The Key Stage 3 Strategy - Archive Stage 3 strategy.pdf · The Key Stage 3 Strategy: evaluation of...

The Key Stage 3 Strategy:evaluation of the first year of the pilot

February 2002

A report from the Office of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools HMI 349

O F F I C E F O R S T A N D A R D S

I N E D U C A T I O N

The Key Stage 3 Strategy: evaluation of the first year of the pilot

© Crown copyright 2002

Office for Standards in EducationAlexandra House33 KingswayLondonWC2B 6SETelephone 020 7421 6800 Website www.ofsted.gov.uk

HMI 349

This report may be reproduced in whole or in part for non-commercial educational purposes,provided that all extracts quoted are reproduced verbatim without adaptation and on condition thatthe source and date thereof are stated.

Contents

Contents

Paragraphs Pages

Introduction 1 - 14 1 - 2

Main findings 3 - 6

The management of the pilot in schools 15 - 31 7 - 8

English 32 - 104 9 - 15

Mathematics 105 - 175 16 - 22

The role of LEA staff 176 - 186 23

Appendix: progess and optional tests 25


Introduction

Introduction

The Key Stage 3 strategy

1. This report covers the first year of the pilot of thenational strategy for Key Stage 3 mounted by theDepartment for Education and Skills (DfES) andsupported by a national team.

2. The aim of the strategy is to raise standards bystrengthening teaching and learning, developing cross-curricular skills such as literacy and numeracy andhelping pupils who come into Year 7 below level 4 tomake faster progress.

3. The strategy is based on four key principles:

expectations: establishing high expectations for allpupils and setting challenging targets for them to achieve;

progression: strengthening the transition from KeyStage 2 to Key Stage 3 and ensuring progression inteaching and learning across Key Stage 3;

engagement: promoting approaches to teachingand learning that engage and motivate pupils anddemand their active participation;

transformation: strengthening teaching andlearning through a programme of professionaldevelopment and practical support.

The pilot

4. The pilot began in April 2000 and will run until March2002 and involves 205 secondary schools in 17volunteer local education authorities (LEAs): Barkingand Dagenham, Brighton and Hove, the City of Bristol,Cheshire, Gateshead, Gloucestershire, Greenwich,Hertfordshire, North Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire,Reading, Salford, Solihull, Staffordshire, Tower Hamlets,the City of Wakefield and the City of York.

5. The pilot consists of several strands. Action on two ofthe strands, the teaching of English and the teaching ofmathematics, was expected from September 2000 in allthe pilot schools, with preparatory work undertaken inthe summer term. To support this action:

schools were given funding, in addition to the mainfunding allocated for the pilot, to organise asummer school in 2000 in literacy or numeracy andwere expected to follow up the progress of pupilswho attended;

the teaching of English and mathematics was to bebased on the draft frameworks provided, whereappropriate making use of a recommended three-part lesson structure (a starter activity, a mainactivity and a concluding plenary), and to includefocused provision for pupils who are at NationalCurriculum level 3 at the end of Key Stage 2;

targets for improved attainment were to be set, withprogress towards them measured through tests atthe end of Year 7 and 8;

work on the use and development of literacy andnumeracy in other subjects, with training to assist inthese respects, began in autumn 2000 with school-based training in cross-curricular literacy, and withschools expected to run training on cross-curricularnumeracy from spring 2001.

6. Other strands of the pilot cover science, informationand communication technology (ICT) and theimprovement in teaching and learning in otherfoundation subjects and religious education (the ‘TLF’strand).

7. The funding to pilot schools in the first year coveredtraining and other approved activities from an ‘additionalmenu’, for example to improve transfer and transitionfrom primary schools. The funding could be used to helpteachers to carry out audits of provision and to plan a‘catch-up’ programme for pupils to reach level 4 inEnglish and mathematics as soon as possible.

8. LEAs nominated Key Stage 3 strategy managers andappointed consultants for English/literacy andmathematics/numeracy to assist the pilot schools.

9. Senior staff and selected teachers in the pilot schoolsreceived briefing and training on the overall strategy andon the English and mathematics strands in the summerand autumn of 2000.

10. Training for schools in science began in summer2001. During the summer term of 2001, LEAs rantraining in teaching and learning in other subjects forselected teachers, typically from two departments in theschool and the senior management team. Training onthe ICT strand began in summer 2001.

The evaluation

11. The report focuses on developments in the first yearof the pilot in the teaching of English and mathematics,which were the main areas in which action was expectedin the schools.

1

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●


12. Visits were made to summer literacy and numeracyschools in secondary schools that were involved in thepilot. Commentary on them is given in annexes to thesections on English and mathematics.

13. HMI attended introductory training sessions insummer and autumn 2000 and other training throughoutthe year. They visited a total of 64 schools across thethree terms of the pilot in the 17 LEAs involved. Half ofthe schools were visited twice. The sample of schoolsreflected the full range of performance at Key Stage 3measured by test results in all core subjects in recentyears.

14. The visits concentrated on either English ormathematics, while seeking information on otherdevelopments in the schools. Discussions were heldwith key personnel, plans were scrutinised, lessonswere observed and pupils’ work was examined.Discussions were also held with consultants and othersin LEAs to gain updates on progress in the schools.

2

Main findings

Main findings

The outcomes of the first year of the pilot

The great majority of the pilot schools welcomedthe pilot of the Key Stage 3 strategy and haveresponded well to it. Important lessons have beenlearned from the pilot and modifications of thestrategy made as a result.

At this early stage, the strategy is beginning tomake a difference to the teaching of English andmathematics in the pilot schools. Improvements inteaching over the year were substantial in nearly athird of the schools visited, sound in over half andminimal in the remainder.

There were positive effects on pupils’ attainmentbut these were not comprehensive or consistent,especially in relation to those pupils achievingbelow the expected level when they join secondaryschool. The results of the progress tests taken bythese pupils at the end of Year 7 weredisappointing.

The management of the pilot

The short lead-in to the start of the pilot inSeptember 2000 meant that preparation time forthe schools was limited. They did not have enoughinformation at the outset on all the elements of thepilot to plan an overall approach effectively. Helpfulclarification and further materials and guidancewere provided during the year and management bythe schools improved.

The quality of the management of the pilot variedwidely in the schools at the start. In some, too greatan expectation was placed on individual teachersto plan, co-ordinate and prepare the work and thisproblem persisted in some cases through the year.By the end of the first year of the pilot, managementwas judged good or better in over two-fifths ofschools and satisfactory in over two-fifths, butunsatisfactory in over one in ten. Monitoringremained a common weakness.

Despite the shortage of time and, in some schools,serious staffing difficulties, preparations for theimmediate changes needed in the teaching ofEnglish and mathematics in Year 7 were, in themain, adequate. However, a key part of the widerpreparations, the subject audit, was not well done.

The response to the training about English andmathematics was positive, despite the difficultiessome schools had in releasing teachers to attend it. The pilot frameworks for the teaching of thesubjects were a sound basis for planning and theaccompanying guidance on teaching has beenwelcomed and useful.

Transition

A problem highlighted by the pilot is the inadequacyof the transfer and use of information from primaryschools. The availability and use of data in theautumn term were judged unsatisfactory in overhalf the schools. The effects were felt throughoutthe year, but better arrangements for 2001/02 werein prospect in some schools.

Assessment, including its use in target-setting, wasa common weakness in both English andmathematics departments. However, the pilot hasraised awareness of what needs to be done in thisrespect.

English

The work on English and literacy across thecurriculum started slowly in a quarter of theschools. By the end of the year many schoolsrevisited had made considerable progress,especially in relation to mainstream Englishlessons in Year 7, so that implementation of thepilot was at least sound in all but two schools andwas good in over a third. Problems mainly relatedto weak leadership or staffing difficulties, whichmade it hard to maintain continuity and impetus andto make best use of the training.

In English lessons the use of a three-part lessonstructure brought benefits in Year 7, andsometimes in Year 8, in planning, organisation andpace. There were improvements in the setting ofobjectives, the part played by starter activities andthe use of equipment. Plenary sessions remainedthe weakest element.

By the end of the year, there were signs in severalof the schools visited of a new or renewedenthusiasm to tackle literacy as a school-wideissue, including in relation to bilingual learners.Some schools built on existing good practice.Others had a long way to go, in part because oflimited use of extended reading and writing tasks.Libraries remained under-used.

3

❏

❏

❏

❏

❏

❏

❏

❏

❏

❏

❏

❏


The use of the materials provided to help pupils atlevel 3 in English to catch up was disappointing.There were problems of organisation at the startwhich were not resolved by most schools. The useof the materials, remained unsatisfactory in two-fifths of schools.

Improvements in attainment were most evident inword- and sentence-level work, with improvementsin text-level work being less distinct. Overall,progress in Year 7 was greater for pupils at levels 3and 4, who form the majority, than for others.Results in the progress tests taken by Year 7 pupilsvaried greatly from school to school. In a few of theschools visited, nearly half the eligible pupilsreached level 4. The average was just less than aquarter. There was a common concern about thematch between the progress tests and the workdone by pupils in Year 7.

Mathematics

The great majority of schools made substantialprogress from the autumn term, when the quality ofimplementation varied considerably. Difficultieswith the recruitment and retention of staffhampered progress in about half the schools inwhich mathematics was the focus of visits.

The strategy has had a positive influence onplanning and teaching methods. The frameworkpromoted higher expectations, with work pitched ata higher level and covered at a faster pace. Athree-part lesson structure proved helpful; starteractivities were generally successful, but plenarysessions less so. Greater use of interactiveteaching improved the quality of oral work.

School-based training on numeracy across thecurriculum was patchy. It inspired productivediscussion in the schools where it took place.Development in this respect has not been a highpriority for most schools.

The use of materials to help pupils at level 3 tocatch up improved through the year, but, overall, itwas erratic and did not take sufficient account ofthe particular weaknesses displayed by pupils. Itremained unsatisfactory in a third of the schools.

The strategy has had a positive impact onattainment in most schools. There wereimprovements in arithmetical skills and oral work.Lower-attaining pupils, particularly in schoolswhere a relatively large number entered Year 7 at

level 3 or below, made less progress than higher-attaining pupils. Results in the progress tests takenby Year 7 pupils showed that few of the eligiblepupils reached level 4 by the end of the year. Theaverage for the schools visited was under one inten. Many teachers felt that the tests were toodifficult and did not sufficiently match the work doneby pupils in Year 7.

Summer schools

The summer schools associated with the pilot KeyStage 3 strategy and visited in summer 2000generally made good use of the national materialsand, overall, the summer schools were better thanin previous years. Not enough work was pitched ata high enough level in the numeracy schools, butgood discussions enhanced response andpromoted progress. There was not enoughattention to writing in the literacy schools.

Some of the summer schools had serious problemswith recruitment. The availability of informationfrom primary schools on the pupils involved wasuneven. The high ratio of adults to pupils was notalways advantageous, but the involvement ofprimary teachers was a positive factor. Themajority of secondary schools did not have clearplans to follow up pupils’ progress - a featurereflected in the pilot strategy schools visited in theautumn term.

The role of LEA staff

The initial training provided by LEAs, using nationalmaterials, was well received. Thereafter, LEAconsultants, who were often new to the role, andsometimes LEA advisers, helped schools to refinetheir plans for the pilot and often contributed well totraining in schools. They also helped directly withclassroom practice, but not as much as wasneeded in some cases.

By the end of the year the contribution of LEAsupport was satisfactory overall. It was somewhatstronger in English than in mathematics.

4

❏

❏

❏

❏

❏

❏

❏

❏

❏

❏

❏

Main findings

Issues for attention

In the further implementation of the pilot and thestrategy nationally it is important that:

communication with schools gives adequatetime for them to prepare for any furtherchanges in organisation and practice;

advice on implementation is tailored to thedifferent circumstances of schools and takesfull account of the difficulties some schoolshave in recruiting mathematics teachers;

the management of work in schools is notover-reliant on individual members of staffand is built into schools’ managementsystems;

schools are helped to complete the subjectaudits so that they are useful in reviewingteaching and in identifying the action neededto improve it;

there is swift and comprehensive transfer ofinformation from primary schools of KeyStage 2 assessments, including detailed testscores and samples of work, and better use ismade of this information to set specific targetsfor improvement which are monitored throughthe year;

plenary sessions in lessons are used flexiblyand geared to giving pupils an opportunity tosay what they have learned;

more attention is given to the effective use ofICT in the teaching of English andmathematics;

the arrangements to teach the catch-up unitsare clearly defined in schools so that all pupilswho need to use them are able to do sosystematically and so that the units taughtmatch particular needs;

teaching assistants receive adequate trainingto support the catch-up programmessuccessfully and to provide effective in-classsupport;

the match between the content of theprogress tests and the strategy frameworksand teaching materials is re-examined.

In relation to work on English and literacy acrossthe curriculum, it is important that:

the overall Key Stage 3 teaching programmeis planned so as to provide regularopportunities for guided, sustained andextended reading and writing;

text-level work allows for reflection on theways in which language has been used foreffect;

guidance and training for teachers includemore on ways of tailoring the work ofindividual pupils and groups of pupils withparticular weaknesses, especially in writing,including handwriting;

school libraries and librarians are as fullyinvolved as possible in the strategy;

issues relevant to bilingual learners are moreexplicit in strategy materials and, whererelevant, in training, and specialist staff areinvolved in the development of the strategy atschool level.

In relation to work on mathematics and numeracyacross the curriculum, it is important that:

the training for non-specialist teachers ofmathematics is effectively disseminated,particularly in schools where the staffing ofmathematics is a problem;

schools continue to review and refine theirmathematics teaching to ensure that time iswell used, there is greater engagement ofpupils in the main activity and effective use ismade of plenary sessions;

schools are helped to develop pupils’ skills ofcommunication and presentation inmathematics, and their problem-solving skills;

schools review their long-term planning todetermine the extent to which the order,structure and timing of units impact on pupils’progress.

In relation to summer schools associated with thestrategy it is important that:

recruitment of pupils reaches the intendedtarget;

5

❏

❏

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

❏

●

❏


the involvement of teachers from primaryschools is pursued where possible;

the flow of information from primary schoolsabout pupils’ attainment is improved, so thatattention can be given to pupils’ particularneeds;

target-setting is based on an assessment ofindividual needs, is specific about theimprovements sought and is shared with thepupils concerned;

systematic arrangements are made to followup progress in Year 7.

more attention is paid in the summer schoolsto writing, including handwriting andopportunities for extended writing.

teachers in mathematics summer schoolsensure that work is pitched consistently at alevel high enough to help pupils towards level 4.

6

●

●

●

●

●

●

The management of the pilot in schools

The management of the pilot inschools

The response in the schools visited

15. Almost all senior staff and most other key staff in theschools visited by HMI welcomed the pilot and werekeen to be involved in it. Headteachers and other seniorstaff had a general appreciation of the elements of it,confirmed and broadened by the briefing and trainingthey had received. Information about the science andICT strands and what was then known as the‘transforming teaching and learning’ strand was limitedat the time of the visits in autumn 2000. The lack of aconsolidated written account of the strategy as a whole,including the relationship between the different strands,was a disadvantage.

16. This lack of initial information prevented schools fromfully involving different departments in the autumn term2000. Communication to all staff was patchy in someschools. Links with other initiatives aimed at raisingstandards, for example action on boys’ achievement andthe use of the Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant(EMAG), were not developed.

17. Further information and guidance supplied duringthe year helped to improve aspects of schoolmanagement and to clarify what would be expected inrelation to strands of the pilot other than English andmathematics.

School preparations

18. The short lead-in time on which the introduction ofthe pilot was working limited what schools were able todo. Their early preparations focused, understandablyand properly, on what was expected from them inrelation to the teaching of English and mathematics inYear 7. A few schools were actively working on a whole-school approach to literacy.

19. At the time of the autumn visits the schools that werebest prepared in these respects were those where theneed for action on standards and teaching had alreadybeen identified, where there was a history of school-widediscussion of literacy and, less commonly, numeracy,and where action was already under way which wasconsistent with the intentions of the pilot. The lead-intime left other schools relatively unprepared and manywere still thinking through priorities for action andmanagement arrangements at the time of the visits. Itwould have been helpful to all schools to have had all therelevant material in September 2000.

20. Common, although not universal, concerns in theschools included how to manage attendance at off-sitetraining to ensure that the key staff were involved in itwhile ensuring that disruption of teaching was kept to aminimum; and how to fit school-based training into theprofessional development time available withoutcompromising other activities which the school waspursuing. Other priorities, for example new post-16courses in 11-18 schools, competed for teachers’attention, so that the Key Stage 3 developments couldnot always be given the attention that they needed.

21. An important part of schools’ preparations was thecompletion of audits of the teaching of English andmathematics. This useful process was completed withvarying degrees of thoroughness, but generally not well.Schools’ efforts were limited by the time available and,often, by the fact that first-hand evidence of teaching,response and standards of work was not gathered. Inmost cases the audits were based on discussions withsome staff and on the co-ordinator’s own views. Later,the involvement of LEA consultants and advisers refinedthe audit in some schools.

22. The weight of preparations fell on key members ofthe English and mathematics departments. Particularelements, such as revisions of schemes of work forEnglish and mathematics, were sometimes rushed orincomplete and schools had often not managed to findtime to debate the issues with all the teachers whoneeded to be involved. Despite these difficulties, somesignificant changes in the teaching of Year 7 classes,using the new teaching frameworks, were evident inmost of the schools in the autumn term 2000.

23. Although concerns diminished in some schools, keymembers of staff had problems of finding time forparticular aspects of implementation. These included:discussion of key issues; the preparation of materials forlesson starters; the matching of textbooks and otherresources to the mathematics framework and the settingup of sessions using ‘catch-up’ units. At the end of theyear, the marking of optional tests was more time-consuming for most schools than the marking of theschool tests that they often replaced.

Management arrangements

24. The management arrangements which schools putin place to implement the pilot varied widely. In theautumn term, a few schools had anticipated the need toimplement strands other than English and mathematicsand had embryonic Key Stage 3 strategy managementgroups in place or in prospect. By summer 2001, aminority of schools had steering groups to oversee theimplementation of all strands. However, more

7


commonly there was still little communication betweendepartments, including between English andmathematics departments. Opportunities weretherefore lost to share productive approaches to thepilot.

25. By the end of the first year of the pilot the quality ofmanagement was good or better in over two-fifths ofschools, satisfactory in over two-fifths but unsatisfactoryin over one in ten. Monitoring remained a commonweakness.

26. Where management was good, this was based onclear leadership from the key heads of department, theactive participation of a member of the seniormanagement team and a structure for informing andinvolving other staff. Adequate monitoringarrangements meant that the school was able to gaugeand report on the progress of the pilot based on anappropriate range of evidence, including the observationof teaching. Where management was unsatisfactory,monitoring was invariably one of the issues needingattention.

The ‘additional menu’ of activities

27. The activities the schools intended to pursue fromthe ‘additional menu’ were not always as envisaged inthe guidance. In a few schools, the bulk of the funds wasspent on paying allowances to teachers to lead the pilotdevelopments. In these schools, the remainder wasusually spent on resources to support changes inteaching. In many other schools, the activities chosenwere determined partly by schools’ involvement as leadschools for initiatives in their LEA, particularly forimproving transition.

28. By the time of the visits in summer 2001, manyschools had made relatively little progress in thiselement of the pilot. Developments usually linked toincreased use of information technology to predictperformance and track progress and sometimes to theuse of ‘bridging units’ to aid transfer from primaryschools, usually organised with the schools by the LEAs.

Transition from primary schools

29. The inclusion in the ‘additional menu’ of work ontransfer and use of information from primary schoolswas highly appropriate in the light of the visits. The pilotexposed deficiencies in these respects.

30. In the autumn term the transfer and use of data werejudged unsatisfactory in half the schools and good inonly two. Information on National Curriculum test and

teacher assessment levels frequently arrived late andoften comprised only the overall level. The informationdid not indicate differences in standards achieved byindividual pupils across the attainment targets, which asnational data shows, can vary widely. In many schools,information remained incomplete, especially in schoolswith a large number of partner schools or where a highproportion of the pupils had moved into the LEA. Asignificant minority of secondary teachers had limitedconfidence in both the test and the teacher assessmentinformation received from primary schools.

31. The pilot has also highlighted the need in manyschools to review assessment arrangements in KeyStage 3. Most schools and LEAs had plans to improvethe quality and use of data from primary schools forSeptember 2001 and there were signs of improvementin assessment arrangements in some of the schoolsvisited in the summer.

8

English

English

Summary: the effects of the pilot

32. By the end of the first year of the pilot, the strategywas improving the planning of teaching and theorganisation of lessons, more often in Year 7 Englishlessons than elsewhere. There were signs of new orrenewed interest in literacy across the curriculum andproductive changes in practice in several schools, butthere was a long way to go in others. The use of ‘catch-up’ materials for pupils at level 3 in Year 7 wasdisappointing, but booster classes in Year 9, where theywere run, were more effective.

33. In most schools:

the focus of work was on Year 7;

teachers appreciated the training provided for itspractical value;

positive use was made of the framework forteaching and the accompanying guidance in theplanning of the curriculum;

the introduction of a three-part lesson sharpenedthe organisation of lessons;

the setting and communication of objectives improved;

starter activities were beneficial and the use ofthem developed through the year;

better use was made of equipment such asoverhead projectors and whiteboards.

34. To varying extents, these features contributed tobetter teaching in the schools visited. There wassubstantial improvement in a quarter of the schools; theimprovement was sound overall in well over a half.

35. Effects on attainment were evident with regard to theword and sentence levels in reading and writing, but lessdistinct in relation to the text level. Bilingual pupilsbenefited from the emphasis on oral work and fromcloser support for writing in mainstream English lessons.Progress in Year 7 was greater for pupils at levels 3 and4, who form the great majority, than for others.


36. By summer 2001, many schools revisited had madeconsiderable strides since the first visit: implementation

was good in over a third of schools and was satisfactoryor better in all but one. Where there were problems, thiswas often because of staffing difficulties in departmentsthat made it hard to maintain continuity and impetus andto make best use of the training.

37. The quality of the leadership of heads of Englishdepartment was the key factor in the extent of thesuccess of the pilot in each school. In the schoolsmaking the best progress, heads of department werepositive about the strategy but evaluated it critically.They took decisive action on its implementation but didnot compromise existing good practice in the process. Inschools where the head of department was lesseffective, LEA consultants were often helpful in leadingwork with other staff in the department.

38. Critical to successful work on literacy across thecurriculum were the availability of time to manage thework and the deliberateness and rigour with which it waspursued. Where the Key Stage 3 strategy manager wasa head of department or special educational needs co-ordinator they often struggled to find time for the work. Inschools where the development was most effective itsmanagement was by a member of the seniormanagement team.

39. Initial preparations for the introduction of the strategyoften relied too much on individual members of staff, withfew formal structures, such as literacy groups, to supportthem. The management of links with other strands in thestrategy was often weak at the outset and generallyremained so. The attention to monitoring and evaluationof the outcomes was insufficient.

40. There was wide variation in the conduct of the auditat the beginning of the pilot year. In general, it was apaper exercise, raising staff awareness but not informingpractice closely enough. Where classroom observationwas undertaken, the critique of practice was usuallyunchallenging. Later, some LEA advisers andconsultants worked with schools to make their auditsmore analytical.

41. Staff workload was a matter of concern from theoutset of the pilot. Pressure was particularly great inschools with staffing problems caused by unfilled posts,rapid turnover and absence, and exacerbated by theneed to attend training days out of school.

42. The time spent adapting schemes of work wasconsiderable. Most schools managed changes toschemes for Year 7 and Year 8 during the pilot year butchanges in Year 9 were limited. Preparation for the useof progress unit materials was also often time-consuming.

9

●

●

●

●

●

●

●


Training for school staff

43. LEA staff ran training sessions for heads ofdepartment, teachers and special educational needs co-ordinators in summer 2000. Overall, the training seenwas well delivered. The response from teachers wasgenerally positive. In most cases the training tookaccount of local contexts, and there was sufficientopportunity for discussion.

44. Throughout the pilot year responses to regional andLEA training were generally very positive. The materialsused were regarded as of high quality and helpful.

45. Responses to the school-based training on literacyacross the curriculum were usually positive. The impactwas greatest where senior management teamssupported the thrust on literacy across the curriculum inactive ways.

46. The teaching framework was welcomed by mostschools as providing a clear focus for teaching of thedifferent modes of language and a well-defined basis forprogression. Some English departments with a strongtradition of putting literature at the centre of theirprogrammes found it challenging to re-think the balanceof content in schemes of work, while recognising theneed to raise standards in reading and writing.

47. The best practice arose when staff in the Englishdepartment were given time to work together on thedevelopment. Without this facility there were more likelyto be inconsistencies in practice and wide variation in thequality of teaching, and sometimes in commitment to the pilot.

48. Despite concerns about experienced staff missingclasses for training, most schools worked hard torelease staff for training or to work together and withconsultants on planning and materials. In a few casesstaff shortages, including shortages of supply staff,made such release very difficult. Another problem washow to fit in school-based training when there were othercalls on the time available. There were cases when notall those staff who needed to attend could be madeavailable.

49. In general, co-ordinators of provision funded by theEMAG were not well represented at the LEA trainingattended by heads of English, which reduced theirinvolvement in the initiative. Staff funded through theEMAG were involved in whole-school training on literacybut this did not always include sufficient attention toissues about the learning of English as an additionallanguage (EAL).

50. Despite this, the schools in which bilingual pupilswere the focus of visits were positive about the value ofthe strategy. Staff found that bilingual learners benefitedfrom the emphasis on engaging all pupils in a widevariety of activities, the attention given to the explicitteaching of grammar, and the building of vocabularysupportive of bilingual learners.

Transition

51. In all schools visited in the autumn term there weredeficiencies in the availability and use of informationfrom primary schools about pupils’ performance. Pupilswere often put into English groups on the basis of limitedinformation about prior attainment or spent aconsiderable period being assessed through tests and inother ways before being re-grouped. All this militatedagainst a prompt start to well-pitched Key Stage 3English teaching.

52. One promising development from the outset of theproject, however, was from visits made by secondaryschool teachers to partner primary schools to observeteaching. Where this occurred, teachers reported abetter understanding of the teaching approachesrecommended by the strategy and more accurateexpectations of Year 7 pupils, as well as improvedcontact with primary colleagues.

Changes in the teaching of English

53. There was an overall improvement in the quality ofteaching in Year 7 English lessons over the year. Theextent to which teaching improved was substantial in aquarter and sound in well over a half. About half theteaching in Year 7 English lessons observed in autumn2000 was good or very good; by the summer term, sixout of 10 lessons were good or better and a quarter werevery good. Most of the remainder of the teaching wassatisfactory in both the autumn and summer.

54. Progress was best where departments recognisedthe need to improve elements of planning, curriculumbalance or teaching methods, but had at least areasonably strong starting-point in the existing quality ofteaching. Progress was least where departmentalleadership was poor or negative about the potentialbenefits of change.

55. Lessons in Years 7 and 8 invariably used a three-partstructure recommended by the strategy; lessons in Year9 did not always do so. Lessons were commonly of anhour's duration but in some schools were as short as 35minutes. The shorter the lesson, the more difficultyteachers had in including an adequate starter and plenary.

10

English

56. Lessons frequently began with teachers explainingthe lesson content and the learning intended. A focus onobjectives was generally a strength in lessons. Over thethree terms there were improvements in makingobjectives accessible to pupils and, in the best cases,referring to them during and at the end of the lesson toreview progress in meeting them.

57. Starters were usually carefully planned to a 10-15minute timescale. Usually teachers created their ownactivities in order to match them to ongoing work. Thiswas time-consuming during this first year, but mostdepartments were building up a bank of such activitiesfor future use.

58. Starters were often active. This was an aspectenjoyed by pupils and their learning was usually veryevident. By the end of the year, starters were much moreintegral to the rest of the lesson than initially.Alternatively, there was more continuity of focus over aseries of starters.

59. Relatively few starters were differentiated to takeaccount of pupils' different needs. This did not matterunduly when lower-attaining pupils or bilingual learnersreceived good support from teaching assistants, whenstarters were brief and made active by lively teaching,and when they contained useful reinforcement forhigher-attaining pupils. However, the potential forgreater differentiation of starter activities needed furtherconsideration in several schools. A common problemwas that, at the conclusion of the starter, opportunitieswere frequently missed for pupils to articulate what theyhad learned.

60. The main phase of the lesson was characterised bywhole-class teaching and interactive approaches, oftenincluding group work. Directness was a feature of goodwhole-class teaching. This made efficient use of timeand sustained the focus on learning that had beeninitiated in the starter activities. Pupils responded well toteachers' crisp delivery and the brisk pace, whichencouraged pupils' engagement and positive attitudes towork. Use of models of writing was a characteristic ofsome of the more effective lessons, as was the use of‘frames’ to support writing by less fluent writers.Differentiation by task in the main phase was a feature ofseveral of the best lessons seen.

61. Overall, features characteristic of good teachingremained crucial in determining the success of the mainphase, and, indeed, the whole lesson: teachers' subjectknowledge; the selection of material that engagedinterest; and the appropriateness of the intellectualchallenge. These were features that were unaffected by

changes in lesson structure: where they were strong,lessons were effective and, where they were weak,teaching remained ineffective whatever the lessonstructure used.

62. From the outset, plenaries were often the weakestpart of the lesson. Good planning was critical to thesuccess of plenaries. Often there was insufficient timefor them, typically because teachers under-estimatedthe time required for activities in the main phase of thelesson. Plenaries were often the least active part oflessons. Teachers tended merely to sum up whathappened during the main phase and pupils did not havethe opportunity to articulate what they had learned.When pupils had such opportunities, they proved animportant part of the learning process.

63. While almost all teachers took care to ensure that theframework objectives were covered in their teachingplans, there was less awareness of the value of usingthe objectives to support assessment and target-setting,or gauging how well the skills inherent in the objectiveswere being learned by pupils. From the outset, teachersrecognised target-setting for pupils as a necessary steptowards improving standards. Except for pupils withspecial educational needs, there were insufficient dataon prior attainment available to undertake well-foundedtarget-setting early in the year.

64. At its best, target-setting identified a small number oftargets that were based closely on the strategy teachingframework, were comprehensible and accessible to thepupils and to their parents. More typically, targets wereconfusing to pupils and insufficiently specific. They werenot easily accessible, they did not inform on-going workand attention to them was not maintained by eitherpupils or teachers. Consequently teachers were not in aposition to determine which targets had been met orwhether new targets should be set, and pupils were notsufficiently involved to enable the process to improvetheir work.

65. The use of assessment to define the problems inpupils' work that need to be addressed remained aweakness in most schools. Detailed correction of pupils'written work rarely led to close attention to how toremedy recurring errors. A significant number ofteachers were not sufficiently conversant with ways ofaddressing weaknesses, particularly in writing, includinghandwriting.

Literacy across the curriculum

66. Many of the schools visited had a history of work todevelop literacy. By summer 2001 there were signs in

11


12

several schools of a new or renewed enthusiasm totackle literacy as a school-wide issue which resulted insome successful practice. Four-fifths of the lessonssampled to observe literacy in lessons other thanEnglish were good or better and two-fifths were verygood, although this sample often included departmentsor teachers selected for their good practice ordevelopment work in this area.

67. Features of good teaching in this respect included:

establishing one or more literacy objectives inrelation to individual lessons or sequences oflessons in the subject;

explicit attention to subject-specific vocabulary,including displays of key words and close attentionto new terms and reference to their derivations;

including within lessons opportunities to readchallenging material;

advice to pupils on reading aloud with accuracyand expression;

recommendation of appropriate reading material inconnection with homework and research projects;

clear definition of productive writing tasks,illustration and discussion of how to approachthem, and the use of ‘frames’ and other supports forwriting;

expectations on the use of dictionaries andthesauruses;

marking of work covering aspects of language usein a sensible and consistent way.

68. In some schools, whole-school policies were beingimplemented systematically. For example, departmentmeetings considered literacy matters routinely, therewere deliberate moves to increase the amount ofreading in class and for homework, and samples ofwriting were considered for the quality of their writing aswell as for their subject content. Occasionally,classroom observation by senior managers had a focuson literacy.

69. Pupils in a significant proportion of pilot schools,particularly in Year 7, lacked opportunities to read, writeand talk in a sustained and/or extended way. While thiswas sometimes the case in English, it was even moremarked in other subjects. As a result, pupils were oftenunable to demonstrate the application of their learning ofliteracy.

70. In general, there was too little follow-up of literacylearning from one classroom to another, either fromEnglish to other subjects or from classes involved inprogress units to mainstream English classes. Whatwas learned in English lessons or progress unit sessionsdid not always transfer to work in other subjects.Transfer of learning about literacy was helped in someschools by visual reminders of learning displayed inclassrooms and elsewhere in the school and in diaries orplanners which pupils carried round from one lesson to another.

71. Few schools saw fit to involve their EAL support staffclosely in the development of the strategy. Where thesestaff were closely involved, bilingual pupils were wellsupported. Support staff were able to take more activeroles in lessons than had often been the case before.The strategy worked best when staff felt able to modifythe materials to take account of the context of the schooland the particular needs of their bilingual learners. Onlya minority did so fully.

Intervention to help pupils reach the expectedstandard

72. The arrival of the progress unit materials for pupils atlevel 3 during the autumn term, rather than at its start,delayed their use. Thereafter, problems in organisingtheir use were not solved by most schools in the pilotyear. Overall, the intervention was at least satisfactory inthree-fifths of the schools visited but in two-fifths of themit remained unsatisfactory at the end of the year.

73. The quality of teaching in the individual sessionsseen where the progress units were used waspredominantly good. However, there was often toomuch to be covered in the length of the sessionsproposed. Bilingual learners, in particular, needed moretime to complete tasks and for feedback on them. Therelevance of the materials for bilingual learners was alsolimited by the lack of context for language work and thefact that the cultural content was sometimes not appropriate.

74. Pupils benefited most when interactive approacheswere used and class sizes were small. Some of the bestteaching of the progress units was by specialeducational needs teachers or teaching assistants withexperience of small group work. However, where theteaching or organisation was largely within the specialeducational needs department, there were problems ifEnglish staff did not know enough about the content ofthe units or the approach and were unable to build on thework done.

75. Timetabling problems, sometimes combined with alack of precise assessment of pupils’ needs, led tofragmented or insufficiently targeted use of the units. In

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

English

13

some schools the whole of the target group wassystematically covered by the teaching of these units.However, quite frequently, not all the eligible pupils wentthrough the units they needed, or pupils followed all unitswhen they only needed some, or only a minority of theunits had been used at all. In some schools sessions onthe units were offered after school, before school or inthe lunch hour on a voluntary basis. This was ineffective,as it led to many pupils who could have benefited fromworking through the units not doing so, or not doing sosystematically.

76. Progress unit materials were sometimes integratedinto mainstream English lessons with lower sets,although some staff found this hard to accomplishsuccessfully. Otherwise, to minimise timetablingproblems, a full 50-60 minute lesson was used to teachtwo units back-to-back. This was less effective than alittle-and-often approach.

77. Some schools rejected the idea of teachingassistants teaching the progress units. This limited theirflexibility in timetabling the units; for example, tutor timewas not available as most special educational needs orEnglish teachers had tutor groups. Teaching assistantswere positive about the units and the chance to teachthem, although, in common with teachers, they found theunits needed considerable preparation and weresometimes hard to fit into the 20-minute slot assumed.

78. By the end of the year there was some clearevidence of the positive impact on confidence and self-esteem, with the pupils concerned sometimescontributing well in mainstream lessons.

79. Where Year 9 literacy booster classes were seen, theteaching was generally good. The best incorporatedelements of the strategy’s approach to teaching,particularly interactive approaches. In general, thequality of learning was good but, because boosterclasses were offered on a voluntary basis, staff felt thatthe pupils most in need of them often did not attend.

Learning resources

80. Resources to implement the pilot in English lessonswere generally satisfactory.

81. Where English classrooms, school libraries andother classrooms were supportive of literacy in terms ofthe materials available and displays, this helpedconsiderably. The increased numbers of overheadprojectors were well used in classes to focus on sharedtexts. Wipe-clean mini-whiteboards were well used toenable teachers to check pupils’ answers and topromote a have-a-go approach to spelling and drafting.

Some libraries were well stocked with a range of fictionand non-fiction of suitable levels of difficulty for pupils,and were staffed by a librarian closely involved in raisingstandards in reading.

82. There were weaknesses where libraries were under-used to support literacy and where personal reading wassqueezed out of the English curriculum. Otherweaknesses in some schools included:

poor or poorly presented library stock;

restrictions on books being taken home, so thatextended reading was discouraged;

flipcharts or whiteboards were not used sufficientlyto capture the outcomes of plenary discussions.

83. More and better use of ICT was seen as the yearprogressed, for example integrated learning systems(ILS) used in conjunction with the teaching of progressunits. However, in the main, the potential for ICT toenhance learning in mainstream English classes wasnot being realised.

Impact on attainment

84. By the end of the pilot year, there were clearimprovements in some aspects of performance in Year 7English classes. Improvements were most evident,although unevenly so, in word- and sentence-level work.Improvements in text-level work were less noticeable.Text-level work based on literature had tended to be astrong feature of the work of many departments in thepast and the amount of it was less affected by use of thestrategy framework.

85. Improvements in word- and sentence-level workwere clearest in spelling strategies, the use ofvocabulary and the understanding of stylisticconventions. Improvements were least in sentenceconstruction, punctuation and paragraphing. The pilotled to some well-structured non-narrative writing inparticular, and it made pupils more aware of the need forvariety in their writing.

86. Improvements in text-level work were evident inreading for meaning, writing to persuade andcollaborative group work. They were least inunderstanding the author's craft and the study of literarytexts, including critical writing about literature. Theseare, however, skills which are particularly needed forsuccess in the optional tests and Key Stage 3 tests.

87. Advances in the use of oral language were oftenconstrained by the lack of opportunities which teachers

●

●

●


provided for pupils to speak at length and to engage inrole-play and similar activities. However, some notablegains were made by bilingual pupils in speaking andlistening, however, through greater opportunities for oralwork. The support for writing, through the use of modelsand frameworks and other word- and sentence-levelwork, also helped their progress.

88. Overall, evidence from lessons observed and pupils’work showed that progress in Year 7 was mostpronounced for pupils at levels 3 and 4. Progress wasmuch less evident for pupils at level 2 and at level 5 andabove.

89. In broad terms, improvements in Year 8 reflectedthose in Year 7. Improvements in word- and sentence-level work were more evident than in text-level work.Advances were more uneven in Year 8 than Year 7. Forexample, there was progress in some aspects of spellingbut not in others. There was insufficient evidence in Year9 to make firm judgements of the pilot's impact.

90. Three terms into the pilot, many schools were at anearly stage in monitoring and evaluating its impact onliteracy levels in classroom work. In a very few schools,senior managers had scrutinised the written work ofpupils to detect progress. Where they undertookclassroom observation with a literacy focus, theysometimes lacked understanding of what to look for.

91. Progress tests were taken by pupils who came to theschool with a level 3 performance. Teachers wereconcerned that the progress tests did not reflect the spiritor the content of the strategy materials. The test resultsvaried greatly from school to school and weredisappointing overall. In a few of the schools visited,almost half the eligible pupils achieved level 4 in thetests, but the average was just less than a quarter. Theproportion of eligible pupils achieving level 4 tended tobe lower in schools with more disadvantaged intakes.

92. Optional tests were taken by level 4 pupils in Year 7and Year 8 at the end of the pilot year. They wereintended to give an indication of progress by thesepupils. Marking proved time-consuming. Not all schoolswere able to provide staff with time to moderate it. In afew cases, optional tests were marked externally. Theresults for Year 7 pupils were encouraging, with abouthalf of pupils achieving level 5 or above in English.

93. The potential of the optional tests to supportdiagnostic assessment was recognised but few schoolshad been able to undertake a full enough analysis toinfluence the future teaching of groups or individuals.

Annex: summer literacy schools

94. HMI visited 20 summer literacy schools in 12 LEAs insummer 2000, all of which were involved in piloting theKey Stage 3 strategy.

95. Of the 20 summer literacy schools, half were judgedgood, compared with 20 per cent in 1999. There werenone that were unsatisfactory, compared with 10 percent in 1999. Pupils made good progress in two-fifths oflessons in the summer schools visited but poor progressin almost three in ten. Progress was adversely affectedby discontinuities in staffing, by the lack of opportunity toreview learning, which was by far the poorest aspect ofthe teaching, and because skills were not beingdeveloped systematically enough. Pupils achieved bestin speaking and reading and least well in writing,particularly if the task involved extended writing.

96. One-third of the summer schools recruited theirtarget number. Recruitment was difficult in theremainder. Attendance was good in two-thirds of theschools and a problem in a fifth. Most pupils were aged11 and at level 3 but in three-fifths of schools pupils ofother ages and levels of attainment were accepted.

97. Compared with previous years, many more co-ordinators had a background in the teaching of Englishor special educational needs. Typically, they had nopreparation time prior to the summer school. Moresecondary teachers were involved than in 1999 but moreschools had primary teachers on their staffing. Summerschools without staff from primary schools hadattempted to recruit them but had failed to do so.Primary teachers brought considerable strengths andwere generally more expert than their secondarycolleagues in supporting pupils who were writingindependently, in hearing children read and in managingplenaries.

98. Teachers and support staff were better informedabout literacy than in past years. Most had previouslybeen involved in summer schools and gained usefulexperience. Training specifically for the summer schoolswas as variable in amount and quality as in 1999.

99. Practice was much more closely aligned to theNational Literacy Strategy framework for teaching thanbefore. Most schools made use of the special units ofmaterial and the suggested structure for organising eachday provided by the national team. The recommendedmaterials and guidance on structure provided a focus onliteracy and a coherence to the programme of workwhich was sometimes lacking in schools which followedother schemes.

14

English

15

100. The use of short sessions helped to maintain agood pace of work and was a strength in a quarter ofschools. Common weaknesses included the lack ofend-of-day plenary sessions and the fact that pupilsworked in unchanging groups.

101. Teaching was good or better in three-fifths oflessons. The best lessons were characterised by theteaching of specifics, the setting of timed tasks and aninteractive style. Pupils' response was good or better inalmost four-fifths of lessons.

102. Links between pupils' needs and detailed planningto address these needs were generally weak. In a thirdof the schools, primary schools had provided goodinformation about pupils' attainment. There was verylittle information available in three-fifths of the summerschools. In contrast with previous years, there was lesstesting and re-testing and a greater preference forindividual target-setting. Frequently targets were notbased on assessment of individual needs, lackedspecificity and were not known to the pupils.

103. Resources were at least adequate and often good.Whiteboards were a new resource that was well used.

104. A fifth of the summer schools had detailed plans forthe follow-up of pupils in the autumn term in thesecondary school, including identification of pupils for‘catch-up’ programmes. The majority of the schoolswere unclear about follow-up.


Mathematics

Summary: the effects of the pilot

105. By the end of the first year the strategy was havinga clear, positive influence on the planning andorganisation of lessons and on teaching methods insome mathematics lessons in Year 7 and sometimes inother years. Work on the teaching of numeracy acrossthe curriculum was in its infancy and there was little signas yet of significant change. The use of ‘catch-up’materials for pupils working at level 3 in Year 7 hadlimited benefits, although use of the materials improvedsomewhat during the year.

106. In most schools:

the focus of work was on Year 7, but some schoolsused three-part lessons in other years;

opportunities for professional development weremade available to a high proportion of teachers,who valued the focus on teaching;

teachers made generally good use of the materialson teaching, including the comprehensive set ofexamples and the vocabulary list;

the Year 7 curriculum was planned from thestrategy framework, with objectives set inaccordance with the yearly teaching programme;

reference to the Year 6 teaching programmehelped to inform transition and progression;

use of the framework raised teachers’ expectationsof pupils, so that they pitched work at a higher leveland covered material at a faster pace;

the introduction of three-part lessons improved theorganisation of teaching and helped to engagepupils more directly in their learning;

there was a stronger emphasis on direct andinteractive teaching, and, in particular, the regularuse of oral and mental starters in lessons was asignificant change;

generally appropriate learning targets were set,usually for the whole class, and occasionally forgroups to suit the range of attainment in the class,but rarely for individual pupils or groups of pupils.

107. To varying degrees these changes improvedteaching in mathematics lessons. The improvementswere not even, but they were substantial in over a third ofschools and sound in nearly a half. By the end of theyear, mathematics teaching was satisfactory overall inthe schools visited, with half the teaching judged asgood.

108. There were positive effects on pupils’ attainment,including their arithmetical skills and the quality of theiroral work. Low-attaining pupils, particularly in schoolswhere a relatively large number entered Year 7 at level 3or below, made less progress than higher-attainingpupils. Pupils’ skills in presenting ideas both orally andin writing varied considerably, with pupils sometimeslacking the language needed to talk about their work in asustained way or the skills needed to present their workcarefully. A greater range of topics was covered duringthe year than under previous schemes of work. Therewas more work at level 5, particularly in number andalgebra.


109. By the end of the first year of the pilot, theimplementation of the strategy in mathematics was goodin a majority of schools. Most schools had made soundor good progress since the autumn term, when thequality of implementation, although sound overall, variedconsiderably.

110. Factors that helped the successful implementationof the strategy included the active support of seniormanagement and the commitment of key members ofthe mathematics department. Staff in the schools whereimplementation was initially weaker were sometimesreluctant to be involved in the strategy. Sometimessome of these mathematics departments were managedpoorly or were affected by having a high proportion ofnon-specialist teachers, or both.

111. The recruitment and retention of staff were majorconstraints in about half the schools. A large number ofnon-specialist staff and the use of temporary staff tocover vacancies made it difficult for key staff to cascadetraining and manage change. Schools continued toexperience difficulties in staffing, and two had nosubstantive head of department.

112. Schools identified a member of the mathematicsstaff to co-ordinate the initiative within the departmentand usually a member of the senior management teamto manage the pilot across the school. When thisworked well, roles and responsibilities were defined andclearly understood. Weaknesses were often associated

16

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Mathematics

with the poor quality of the department’s management,with teachers expected to implement changes they didnot fully understand and on which they had received littleguidance from within the school.

113. While the response of the schools to the strategyvaried, it was mostly positive. Two examples reflect theends of the spectrum. The response in most schools fellsomewhere between the two in terms of attitudes,commitment and changed approaches to teaching.

114. One high-achieving school had a strong, stableteam of teachers and a head of department with a clearunderstanding of the strategy and awareness of recentdevelopments in primary schools. The teachers werewell prepared and able to build on initiatives in the schooldeveloped over the previous three years. Thedepartmental development plan, drawn up prior to theKey Stage 3 pilot, included references to integratinginvestigational and ICT activities into the scheme ofwork.

115. By contrast, in another school, staff appeared tothink that if the materials were changed and lessonswere split into three parts, pupils would automaticallybenefit. They did not appear to appreciate that they stillneeded to think carefully about their teaching to makepupils’ learning effective. A lack of teamwork and ofsupport from senior management limited progress. Theexternal training provided by the LEA, to which theheadteacher was opposed because it was difficult torecruit supply staff, had, in the event, little effect on theteaching.

116. Following the training in summer 2000, mostschools reviewed their Year 7 mathematics scheme ofwork and started to become familiar with the nationalguidance and teaching materials. Relatively fewschools, however, had undertaken sufficient preparatorywork to have arrangements in place by the start of theautumn term. In a minority of schools extra non-contacttime was allocated to individual staff in the mathematicsdepartment to plan the Year 7 curriculum. Occasionally,schools funded joint planning, but the difficulty inobtaining supply cover limited the opportunities fordepartmental staff to work together during the schoolday.

117. Some departments had devoted considerable timeto adapting Year 7 schemes of work to the structure setout in the framework. Departments that had developedunits of work along the lines of the sample units providedin the training found this to be valuable, although time-consuming.

118. A key element of preparations for the pilot was thecompletion of an audit of mathematics teaching.Generally, the audit was not undertaken thoroughlyenough. In particular, too little attention was given to theobservation of teaching and to discussing the resultsand implications of the audit within the department. Inthose schools where recruitment of staff was difficult itwas not possible to provide supply cover forobservations to take place. Some managers lacked theexperience or the skills needed to analyse data andevaluate teaching in order to identify clearly the actionthat needed to be taken. In a minority of schools theobservation of teaching was part of an annual cycle ofmonitoring by senior management, and this informed theaudit, identifying strengths and expertise in thedepartment as well as areas where further developmentwas needed.

Training for school staff

119. The response from teachers to training provided byLEAs in summer 2000 was positive. The content washelpful and the recommended approach to teaching wasexemplified well. Further training was given to heads ofdepartment over the year by LEA consultants. In theautumn and spring terms, training was also provided fornon-specialist and less experienced teachers of mathematics.

120. The framework for teaching, with its supplement ofexamples, provided a productive basis for an approachbased on objectives, some of which are re-visited. Itscomprehensive coverage, based on detailed learningobjectives, was helpful for teachers to use in theirplanning. Schools that successfully implementedchange recognised the value of the time they devoted todiscussing the framework. However, schools where ahigh proportion of mathematics teachers were non-specialists or where there were significant weaknessesin mathematics teaching usually lacked a sound basis toimplement the changes on their own and needed moreintensive LEAsupport than was generally on offer at the time.

121. The training for mathematics teachers was wellreceived. Many teachers were motivated to try newideas, particularly at the start of lessons, and werepleasantly surprised at the effect on pupils’ motivation.In most schools, the training led to constructivediscussions in departments, encouraged the use ofobjectives in planning lessons and led to a review ofteaching approaches.

122. The course for non-specialist teachers ofmathematics comprised an initial two-days training,followed up in the subsequent term by two further days.The initial focus was on the framework and approaches

17


to algebra. The subsequent two days related to ratio andproportion and geometry. Teachers valued the course,especially the opportunities given to reflect on teachingapproaches for the topics covered. A valuable feature ofthe course was the focus on pupils’ errors andmisconceptions, enabling teachers to deepen their ownmathematical understanding. Response from teachersto this training was good.

123. The majority of teachers benefited from theincreased professional development opportunitiesthroughout the year, mostly by attending externaltraining courses arranged within their LEA. Professionaldevelopment continued in many departments becauseof increased efforts to share successful practice.

124. Schools often found it difficult to obtain supply coverto release teachers for training, particularly whenseveral teachers from a number of local schoolsattended the same course. Headteachers - andteachers themselves - expressed concern that absenceof a teacher had an adverse effect on pupils’ progress.In most schools, support staff were not involved in thetraining courses.

Transition

125. In autumn 2000 HMI judged that the flow and use ofinformation on pupils’ performance as they moved fromprimary to secondary schools was good in only a smallnumber of schools. Most schools recognised the needto improve the arrangements for transition, to use theavailable data to track pupils, particularly those who hadachieved level 3, and to set targets for pupils throughouttheir three years in Key Stage 3.

126. Schools often supplemented Key Stage 2 test datawith the results of standardised tests they carried outthemselves. Staff recognised the general improvementin the performance of pupils from Year 6, including theirknowledge and mental arithmetic skills. Many of theschools visited taught mathematics to mixed-abilityclasses in Year 7, although increasingly schools wereusing data from primary schools to organise teachinggroups based on pupils’ attainment.

127. Few secondary schools had access to pupils’ KeyStage 2 test scripts for analysis. When they did, it helpedto identify strengths and weaknesses in pupils’mathematics. For example, the head of mathematics inone secondary school analysed the scripts from fourmain partner schools. This usefully highlighteddifferences in the performance of pupils from thedifferent schools and formed the basis for helpfuldiscussion with Year 6 teachers.

128. All the schools were working towards producing adatabase of the assessment data on Year 7 pupils. Theamount, quality, presentation and use of these datavaried across the schools: they were good in two-fifths ofschools. Where practice was best, the data were madeavailable to all the teachers. Only one school briefedstaff on using the data. In the more effective schools thedata were used to predict outcomes and to set targetsand as a basis of tracking pupils’ progress.

129. While the process of setting targets had beeninitiated in half the schools visited in the autumn termthere was little good practice. In one school, the test andteacher assessment results in the core subjects for allYear 7 pupils had been collated by the head ofmathematics and stored electronically to aid target-setting. More often targets had been set on a generalbasis for whole year groups and took too little account ofthe prior attainment of pupils.

130. The pilot has helped to stimulate or strengthen linksbetween primary and secondary schools byencouraging secondary teachers to visit partner primaryschools. When secondary teachers observed leadingmathematics teachers this helped them to develop abetter understanding of the teaching approachesrecommended and to identify the expectations primaryteachers were setting their pupils.

131. Secondary schools were generally keen to forgethese links as part of the work funded through theadditional funds for school-based initiatives. Oneapproach was the use of ‘bridging units’ betweenprimary and secondary schools. Where it was observedthis approach was generally not successful and wassometimes judged to pose severe administrativeproblems. Although there was some good practice,bridging units did not help pupils to experience continuityin their work from Year 6 to Year 7.

132. Awareness of the need to improve arrangementsfor transition has been enhanced by the pilot and betterpreparations were being made in some schools duringsummer 2001.

Changes in the teaching of mathematics

133. There were substantial improvements in teaching inover a third of schools and improvements were sound innearly a half. About half the teaching observed in theschools visited in the autumn and summer was good,including one-sixth that was very good. There wereweaknesses in almost one-sixth of lessons in autumn2000; this proportion dropped to one-tenth of lessons insummer 2001.

18

Mathematics

134. Teachers became more familiar with the frameworkand the use of objectives to inform planning.Increasingly schools modified their Year 7 plans orcompletely re-designed them in line with the sequenceof units set out in the framework. A few made majorchanges from previous practice. One school, forexample, had used a thematic approach to avoid undueskipping between topics, whilst another had produced alarge wall-chart to show links between units, whichexposed the isolated nature of some of the shape, spaceand measure units.

135. Because teachers were giving urgent attention toplanning the units of work they were presently teaching,they had an insufficient grasp of the important linksbetween different units of work. The yearly teachingprogrammes in the framework offer detail onprogression in the work in Key Stage 3 but their use wassometimes not flexible enough. Teachers’ choice ofobjectives needed to take more account of differences inpupils’ attainment, particularly in mixed-ability classes.The better teaching drew on Year 6 and Year 8objectives to set appropriate work for the span ofattainment in the class. A few schools, particularly thosewith a large proportion of higher-attaining pupils,modified the selection, order and time allocation of someunits in the Year 7 teaching programme so as to build ontheir previous practice.

136. The use of a three-part lesson structure wasaffected by the length of teaching sessions, which variedfrom 35 to 70 minutes. It was difficult to implement athree-part lesson in periods of 35 minutes: there wasoften not enough time for pupils to work in a sustainedway and then to have a plenary that checked whetherlearning objectives had been achieved. On the otherhand, in some 70-minute lessons pupils struggled toconcentrate for the whole time.

137. The use of starter activities was generallysuccessful and improved over the year. Teachers andpupils enjoyed them, and they engaged the whole classin a common task. Teachers’ questions were welldirected and increasing use was made of practicalresources. The use of mini-whiteboards allowed pupilsto display their solutions and gave the teacherimmediate feedback on their thinking.

138. The guidance on the teaching framework stressedthe flexible use of a three part lesson structure. In someschools, there was a rigid use of starters for 10-15minutes in every lesson, leaving less time for written work.

139. In a few schools, the emphasis on mental work wasinterpreted as meaning increased mental testing with

insufficient opportunity for pupils to discuss theirmethods. Where oral work was good, pupils werechallenged to reason and to explain the sequence oftheir thinking.

140. The framework’s objectives were helpful in thesetting of clear expectations for pupils in the mainactivity. Teachers often made explicit references to theirteaching objectives and paid careful attention tovocabulary. Expectations were usually appropriatelychallenging. In most lessons, there was direct teaching,with practice and consolidation through work from aworksheet or textbook. However, too often, there wasnot enough discussion between teacher and pupils, withthe focus placed on technique rather than understandingand application.

141. The use of the plenary was the least successfulelement of three-part lessons. The best plenarysessions, which did not always occur at the end oflessons, gave pupils opportunities to articulate what theyhad learned and this helped to highlight their mistakesand misunderstandings which the teacher then used forfurther teaching. The use of short plenaries during thelesson kept pupils on task and provided teachers withvaluable diagnostic information.

142. In good lessons work was pitched at an appropriatelevel of difficulty. The main teaching activity wasdesigned to take careful account of the nature of thetopic and the length of the lesson. The initial mentalactivity was well focused. It was often linked to the mainactivity and engaged pupils through good questioning.Good questioning by teachers challenged pupils todeduce results for themselves and develop their skills inreasoning. Explanations were presented clearly andpupils understood what they were expected to learn.Pupils participated through discussion and occasionallywere encouraged to come to the front of the class toshare their ideas and solutions. Teachers maintainedthe pace of the lesson by setting deadlines andintervening to monitor pupils’ progress.

143. In a very good lesson on lowest common multiples,there was a partly improvised mix of individual work andgroup discussions, some of which addressed pupils’misconceptions. In another good lesson, the teacherintroduced short oral and mental activities at differentpoints in a lesson with a lower-attaining set to maintaintheir interest and involvement. Pupils enjoyed therepeated challenge and many made noticeable progressover the lesson.

144. A common weakness in the lessons seen was thatlearning was not adequately consolidated for the lowest-

19


attaining pupils throughout the lesson. Teacherssometimes moved to new material in order to meet theirpre-set learning objectives without taking sufficient timeto review the learning that had taken place. Pupils werenot always asked to explain how they had derived theirconclusions or answers.

145. In the weakest lessons, which were more often thannot taken by non-specialist staff, the starter activity wasundemanding, usually based only on recall of simplenumerical facts and basic mental strategies. The mainactivity was poorly taught, so that explanations wereconfused and time was not used well. There was nosummary at the end of the lesson, which was oftenragged.

146. The effectiveness of the teaching was related to theconfidence of the staff. For example, in one schoolwhere limited improvement was discernible in theteaching over the year, only four of the teachers wereworking full-time in the mathematics department and theother six had substantial commitments elsewhere in theschool; some had no specialist mathematicsqualification.

Numeracy across the curriculum

147. Cross-curricular numeracy courses were plannedfor the spring and summer terms. Some schools haddifficulty in finding the necessary time, and many wereonly able to devote a half-day in the summer term, whilsta few delayed the training. Where it took place, schoolsacknowledged the assistance of consultants in settingup the training for staff. The materials to promotenumeracy across the curriculum were of good qualityand encouraged good discussion.

148. The outcome of this work in some schools was adraft numeracy policy. It was too early to judge theimpact on classroom practice. That the impact is notnecessarily straightforward was illustrated in one schoolwhere, despite well-organised training in the springterm, lessons seen in geography and technology in thesummer term made unrealistic assumptions about thelevel of pupils’ numerical skills.

Intervention to help pupils reach the expectedstandard

149. Schools’ action to raise the attainment of pupils whohad not reached level 4 improved through the year butremained unsatisfactory in a third of the schools.

150. The strategy's 'Springboard 7' materials comprise15 units with supporting elements. The use of these

materials was on the whole disappointing, although itimproved from a shaky start. More use was made of thematerials when pupils were grouped by attainment. Theteachers of classes with mainly level 3 pupils were usingthe materials to direct their teaching but, too often, thematerials were used merely as a series of worksheets,with little interactive teaching to identify and remedypupils’ weaknesses. Teachers did not generally makesufficient use of the guidance provided and this led tomuch variation in the approach taken.

151. Very few schools had established a ‘catch-up’programme that took account of the particularweaknesses their level 3 pupils displayed. In schoolswhere pupils were in mixed-ability classes formathematics, the Springboard 7 materials weresometimes used as differentiated tasks for pupils whoneeded to revise earlier ideas and methods. While itwas advantageous that all pupils were working on thesame topic, little of the whole-class teaching wasdirected at the level 3 pupils. In a few schools, extrateaching time had been arranged for pupils at level 3,usually outside normal school hours. One school withlarge numbers of low-achieving pupils tried to use theSpringboard 7 materials in a voluntary lunchtime activity,but without success.

152. In general, the work seen indicated that level 3pupils were making slow progress. Schools expectedthe majority of these pupils to reach level 4 in theprogress tests, but the target was often unrealisticbecause of the lack of well-focused, intensive supportaimed at these pupils.

153. Difficulties of staffing and timetabling led to manyschools being unable to run booster classes in Year 9.There were some successful examples. In one school,an experienced mathematics teacher took a speciallycreated class of level 4/5 pupils for just over half a term,whilst a non-specialist supply teacher took his class.This worked reasonably well as a short-term measure.

Learning resources

154. Departments were not always clear about howmuch they had to spend under the pilot. Nevertheless,by the end of the year, the availability of books and basicequipment was invariably adequate and often good; thiswas an improvement on the position in the autumn.

155. Increasingly, departments were investing in extraresources to support oral and mental starters. Thosewho had purchased such resources were beginning tomake effective use of them in the classroom. The use ofmini-whiteboards worked well, allowing pupils to 'have a

20

Mathematics

go' and wipe them clean if they made a mistake. It alsoenabled the teacher to see at a glance, the response ofall pupils.

156. Most schools used a textbook or selected from avariety of textbooks to support the teaching; someschools had purchased new textbooks. Departmentsfound it difficult to match the objectives in the frameworkwith the content of a single textbook. The matching ofexisting resources to the use of the framework proved asignificant undertaking.

157. Many schools were limiting, or eliminatingcompletely, the use of calculators with Year 7 classes,responding to the need to enhance and retain pupils’mental skills. Few departments had considered how thecalculator could be used to enhance the teaching ofarithmetical skills.

158. The use of ICT was limited to individual pupilsspending time on integrated learning systems (ILS) tostrengthen their numeracy skills. Use of ICT was rarelyseen in mathematics lessons.

Impact on attainment

159. The pilot has had a positive impact on attainment inmost schools. The work was often at level 5, particularlyin number and algebra. Pupils’ facility with number andalgebra was enhanced, although the pace and changeof topics was sometimes too fast for lower-attainingpupils. Pupils were motivated by the mental and oralactivities in the lessons seen and the starter activitiesand discussions helped to maintain their arithmeticalskills. They were stimulated by the interactive teachingand were willing to contribute to plenaries to reviewobjectives. However, pupils’ skills in presenting ideasboth orally and in writing varied considerably. It wasclear that some pupils lacked the language needed totalk about their work in a sustained way, or the skillsneeded to present their work carefully.

160. The results of the progress tests were verydisappointing. In most of the schools visited, less than10 per cent of eligible pupils achieved level 4. Theaverage for the schools visited was nine per cent. Onlyone school achieved greater than 20 per cent. Theproportion of eligible pupils achieving level 4 tended tobe lower in the more disadvantaged schools.

161. The progress tests were criticised for their lack ofrelevance to those pupils who had just achieved level 3.Too many questions were judged to be too dificult andhad not been covered in class work in Year 7 and sowere not attempted.

162. The results of the optional tests, where available,indicated that the majority of pupils entered for the testshad made good progress. About half the pupils hadprogressed by at least one level, from level 4 to 5, orlevel 5 to 6; about one-fifth had regressed and notattained level 4. From the scripts seen, weaknesses inalgebra and some shape questions reflected pupils’limited experience of these topics.

Annex: summer numeracy schools

163. In summer 2000, HMI inspected ten summernumeracy schools in seven LEAs involved in the KeyStage 3 pilot, and a further ten summer numeracyschools in other LEAs.

164. Of the 20 summer schools inspected, two-fifthswere judged good, the same proportion as in 1999. Onein ten had important weaknesses, compared with aquarter that were predominantly weak in 1999. Thegood summer schools were well organised and usedtime effectively. The summer schools with overallweaknesses did not recruit successfully and too manylessons were unsatisfactory.

165. Recruitment continued to cause some problems butwas better organised than in 1999 because of the earliernotification of the availability of funding. About half thesummer schools were able to recruit close to 30 pupilsas intended, although one had only six pupils andanother two had fewer than 20. The rest were able torecruit over 20 pupils. Attendance was generally good,and better than in 1999.

166. Pupils attending the summer schools were usuallythose who had attained level 3 in Key Stage 2 tests in theprevious school term. In the lessons observed, workwas always at or below level 4. In two-thirds of lessons,compared with a half in 1999, the work was pitched atlevel 3 or below. Whilst this helped to reinforce pupils’skills and raise their confidence, the general level ofwork in this significant proportion of lessons wasinsufficiently challenging.

167. Most of the work was on number, particularly linkedto the four rules. Good attention was paid to mental workand strategies. Often there was a mental session to startthe day, as well as an oral/mental starter to lessons.Pupils’ speed and agility of response to questions wereenhanced by these activities.

168. There was some work on measures, but work onspatial and statistical aspects was more limited. In a fewcases, pupils collected information from trips orcompetitive activities, and used techniques to represent

21


and analyse the data. Pupils also used mathematicalideas in context: for example, in a home economicslesson, pupils baked biscuits and learnt how to adjustand cost the recipe.

169. In the lessons seen, teaching was good or verygood in half, compared with two-thirds in 1999, andunsatisfactory in a quarter compared with a sixth in1999. In the best lessons there was a clear structurewith a lively, interactive approach. The weaker lessonspitched work without sufficient care to ensureconsolidation and progress and did not engage pupilssufficiently. Good teaching in one lesson involveddiagnostic help in addressing pupils’ misconceptions.More generally, mathematical activity based onremedying individual difficulties was uncommon, despitea relatively generous pupil-teacher ratio.

170. In several schools, there was good access to ICTsuites. A variety of programs was used includingsoftware for mathematical investigations, as well asindividualised packages. This worked well overall,except in cases where teachers had not receivedsufficient training in the potential of the software orwhere lack of technical support hindered pupils’progress. Occasionally, teachers from other subjectareas taught a session, such as art or home economics,and made links to underlying mathematical ideas suchas measures or symmetry.

171. Pupils’ attitudes and behaviour in lessons weregood or very good in most lessons and never less thansatisfactory. The pupils’ learning was good or very goodin nearly a half of lessons, but unsatisfactory in one-sixth, similar to the proportion in 1999. Pupilsparticipated well in sessions and were willing to explainand discuss strategies.

172. Teachers valued and made good use of the nationalmaterials and guidance on planning and running asummer school. Occasionally, teachers followed theguidance exactly and did not devise a separate schemeof work. In the most effective summer schools, teachersreviewed sessions daily and adjusted subsequent workappropriately.

173. Most summer schools were co-ordinated by anexperienced member of the mathematics department inthe host secondary school. Usually, there were two orthree secondary teachers and one or two primaryteachers; all teachers had satisfactory expertise. In foursummer schools, there were no primary teachers,despite the efforts made to recruit from a local partnerschool.

174. Most of the money was spent on staffing, typically£5000-£7000. Usually teachers were paid at the supplyteacher rate with an extra allowance paid to the co-ordinator. Student helpers were usually paid a fixedamount. In most cases, staffing levels were appropriatewith three teachers and a few student or adult helpers.However, in some cases, staffing was excessive, with aratio of one adult to every two or three pupils. In thosecases, either staff were not well used or pupils hadinsufficient opportunity to work independently.Accommodation for the summer schools was good andoften enlivened by the display of pupils’ work.Resources were generally sufficient to support lessons.

175. Over three-quarters of schools set targets for pupilsat the start of the summer school based on individualdiscussion, previous test results or a test administeredon the first day. In the best practice, targets were setprior to the summer school, in conjunction with pupils’primary school teachers. Where this was not possible,analysis of pupils’ Key Stage 2 test scripts was moreuseful than a test administered in the summer numeracyschool. Following up targets and reviewing them wereless effective. Most secondary schools had not devisedspecific strategies for working with summer schoolpupils in the autumn term although several had plans fortracking pupils’ progress in comparison with others.

22



176. By the end of the year, the support which LEAsoffered schools on work on English and literacy acrossthe curriculum was good in two-thirds of authorities andvery good or excellent in over a quarter.

177. Initially some LEAs had difficulty appointingmathematics consultants of suitable calibre. Thecontribution of the LEA in relation to mathematics andnumeracy across the curriculum was judged satisfactoryin the autumn and showed improvement thereafter.

178. The national training for LEA staff in summer 2000to prepare them to train schools in implementing the pilotwas effective. It used good materials and overall itfocused well on how to train others. It was deliveredskilfully, although there was sometimes insufficient timefor discussion.

179. Thereafter, LEAs provided good quality introductorytraining for schools supported by helpful national materials.

180. A significant number of LEA consultants began thepilot new to consultancy and many were initially tentativein approaching their role. At first, advisers were involvedunevenly. LEA support was sometimes affected bydiscontinuity in staffing.

181. Almost all the departments and senior staff in theschools visited valued the support and training theyreceived from their consultants. In autumn 2000,consultants started to visit lessons, work with teachers,give demonstration lessons, and run departmentaltraining sessions. Though much of this work was foundto be very helpful, the consultants’ support of audits andsubsequent follow-up needed to be strengthened.

182. Support in planning schemes of work in individualschools was strong. Consultants were most effectivewhere schools were able to free staff to work with themin the school day. Consultants not only traineddepartments but also teaching assistants, as well asleading whole-staff meetings on literacy or numeracyacross the curriculum.

183. Consultants generally did not do enough modellingof lessons. There were good examples of this but fewerthan there might have been, especially to supportteachers who lacked confidence in aspects of thestrategy. With some notable exceptions, consultantsand advisers were also insufficiently involved in lessonobservation and feedback and monitoring the pilot inindividual schools.

184. Consultants sometimes needed to build up theirlinks with schools to identify good practice and offersupport for improvement where it was needed most.Work needed to continue to be more sharply focused onschools where standards are relatively low.

185. In the autumn term, there were few examples ofLEA structures to promote the exchange of ideas andresources. More could have been done by LEAs at anearly stage to make school efforts on schemes of workand materials more economic. In one LEA the adviserhelped to set up clusters of schools which shared theirideas for planning. In another case, LEA staff workedclosely with all their schools in constructing agreed set ofplans that were to be put on the LEA’s intranet foradaptation by schools. At a later stage, structures fordissemination and discussion built up in most LEAs.

186. It was rare for LEA EMAG managers to be involvedin either LEA or school level training on English andmathematics, and literacy and numeracy across thecurriculum. In their visits as link advisers, theydiscussed the strategy with EMAG staff, but the amountof guidance and additional material offered was limited.

23


24

Appendix: Progress and optional test

Appendix: Progress andOptional Tests

Progress tests

The progress tests in English and mathematics wereintroduced for schools to assess progress of pupils inYear 7 who had not reached level 4 by the end of theirprimary schooling. The progress tests were externallymarked in the case of pilot schools.

There is little difference between the results in the pilotschools and the national results. This reflects theconcerns raised in this report about the organisation ofcatch-up programmes in pilot schools, as well asconcerns about the match between the progress testsand the work covered in Year 7.

Percentage of pupils who sat the tests achievinglevel 4 and above in 2001: pilot schools

Boys Girls AllEnglish 25 34 28- Reading 46 51 48- Writing 9 17 13Maths 10 10 10

Percentage of pupils who sat the tests achievinglevel 4 and above in 2001: national results

Boys Girls AllEnglish 25 34 29- Reading 45 50 47- Writing 11 18 14Maths 12 11 11

Optional tests

The data available on the results of optional tests inschools outside the pilot areas are not comprehensiveenough to allow secure comparison. The optional testsin English and mathematics were developed assecondary school versions of the primary schooloptional tests (for Years 3, 4 and 5). While the progresstests were based on Key Stage 2 programmes of study,the Year 7 and 8 optional tests were linked to the newapproaches to English and mathematics in the KeyStage 3 strategy. Unlike the progress tests, the optionaltests were not externally marked.

Percentage of eligible pupils in the pilot schoolsachieving level 5 and above in 2001 Optional tests

Boys Girls AllYear 7 English 44 58 51

- Reading 39 54 46- Writing 38 52 45Maths 61 62 62

Year 8 English 42 57 50- Reading 44 57 50- Writing 37 49 42Maths 64 65 65

25


26

Designed and produced by Matrix Print Consultants Ltd, Rothwell, Northants 01536 713811

Date post:	20-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	5 times
Download:	0 times

The Key Stage 3 Strategy - Archive Stage 3 strategy.pdf · The Key Stage 3 Strategy: evaluation of...

Documents