Presentation on theme: "Reporting the attainments and progress of pupils with Special Educational needs (SEN) using the CEM P scales. Dr. Francis Ndaji"— Presentation transcript:
Reporting the attainments and progress of pupils with Special Educational needs (SEN) using the CEM P scales. Dr. Francis Ndaji firstname.lastname@example.org Centre for Evaluation and Monitoring (CEM) Durham University email@example.com www.cemcentre.org
Introduction (1) What are the P scales? Descriptions of attainment levels below level 1 of the National Curriculum-published 1998. Levels P1(i) – P8 and the early levels of the NC Example: Level description for P4 in Number: Pupils show an awareness of number activities and counting, for example copying some actions during number rhymes, songs and number games; following a sequence of pictures or numbers as indicated by a known person during number rhymes and songs.
Introduction (2) The Durham P scales project Annual data collection and analysis of P scales data at the CEM, Durham University How and when did it start? Project Aims to –collect P scales data from schools (up to L4 of NC) –analyse data –produce feedback (pupil and whole school evaluation, and target setting) –prepare software
Schools that are expected to participate Special schools Mainstream schools (a) with special units (b) having pupils with special educational need in an inclusion setting
Pupils expected to register for the project pupils with special educational needs in both special and mainstream schools age groups of Year 1 to Year 14 PMLD, SLD, MLD, SpLD, BESD, PD, VI, HI,MSI, ASD, SLCN, Other. More than one categories of special need
Subjects (1) English –Speaking –Listening –Reading –Writing Mathematics –Using & applying –Number –Shape, space & measure.
Subjects (2) Science –Scientific enquiry –Life processes and living things –Materials & their properties –Physical processes ICT PSHE & Citizenship
What do schools get? The feedback to schools – in three parts (1) Initial feedback – comparison of attainments (2) Value added feedback – measures progress (3) Software – additional analysis
Average attainment by learning difficulty
Re-coding P levels into numbers P1(i)=1L1c=9 P1(ii)=1.5L1b=10 P2(i)=2L1a=11 P2(ii)=2.5L2c=12 P3(ii)=3L2b=13 P3(ii)=3.5L2a=14 P4=4L3=15 P5=5L4=16 P6=6 P7=7 P8=8
Calculating the inter-quartile range for initial feedback 25%
Initial feedback (1) Graph of Attainments in Speaking for pupils categories as SLD
Initial feedback (2) First Name Last NameYear Group SpeakingReadingWriting JaneKurts32.5 4 JohnCraig3454 LynneAdams4543 DeanFletcher4766 JamesHomer5445 SallyLuke6466
Initial Feedback (3) Schools can use the initial feedback to compare attainments: Different subjects Example question: How does pupil A’s attainment in Speaking compare with their attainment in Number or Reading or Shape, space and measure? First nameLast nameYr. groupSpeakingReadingWriting AlexBiggs32.5 4 JulianCraig3454
Initial Feedback (4) Schools can use the initial feedback to compare attainments: Similar pupils in the school Example question: How does Pupil B’s attainment in Reading compare with the average attainments in Reading of pupils of same age and principal need in their school? Answer - 2 ways to do this (a) using the chart (b) using the averages table Averages for school Year GroupSpeakingListening Speaking/ ListeningReadingWriting Using and applying 04.25.2 64.84.5 15.56.5 8.586 25.25.8 65.24.8
Initial Feedback (5) Schools can use the initial feedback to compare attainments: Pupil with similar pupils in the whole sample Example question: How does pupil C’s attainment in Number compare with the average attainments in Number for her year group and principal need in the whole sample? Answer - 3 ways (a) using the chart (b) using the averages table (c) Table of percentiles Averages for whole sample Year GroupSpeakingListening Speaking/ ListeningReadingWritingNumber 04.85.1 64.74.5 15.15.8 22.214.171.124 25.46.1 126.96.36.199
Initial Feedback (6) Schools can also use the percentiles table to see how well each pupil has done compared to similar pupils in the whole sample e.g. table for MLD pupils. ForenameSurname Year groupReading Percentile score in ReadingNumber Percentile score in Number AmyGonns 7P892P894 AishaTanni 7P787P785 GarryMorgan 7P787P894 AdamRickwood 8L2a90L392 AmyGordons 8L2b79L2a83 BenLevy 9L2b69L390 DobbyJicks 9L2b69L495 JennyKelly 10L1b6L1c3 HarryTanney 10L1a10L2c28
Average attainments for MLD pupils Year Group Using & applyingNumber 04.85.1 1 5.8 25.46.1 Average attainments for SLD pupils Year Group Using & applyingNumber 04.24.8 14.35.2 24.75.6 Cohorts of pupils Example question: How do the attainments in Mathematics of MLD pupils in my school compare with those of SLD pupils? Answer – compare the average attainment for each year group of MLD and SLD pupils (Tables are provided with feedback) Initial Feedback (7) Schools can use the initial feedback to compare attainments of cohorts of pupils:
Initial Feedback (8) Schools can use the initial feedback to compare attainments of cohorts of pupils. Average attainments of SLD pupils (School A) Year GroupReadingWriting 02.52.1 12.83.5 23.13.7 Cohorts of pupils: Example question: How do the attainments of SLD pupils of my school compare to SLD pupils of the whole sample. Answer – Compare average attainments for each year group in School averages table with average attainment for same year group in whole sample average table. (Tables are provided with feedback) Average attainments for SLD pupils (whole sample) Year GroupReadingWriting 02.22.7 12.53.7 23.43.5
Initial Feedback (9) Attainment levels from one year to the other
Initial feedback (10) Average scores by year group and ethnic origin
Value added (1) Value added measures the progress pupils make over a period of time. Should value added calculations take into account the special needs of the pupils?
Expected scores and value added in Mathematics for pupils classified as PMLD, SLD and MLD with prior and current attainments of P4 and P5 respectively Year groupPMLDSLDMLD Learning difficulty ignored Expected score Value added Expected score Value added Expected scores Value added Expected score Value added 14.2100.84.5100.55.299.84.7100.3 24.3100.74.6188.8.131.52.7100.3 34.1100.94.4100.65.0100.04.5100.5 44.1100.94.5184.108.40.206.5100.5 54.1100.94.4100.64.9100.14.4100.6 64.2100.84.4100.65.299.84.4100.6 73.9101.14.5100.55.299.84.3100.7 114.0101.04.2100.85.899.24.3100.7 124.0101.04.3100.74.8100.24.2100.8 134.0101.04.5100.55.0100.04.3100.7 144.0101.04.6100.44.4100.64.3100.7
Value added feedback (3) Value added calculation takes into consideration: –Special need category of pupil –Year group of pupil –Pupils’ prior attainment
Value added (5) Value added for pupils classified as MLD top 2.5%, top 16%, middle 68%, bottom 16%, bottom 2.5%
Value Added feedback (6) The Value Added feedback can be used to compare: Progress in different subjects Example question: How does the progress of pupil A in English compare with their progress in Mathematics or Science? Answer: Visual inspection of the value added table or using the P scales software (to be demonstrated later).
Value added (7) Progress of similar pupils Example question: How does pupil A’s progress in Mathematics compare with the progress in Mathematics of pupils of same age, special need and prior attainment. Answer: The VA table is presented by special need. The calculation also took into account age and prior attainment. Therefore direct comparison with similar pupils is possible and straightforward. You can identify, say, a Year 3 MLD pupil with prior average attainment of say 4 (P4) and compare their value added with that of another Year 3 MLD pupil of same prior attainment.
Predicted scores for coming year for pupils classified as SLD.
Setting and evaluating targets Writing End of KS1 attainment Target (Median) Challenging target (Upper Quartile) P1(i)P2(ii) P1(ii)P2(ii) P2(i)P2(ii)P3(i) P2(ii)P3(i)P4 P3(i)P3(ii)P4 P3(ii)P4P5 P4P6P7 P5P7L1c P6L1cL1a P7L1aL2c P8L2cL2b L1cL2bL3
Compare attainments with targets Higher attainment than predictedSame attainment as predictedLower attainment than predicted Names and year group Special needSpeaking Listening First nameLast nameYear group Special needs Predicted for 2009 Attained in 2009 Predicted for 2009 Attained in 2009 HannsBashir9SLDP2(ii) P2(i) HassanKenis7ASDP2(i)P2(ii) P3 GeorginaBattany6MLDP6P5P7 GeorginaGreena6ASDP5 P7 RachelBetts7PMLDP2(i) P3(i)P2(i) RachelGentt7MSIP2(i) P2(ii)P2(i) PriyadharshiniArums3ASDP3(i)P2(ii)P3(i)P4 KhiraHarunah3ASDP3(i)P4P3(i)P2(ii) SpikeClementNurseryPMLDP1(ii) P1(i) BrianBantu11SLDP5P6 P5
LA level feedback (1)
LA level feedback (2)
What does Ofsted want during school inspections? According to Ofsted, they want schools to be able to make a judgment about what they consider as satisfactory/good or better progress and be able to show why this is so for individuals. The value added calculation takes into account age, prior attainment and principal need. Therefore the value added of a pupil measures their progress relative to those of their age group and principal need that had the same prior attainment as them. Using our system, good progress would be when a child’s value added is average (100), better progress would be when the pupil’s value added is above average (above 100). This is a fair comparison because the calculation takes into account pupils of similar circumstances.
Conclusion (1) Is the P scales project successful? Only users of the feedback can say whether the P scales project is successful. A teacher said, ‘The use of the P scales and CEM’s analysis has helped to bring the schools’ assessment, recording and reporting procedures into sharper focus and as a result enabled us to ensure that we set achievable but challenging targets for pupils and the school, and has supported us in our dialogues with our School Improvement Partner. The data and its analysis also supported our school self assessment process and helped us to be judged an ‘outstanding’ school by Ofsted in 2005 and again in 2008’
Conclusion (3) Our OfSted Lead Inspector said that: In his opinion the Durham data – particularly the predicted scores and the Value Added calculations were the most useful analysis that he had seen for looking at and comparing Special School Data Nationally. Having seen Durham data in the past, he commented that this year’s (2006) analysis is the most useful to date.
Conclusions (4) ‘The feedback has assisted the school in setting objective-led targets and assessing progress for children in the Early Years, Reception class and Year 1/Year 2 class.’ The school has been using the levels extensively since their initial publication and CEM data (the feedback) greatly helps in the continuing evaluation of their use and the school’s progress.’