Date post: | 29-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | agnes-griffith |
View: | 214 times |
Download: | 0 times |
‘a user’s perspective on using CEM’s primary systems data to inform teaching and learning’
One-form entry Catholic Primary School in Surrey
Small class sizes – PAN of 27 per class Fairly low mobility, average number of SEN
pupils History of above average attainment:
School Assessment schedule: Early Years Foundation Stage Profiling (on-going) YARC (York Assessment of Reading Comprehension) at
the start of Year 1 and end of Year 2 On-going formative analysis in Key Stage 1 using APP
grids Key Stage 1 SATs On-going formative analysis in Key Stage 2 using APP
grids Termly summative assessment in Key Stage 2 using
QCA Optional Tests Key Stage 2 SATs CEM’s Performance Indicators in Primary Schools
(PIPS) in Year 3
Performance Indicators in Primary Schools (PIPS) test
The PIPS Project collects pupil level data for a range of variables. These data are used to determine each pupil's achievement and self-concept. The data collected are listed below:
Predictors picture vocabulary non-verbal ability (cultural capital data collected but not recorded
in the feedback)
Cognitive outcomes PIPS attainment measures (maths and reading) Key Stage 2 SATs chances
Affective outcomes Attitude to school Attitude to maths Attitude to reading
‘Over the last ten years considerable attention has been given to the development of performance indicators (PI) for schools. However, much of this work is characterised by an assumption that PI’s will somehow ‘speak for themselves’ and little effort has been made to explore how PIs can be used to promote school improvement.
- Steve Strand, ‘Key Performance Indicators for Primary School Improvement’, Educational Administration and Management, (1997) 25, (2), p. 141.
Comparison of PIPS and Fischer Family Trust (FFT) – Type DFFT Type D: Prior attainment at KS1 Adjusted for school
context including FSM and demographic features
Adjusted to be representative of progress made by pupils in schools at the 25th centile for Value Added(More historical, school
based basis)
PIPS Concurrent value added(measure of developed
ability) Current academic
attainment in reading Current academic
attainment in maths(More pupil-centred basis)
Name KS1 result
PIPS Value Added
Key Stage 2 chances End of KS2
target
Actual result
<2 3 4 5
EB 2A 0- 14 54 31
5 51 2 45 54
GB 2B 0- 8 49 42
4 41 6 70 24
JB 2B 0- 19 56 25
4 51 7 72 21
JC 2B --1 22 56 21
5 41 6 69 24
DC 2A --- 8 49 42
5 51 1 32 67
JC 3 0- 1 18 81
5 51 1 5 95
WC 3 +- 1 20 79
5 51 1 7 93
TD 3 0- 3 36 61
5 51 1 7 93
GD 2A 0- 8 49 42
5 51 3 46 51
AD 3 0- 1 25 74
5 51 1 6 94
LE 2C -8 50 38 4
4 33 31 63 3
CF 2B 0- 19 56 25
4 41 8 73 18
JG 3 ++- 2 33 65
5 51 1 5 95
JJ 2C 02 31 54 14
4 43 33 63 2
Comparison of PIPS and FFT predictions with a previous cohort
‘PIPS is intended to be an addition to the professional knowledge of teachers’ (PIPS website)
‘Chance tables should be used with caution. …Used in conjunction with teacher’s judgement and a historical perspective of the school’s results, a fair picture of what might be a reasonable target can be developed.’ (PIPS Feedback Report, Key Stages 1 and 2)
‘The intention of the PIPS Project is to provide high quality, confidential information for use by professionals in school to promote improvement.’
PIPS as a tool for promoting improvement
Name KS1 Writing result
PIPS Value Added
Key Stage 2 chances End of KS2 target Action
required?<2 3 4 5
RB NOR -
- 9 52 39
5 ✓
AB 3 ++- 2 30 68
51 1 8 92
RB 2a 0- 16 58 26
51 1 25 74
EB 2b 0- 8 50 42
41 8 71 21
PC 2b 0- 11 55 34
5 ✓1 1 41 58
KC 2b 01 24 58 17
41 1 35 64
VC 1c 05 45 45 5
3 ✓ (SEN)18 52 30 1
NC 2c 01 26 58 15
41 16 76 8
MD 2a 0 - 18 58 24 5 ✓
Actions to be put into place to drive achievement up in line with FFT
estimates: For some, far higher expectations in class (e.g. RB, PC, MD,
FN, EV). Greater direction of teaching assistants during inputs and
plenary sessions towards supporting specific pupils e.g. FZ in maths and literacy (D grade in both, - value added)
This can be managed through highlighting the children within the usual performance management and tracking documents.
Autumn 2011 results
Summer 2011
results
P6 P8 1c 1b 1a 2c 2b 2a 3c 3b
3b
3c JS FN AB
2a CT-R
MD JP
RB RK EV
2b PC YM PP IR FZ
EB KC
2c BS NC TH RT
IW-S
1a
1b LM
1c VC MT
P8
Key: = - 1 s/l = no s/l progress made = +1 s/l
PIPS 2 Predictor and Achievement Scores - SEN pupils
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
IW-S MT TH VC LM
Pupil
Sta
nd
ard
ised
sco
re
Picture vocabulary
Non-verbal ability
Context
Maths
Reading
For SEN pupils with learning difficulties, not only specific literacy and maths interventions, but also self-esteem work to try to redress the – value-added and additional support in terms of their developmental ability:
For EAL pupils relatively new to the country, support in bridging the gap between their non-verbal and language-based abilities:
PIPS 2 Predictor and Achievement scores - EAL pupils
010203040506070
MS YM KC
Pupil
Sco
re
PictureVocabulary
Non-verbalability
Context
Maths
Reading
PIPS 2 Predictor and Achievement Scores - EAL pupils new to country
010203040506070
EZ IR NC
Pupil
Sco
re
PictureVocabulary
Non-verbalability
Context
Maths
Reading
Maths 7 15 5
Reading 17 9 1
School 15 12 0
Communicating attitudes towards subjects and school to subject leaders:
Returning to the ‘Beginning of Year’ surveys (completed by children by the end of September) for pupils with low value-added scores or negative attitudes towards learning.
Effective use of CEMs primary systems cascades through the school:
Data is initiallyreturned to and
analysed by SLT in trackingand target setting
Informs subjectleader knowledge
of attainment and attitudes
Informs class teacherperformance management
and classroom management
Informs deployment of TAs, in terms of intervention
groups and direction in theclassroom.
Whole schoolimprovement
New Ofsted Inspection Schedule (January 2012):
‘Inspection is primarily about evaluating how individual pupils benefit from their school. It is important to test the school’s response to individual needs by observing how well it helps all pupils to make progress and fulfil their potential, especially those whose needs, dispositions, aptitudes or circumstances require particularly perceptive and expert teaching and, in some cases, additional support.’
Inspectors must consider: ‘how well gaps are narrowing between the
performance of different groups of pupils in the school’
Inspectors should take account of ‘any robust attainment and progress data and its
analysis presented by the school, including information provided by external organisations’
‘Rather than 'dials on the dashboard of a car' performance indicators are most helpful when viewed as 'tin-openers' leading to further examination and enquiry.’
Carter, quoted by Steven Strand, ‘Key Performance Indicators for Primary School Improvement’, Educational Administration and Management, (1997) 25, (2), p. 141.