 To gain evidence for college FISO initiatives TOR 1.

Interview with Head of Junior School

What research-based practice has been implemented to improve teacher practice?

How is leadership being developed and distributed in the senior school?

What has been successful in building collaborative

team practices? Two suggestions for improvement.

R2, Head of Junior School

4.00-4.15 To keep principal and SEIL informed of

progress and an opportunity to raise further avenues for inquiry.

Report and discuss findings from Day 1.

LR, principal, SEIL, R1 & R2.

Fieldwork days

Purpose, including Terms of Reference that are being addressed

Activity

Participants

Fieldwork Day 2

Tuesday 4th

October

9.00-11.00

To determine how students learn and the consistency of teaching and learning across the college. Does teaching reflect the instructional model? Are students being

challenged and supported in their learning? Is

there evidence of differentiation? (TOR 1,2 & 4)

Classroom observations

Classroom observation sheet (what is the teacher doing, what are students doing?

LR, R1, SEIL

36

11.00-11.30

11.00-11.30

11.30-12.00

To identify the extent of student leadership voice and student engagement in learning.

To identify the extent that students are supported in a safe environment and are

prepared for further education and/or work. (TOR 2 & 3)

Discussion with Senior Student Leaders

How did the college prepare you for leadership? What makes you proud of your achievements as a leader?

Suggest 2 ways to encourage further opportunities for student leaders.

How does the college help prepare students for further education and/or the world of work? 2 ways to improve?

LR, student leaders

To identify the extent of student leadership voice and student engagement in learning.

Discussion with SRC representatives

How did the college prepare you for leadership?

How do you canvass the views of your class to raise issues/ideas? What makes you proud of your achievements as a leader?

Suggest 2 ways to encourage further opportunities

for student leaders.

R1 and SRC representatives

Morning Recess

12.00-1.10 To determine the extent of progress with designing and implementing a sequential Mathematics curriculum Years 7-10 and planning for VCE Mathematics. To analyse the impact on staff planning and of assessment practices and data tracking.

(TOR 4 & 5)

Focus group - Curriculum and assessment Mathematics

Analyse Scope & Sequence, unit planners, assessment schedule and assessment tasks, learning logs and rubrics.

How is the instructional model reflected in curriculum

planning?

How do teachers of Mathematics plan for teaching and learning? How do teachers share data?

Mathematics LT, Data and Accountability LT, teacher reps from Junior, Middle and Senior school.

SEIL & LR

37

How do you know if data is used to plan a differentiated program?

How could curriculum planning be improved?

Suggest two ways to improve assessment practices?

Lunch

2.15-3.10 To determine the impact that leadership is

having on articulating the school vision and expectations and embedding instructional leadership. (TOR 1 –professional leadership

and the impact on each of the other TOR).

Leadership focus group

How do leaders articulate the school vision and expectations?

What is the core knowledge of instruction,

curriculum, and assessment that leaders in your school need to have? What challenges do you face as a leader in terms of being actively engaged in teacher learning and classroom practice?

How have you built your leadership team capacity?

How do you build middle leadership capability and staff efficacy?

2 ways to improve the effectiveness of your leadership?

Principal, APx3, LR, R1, SEIL

3.15-4.15 To determine the extent of strategic purpose, alignment to school priorities, team

interactions, organisational efficiency. (TOR 1)

Observe School Improvement Team meeting SIT team and R1, SEIL

3.15-4.15 To ascertain the extent that there is a strategic leadership driving school improvement that is aligned with FISO. (Each TOR)

Discussion with principal

What evidence supports building practice excellence?

Are policies and processes guiding a transparent and

collaborative culture where roles are clearly

articulated? How do you know?

What are the organisational aspects of the school that are working well/ Why? What are two pressing areas

Principal, LR

38

to address?

What practices are contributing to student engagement? What would you like to see improved?

What practices are contributing to student wellbeing? What improvement steps could be taken?

4.15-4. 30 To keep principal and SEIL informed of progress and an opportunity to raise further avenues for inquiry.

Report back. LR, Principal, SEIL, R1

Fieldwork days

Purpose, including Terms of Reference that are being addressed

Activity

Participants

Fieldwork Day 3

Thursday 6th October

9.00-

10.30am

10.30-11.15

To determine the extent of a co-ordinated, strategic approach to building student connectedness to school and student health and wellbeing. To what extent are there

strategies to support vulnerable students? (TOR 2 & 3).

Student Wellbeing focus group

How do you cater for the wellbeing of students? What are the key areas of focus for your work? How do you co-ordinate your roles across the team?

What is working well? What could be improved?

Engagement and Wellbeing LT, Junior, Middle and Senior School managers, Student Wellbeing NWVR, LR, R2, SEIL

To gain evidence for college FISO initiatives TOR 1.

Discussion with Head of Middle School

What research-based practice has been implemented to improve teacher practice?

How is leadership being developed and distributed

in the senior school?

What has been successful in building collaborative team practices? Two suggestions for improvement.

Head of Middle School, LR SEIL

To gain a perspective from new staff on the

college’s induction process and preparation for teaching. To determine if there is a clearly articulated instructional model and behaviour management process. (TOR 1, 3)

Focus group with new staff

How were you supported when you arrived at the college?

What aspects of induction helped you to understand the college instructional model? Expectations for

6-8 new staff, R2

39

teacher practice? Expectations for student behaviour?

How has your teaching expertise been developed at

CSC?

How does the college ensure there is a safe learning environment?

What does the college do well? Two ways it could improve?

Morning recess

12.00-1.10 To determine the extent that the FISO

initiative, building teaching excellence is impacting on practice at VCE.

To determine the procedures and practices that are in place for students at risk of dropping out. (TOR 1 & 2).

Senior School Focus Group

How do you liaise with the Middle School? What is effective? How could this be improved?

How does the organisation of the Senior School impact on student outcomes? Describe how students are prepared for SACS and expectation for

notification of timelines, task criteria etc. How

could organisation be improved?

What processes are in place for students to build effective study skills?

What assessment practices are in place? Feedback processes?

2 ways to improve.

How do you analyse VCE results? What impact has

that had on practice?

Head of Senior School, 4-6 VCE

teachers, LR, SEIL

12.00-12.35 To determine the extent that students are challenged in their learning and high aspirations built. (TOR 2)

Discussion with students (Craigieburn High Achievers Club –(CHAC)

Describe why you joined the club? Has it lived up to your expectations?

8-10 students R2

40

What has impressed you most?

How could the club be improved?

How could more students be encouraged to

participate?

12.35 – 1.10 To determine the extent that students are challenged in their learning and high aspirations built. (TOR 2)

Discussion with students from the Select Entry stream (Craigieburn Enrichment and Accelerated Program - CEAP)

How has being in the CEAP program helped you to

learn?

What do teachers do that challenge you in your learning?

What aspects of the program work well?

What could be improved?

8-10 CEAP students, R2

Lunch

2.15 – 3.10 To gain an appreciation of the extent that

school councillors and parent association members understand the college’s strategic

direction. Are effective partnerships with parents fostered that support student engagement and wellbeing? (TOR 1, 2 & 3)

Focus group with parent school councillors

and PA Representatives

What is the vision that the college has for its students?

What are the key achievements of SC (PA) in supporting the school strategic focus?

What do you know about the new FISO focus?

What do you know about the initiative that the

school has chosen?

What is the school doing well to support parent engagement? Suggest 3 ways of improving partnerships with parents/careers and the school.

S.C. President and available

school councillors

2.15 – 3.10 To determine how teachers, plan, use data and improve their teaching practice. (TOR 1, 4 & 5)

Focus group with Junior School teachers

What are the key parts of a lesson that we would

6-8 Junior School teachers from different subject areas,

41

expect to see?

How do you cater for different abilities in your classes?

What data do you use to see student progress?

Describe what happens in a typical PLT meeting?

How do you plan, discuss data?

How do you build your skill as a teacher at CSC?

What could be improved to build your teaching

practice?

R2, SEIL

3.15 To determine the extent that teachers have a voice.

To gain an insight into how teacher practice is being developed through professional learning.

(TOR 1)

Observations

Consultative Committee

Professional Development modules

R1

LR, SEIL

4.15 -4.30 To keep principal and SEIL informed of

progress and an opportunity to raise further avenues for inquiry.

Feedback

Principal, LR, SEIL

Fieldwork days

Purpose, including Terms of Reference that are being addressed

Activity

Participants

Fieldwork

Day 3 for Reviewer 1

Wednesday 12 October

9.00-11.00am

To gain evidence about how effective teaching

and learning is for students and how the school differentiates to cater for all students. (TOR 2)

Mixed ability student groups to discuss how

they learn

4X 30 minutes

Year 7, 8, & 9

What happens in your class that helps you learn?

How do you know you are being successful?

What do you do for homework?

How do parents know about your learning?

Student groups of 8 in each

year level 7-10

R1

SEIL

42

What are 2 things that you would you like to see changed or improved to make learning more challenging at CSC?

Year 10

How is course selection managed? How could it be improved?

What happens in your classes that assists your learning?

What feedback do you receive about your learning?

What additional support/challenge does the school provide for your learning? How well prepared are you for VCE/VCAL?

What 2 things could the school do to improve Year 10 learning?

11.00-11.30 To analyse the effectiveness of literacy intervention to sustain improved student outcomes. (TOR 2)

Discussion and analysis of program and assessment records for Literacy Intervention/ Corrective Reading.

Corrective reading leader, English/Literacy LT, R1, SEIL

Morning Recess

12.00-1.10 To explore teaching practice at year 9 and 10 and the impact the FISO initiative has on improving practice. (TOR 1, 4 & 5)

Building practice excellence

Focus group Year 9 and 10 teachers

How do you plan for your teaching?

How do assess student progress?

How do you make judgements about the level students have attained (AusVELS/Vic Curriculum)?

How do you learn and improve practice?

What are the successful teaching and learning

practices in Year 9 and 10? How could practice be improved?

How do you manage transitions and exchange of information about students from Year 9 and to Year

6-8 teachers from different learning areas, R1, SEIL

43

11? How could practice be improved? (2 ways)

Lunch

2.15- 3.10 To determine practice for planning curriculum and assessment. (TOR 4 & 5)

Focus group - Curriculum and assessment

Analyse Scope & Sequence, unit planners, assessment schedule and assessment tasks, learning logs and rubrics.

SOSE, Science, Health & PE and ARTs Leaders, R1, SEIL

3.15 – 4.15 To determine the focus of teams on discussing teaching and learning. (TOR 1, 4 & 5)

Observe PEP team meetings PEP teams, R1

Fieldwork days

Purpose, including Terms of Reference that are being addressed

Activity

Participants

Fieldwork

Day 3 for Reviewer 2

Friday 14th October

9.00-11.00

To determine how students learn and the

consistency of teaching and learning across the college. Does teaching reflect the instructional model? Are students being

challenged and supported in their learning? Is there evidence of differentiation? (TOR 1,2 & 4)

Classroom observations

Classroom observation sheet (what is the teacher doing, what are students doing?

R2

11.00-11.30 To explore student satisfaction with VCAL and how confident students are to continue in training or work? (TOR 2)

Focus group – VCAL students

How does the college support you in your learning?

What classes do you enjoy? Do you think you are being prepared for further learning/the world of work?

2 ways the college could improve VCAL?

6-8 VCAL students, R2

Morning Recess

44

12.00 -12.35 To explore the effectiveness of processes and programs that support students and families and contribute to their wellbeing. (TOR 2& 3)

Interview School Chaplain

How do you support students and families? What is working well? How do you know?

What could be improved across the college to better support the wellbeing of students and families?

School Chaplain, R2.

12.35- 1.15 To explore the breadth and effectiveness of programs for students with special needs. (TOR 2)

Focus group – Special learning needs

How does the college cater for the special learning needs of students?

What is working? How do you know?

What could be improved?

Individual learning needs co-ordinator, EAL co-ordinator.

Lunch

2.00-2.30 To investigate the processes that have been developed to maximise the roles of ES staff in supporting PSD students. (TOR 2)

Discussion with ES staff (PSD)

Describe your induction process, understanding of your role.

What helps you in your work?

How do teachers share their planning for PSD

students with you? What assessment practices are used?

What are the blockers to achieving sustained student learning growth?

What are 2 things the school could do to improve learning for PSD students?

ES staff, R2.

2.30 -3.15 To explore parent understanding of learning expectations and behaviour expectations; their satisfaction with the way student progress is reported and satisfaction with the

communication and relationships the school

builds with its parent community. (TOR 2 & 3)

Parent Focus Groups x 2 (SEIL and reviewer to lead a group each).

How effective is communication between the college and parents? What communication do you value?

How could the school improve communication to

and from parents?

Parents, R2, SEIL

45

To what extent does the school cater for the learning needs of all students?

What are the behaviour expectations for students?

What strategies does the school use to communicate with you if there are any concerns?

What does the school do well, what would you change?

What would you tell a new parent considering

enrolling their child?

3.15- 3.30 Feedback Principal, SEIL, R2

Fieldwork days

Purpose, including Terms of Reference that are being addressed

Activity

Participants

Fieldwork Day 4

Thursday 20th October

9.00-11.30

12.00-3.30

Follow through on review findings gathering additional evidence

R, R1, R2 & SEIL

Morning Recess

To clarify and probe fieldwork findings for each TOR and any further areas. To add

additional evidence for findings. (All TOR)

Leadership Meeting

Present and discuss the fieldwork evidence

for each TOR. Discuss further evidence.

What were the fieldwork findings?

Can you clarify/add additional information?

Principal, 3x assistant principals, S.C. President, SEIL, LR, 2xR.

46

Panel Participants

Name Job title Email Address

Kate Morphy Principal morphy.Kate.MK@edumail.vic.gov.au

Pauline Barker Assistant Principal barker.pauline.p@edumail.vic.gov.au

Allison Solly Assistant Principal solly.allison.m@edumail.vic.gov.au

Michael Ritchie Assistant Principal ritchie.michael.m@edumail.vic.gov.au

Peter Brookshaw School Council President brookshaw.peter.p2@edumail.vic.gov.au

Viv Tellefson SEIL tellefson.vivienne.a@education.vic.gov.au

Jill Jackson Lead Reviewer jill.n.jackson@bigpond.com

Signatures

School Principal:

Name (print): Kate Morphy Signature: _______________________ Date: ___________

School Council President:

Name (print): Peter Brookshaw Signature: _______________________ Date: ___________

Working lunch: 1.15 – 1.45

What is the evidence?

47

Senior Education Improvement Leader:

Name (print): Viv Tellefson Signature: _______________________ Date: ___________

Lead Accredited School Reviewer:

Name (print): Jill Jackson Signature: _______________________ Date: ___________

A copy of the signed and dated TOR is filed at the college.

Updated July 2016 Page 48

Appendix 2: SUMMARY SCHOOL RECORD OF

REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS

Appendix 2: VRQA Checklist School: Craigieburn Secondary College Date: 20

th October 2016

Name of Reviewer/s: Jill Jackson Signature of reviewer:

Registration requirements to be met by all Government schools Is the registration requirement met?

1 SCHOOL GOVERNANCE

1.1 Democratic principles

1.2 Structure

Evidence provided to

VRQA by the Department

1.3 Philosophy

Statement of the school’s philosophy which includes the vision, mission, values and objectives of the school

Explanation of how philosophy is enacted

(eg. School Philosophy Policy, School Strategic Plan, Annual Implementation Plan)

Yes ☒ No ☐

1.4 Not-for-profit status Evidence provided to

VRQA by the Department

2 ENROLMENT

2.1 Student enrolment numbers Evidence provided to

VRQA by the Department

2.2 Student enrolment policy (***Specialist and Specific Purpose Schools ONLY [see end of

document for listing])

Copy of the school’s enrolment policy which is consistent with all legal requirements, and details on how it is currently implemented

N/A ☒

2.3 Register of enrolments Evidence provided to VRQA by the Department via CASES21

3 CURRICULUM AND STUDENT LEARNING

3.1 Curriculum framework

Explanation of how appropriate time is allocated across the eight learning areas (eg. timetable, time allocation per learning area)

Explanation of how and when curriculum and teaching practice is reviewed (eg. School Strategic Plan, Annual Implementation Plan, Curriculum Statement, Staff Professional Development Statement, Curriculum Framework policy)

An outline of how the school delivers its curriculum, whether through the AusVELS, Victorian Curriculum F-10 or other approved curriculum programs, integrated programs or online learning (eg. Curriculum Framework policy or statement)

A whole-school curriculum plan showing how the curriculum is organised (eg. Curriculum Framework policy, scope and sequence, whole-school Curriculum Plan)

Yes ☒ No ☐

3.2 Student learning outcomes

Documented strategy to plan for and improve student learning outcomes (include: what data the school collects to monitor outcomes; how the school analyses and uses data to set goals and targets for outcomes, including for students at risk; how the data is being analysed, used and reported.)

(eg. Curriculum Framework Policy, School Strategic Plan, Annual Implementation Plan, Student Learning Outcomes Statement)

Yes ☒ No ☐

3.3 Monitoring and reporting on students’ performance Evidence provided to VRQA by the

Updated July 2016 Page 49

Department via CASES21

4 STUDENT WELFARE

4.1.(a) Care, safety and welfare of students

i) Student Welfare

Duty of Care owed to students

Student Welfare policy and procedures (eg. Student Engagement and Inclusion policy)

Bullying and Harassment policy and procedures, including cyber bullying. (eg. Anti-bullying policy/procedures, Managing Complaints and Grievances policy)

Yes ☒ No ☐

Complaints and Grievances policy and procedures Evidence provided to

VRQA by the Department

ii) Student Safety

On-site supervision of students,,policy and procedures (eg. Supervision and Duty of Care policies, Visitors policy)

Supervision of students when engaged in off-site activities and which includes consideration of the risk of bushfire in the activity location (eg. Excursion and Camps policies)

Ensuring the safety and welfare of students learning with an external provider (when the school contracts with another school, a registered training organisation or an organisation not registered as an education and training provider) (eg. External provider policy, Excursion and camps policies)

Yes ☒ No ☐

iii) Managing the risk of child abuse (**Not for review until 2017**)

Policies, procedures, measures and practices in accordance with Ministerial Order 870 for managing the risk of child abuse

Not for review until 2017

iv) Student Care

Care arrangements for ill students (eg. Care arrangements for ill students policy)

Distribution of medication policy and procedures

Register of staff trained in first aid

Record of student medical conditions and management

An anaphylaxis management policy containing matters required by Ministerial Order 706 and the (associated) Anaphylaxis Guidelines issued by the Department of Education and Training (DET) (where a student has been diagnosed as being at risk of anaphylaxis)

Yes ☒ No ☐

v) Additional Evidence

Mandatory reporting policy and procedures (eg. Child protection reporting policy)

Accidents and incidents register

First aid policy and procedures Internet use policy and procedures (eg. ICT Acceptable Use policy and procedures)

Critical incident plan

Emergency management plan which must be reviewed at least annually and immediately after any significant incident. This plan must be site specific and include guidelines for emergency bushfire management. (EMP must be on current DET template)

Outline on how the school communicates policies and procedures on the care, safety and welfare of students to the school community (eg. Communication Procedures and Schedule)

Yes ☒ No ☐

4.1.(b) Emergency bushfire management

Schedule for monitoring and removal of materials that may be easiliy ignited

Safe storage of flammable materials

Building exits are continuously kept clear of obstructions

Assembly points are designated and have appropriate access to emergency equipment

Access to facilities and grounds for emergency vehicles

BARR schools need extra information that includes:

Schools listed on the Bushfire At-Risk Register must have an Emergency Management Plan that details the school’s response to managing bushfire risk.

A record of provision of information on bushfire preparedness policy and procedures to staff (including relief staff) and parents

The school’s closure arrangements for Code Red days as per the school’s Emergency Management Plan

Yes ☒ No ☐

Updated July 2016 Page 50

A record of training of staff with specific roles and responsibilities in preparing for, monitoring and executing emergency bushfire procedures including the effective operation of relevant emergency equipment

Record of practise of evacuation procedures and drills at least once per term

An updated register of bushfire emergency equipment in working order

Notices of bushfire evacuation procedures and emergency contact numbers located appropriately around the school

A record of annual visitation or consultation with relevant agencies

(eg. Emergency Management Plan)

4.2 Discipline

Policy statement that explicitly prohibits corporal punishment

The school’s behaviour management policy and procedures and how the policy and procedures ensure procedural fairness (eg. Student Engagement and Inclusion policy, Behaviour Management policy)

An outline of how the school communicates these policies and procedures to the school community (eg. Communication Procedures and Schedule policy)

Yes ☒ No ☐

4.3 Attendance monitoring Evidence provided to VRQA by the Department via CASES 21

4.4 Attendance register Evidence provided to

VRQA by the Department via CASES 21

5 STAFF EMPLOYMENT

5.1 Teachers’ requirements

A register of teachers containing each teacher’s name, their Victorian Institute of Teaching (VIT) registration number, the VIT category of registration (provisional registration, full registration, permission to teach) and the expiry and renewal date of the teacher’s registration.

Yes ☒ No ☐

5.2 Compliance with Working with Children Act 2005

Procedures to ensure that all staff required to do so by the Working with Children Act 2005, have a current Working with Children Check

A register of the Working with Children Check for all non-teaching staff (a proforma is acceptable)

Procedures for maintaining the register

Yes ☒ No ☐

6 SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE

6.1 Buildings, facilities and grounds Evidence provided to VRQA by the Department

6.2 Educational facilities Evidence provided to

VRQA by the Department

7 OTHER REQUIREMENTS

7.1 A copy of the school’s annual report that contains the mandatory information Evidence provided to VRQA by the Department

An outline of how the Annual Report is distributed and promoted Yes ☒ No ☐

8 ADDITIONAL REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS TO BE MET BY SCHOOLS OFFERING A SENIOR SECONDARY

COURSE OR QUALIFICATION (VCE / VCAL / IB)

8.1 Student Learning Outcomes

Current student and staff handbooks and course outlines for the accredited qualification (eg. Student VCE/VCAL Handbooks)

Sample student learning sequences or plans for the accredited qualification (eg. Student VCE/VCAL Handbooks, Staff Handbook)

Procedures and documentation to indicate that staff and students have been provided with current and accurate information about the awarding body’s requirements including course standards,

Yes ☒ No ☐

Updated July 2016 Page 51

timelines and qualification requirements (eg. Student VCE/VCAL Handbooks, Staff Handbook)

If the school shares responsibility for a senior secondary course with another provider, there must be evidence of a copy of a written agreement between the providers stating how the requirements of the student learning outcomes standard will be met (for more information: http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/principals/finance/pages/purchasing.aspx)

8.2 Student Records and Results

Policies and procedures to maintain accurate student records (eg. Student VCE/VCAL Handbooks, Staff Handbook, Student Records and Results policy)

Policies and procedures to undertake an annual analysis of records and results (eg. Staff Handbook)

Policies and procedures to monitor patterns of student participation and completion rates (eg. Student VCE/VCAL Handbooks, Staff Handbook)

If the school shares responsibility for a senior secondary course with another provider, there must be evidence of the written agreement between the providers stating how the requirements of the student records and results standard will be met.

Yes ☒ No ☐

8.3 Student Welfare

An outline of how students with special needs will be provided with opportunities to access the course (eg. Student VCE/VCAL Handbooks, Staff Handbook)

If the school shares responsibility of a senior secondary course with another provider, there must be evidence of a written agreement between providers stating how each manages its legal responsibilities for students who attend the course, travel between providers or go on excursions

Yes ☒ No ☐

8.4 Teaching and Learning

A register of teachers’ qualifications or the principal’s attestation of teachers’ qualifications

A plan of the school showing the location of physical facilities to support the course (eg. school plan with markup of facilities to be used)

An overview of teaching resources and that they meet the current requirements of the owner of the course (eg. Teaching Resources Statement)

Policy and procedures to ensure the consistent application of assessment criteria (eg. Student VCE/VCAL Handbooks, Staff Handbook, Senior Secondary Assessment policy)

Processes to oversee conduct of assessment including processes to conduct investigations and hearings, and if necessary amend or cancel assessments (eg. Student VCE/VCAL Handbooks, Staff Handbook)

If the school shares responsibility for a senior secondary course with another provider, there must be evidence in the form of a copy of a written agreement between the providers stating how the requirements of the teaching and learning standard will be met.

Yes ☒ No ☐

If you require support regarding the minimum standards:

email school.reorganisation@edumail.vic.gov.au, or

telephone the Department of Education and Training on 9651 0280, or

contact your Senior Education Improvement Leader.

For further school registration information and evidence examples please see:

VRQA Guidelines to the Minimum Standards Registration Requirements for Schools *** The Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority (VRQA) has registered the following schools as Specific Purpose

schools:

Austin Hospital School

Avenues Education

Blackburn English Language School

Collingwood English Language School

Distance Education Centre Victoria

John Monash Science School

Kensington Community High School

Lynall Hall Community School

Noble Park English Language School

Sovereign Hill School

Sydney Road Community School

The Alpine School

Travancore School

Victorian School of Languages

Western English Language School