1. Quality and Standardisation Group Grŵp Ansawdd a Safoni National School Categorisation System 2015/2016 Headteachers’ Presentation

2. Introduction As part of the agreed National Model for Regional Working, the Welsh Government and consortia have worked together to ensure a national approach to the categorisation of schools. The Minister for Education and Skills announced the introduction of the National School Categorisation System in September 2014. This approach has been revised and updated for the academic year 2015/2016.

3. Aims To enable consortia to identify quickly the support, challenge and intervention required to raise standards for learners. To be a data driven and objective profile of schools across Wales. To make sure that the right, timely challenge and intervention secures improvement in outcomes for all learners. To empower schools to become more resilient with the capacity for self-improvement.

4. Core Principles To be a collaborative process starting with the school’s self-evaluation. To be an effective tool for improving standards of achievement and attainment. To be a diagnostic tool to improve leadership, learning and teaching. To have a common categorisation, with regional flexibility on the use of resources to bring about improvement.

5. Step 1 - Standards Step 1 is the start of the professional dialogue Separate primary and secondary systems Data-driven judgement Based on 3 years’ performance Set against FSM context; Will provide a single figure indicator (1 – 4)

6. Step 1 – Standards (Primary) There have been no revisions in 2015/2016 to the Primary Step 1 indicators. Measure 1 - Overall achievement (Expected Level) Foundation Phase Indicator (FPI) Core Subject Indicator (CSI) Measure 2 - Language (Expected Level, Expected Level +1) Language, Literacy and Communication, Welsh 1 st Language, English Measure 3 - Mathematics (Expected Level, Expected Level +1) Mathematical Development, Mathematics Measure 4 - Attendance

7. Step 1 – Standards (Primary) Each individual indicator is averaged across 3 years. The three years are given different weightings: 2015 has a weighting of 3 2014 has a weighting of 2 2013 has a weighting of 1 The range of scores possible for categorisation is between 5.5 and 22.0; Standards 1 – between 5.5 and 7.5 Standards 2 – between 8 and 13.5 Standards 3 – between 14 and 19.5 Standards 4 - between 20 and 22.0 The quartile boundaries will be fixed for 3 years.

8. How the Standards Group boundaries are set (Primary) The best score a school is able to get is 5.5 (i.e. being in quarter 1 for each measure), and the worst score is 22.0 (i.e. being in quarter 4 for each measure). The category boundaries are fixed and have been set so that there is roughly a Normal distribution of schools between the categories in the first year. The category boundaries are then calculated as follows: Category 1 – [5.5, 7.5] Category 2 – [8.0, 13.5] Category 3 – [14.0, 19.5] Category 4 – [20.0, 22.0]

9. Current weightingProposed weighting Level 2 threshold including English/Welsh first language and mathematics Overall performance during the previous three years 21.5 Performance of learners eligible for free schools meals (eFSM learners) during the previous three years 21.5 Relative progress (based on overall performance)21.5 Performance set against FSM level of the school23.5 Capped points score including English/.Welsh first language and mathematics (new measure) Overall performance during the previous three years 21.5 eFSM learners’ performance during the previous three years 21.5 Relative progress (based on overall performance)21.5 Performance set against FSM level of the school23.5 Step 1 – Standards (Secondary) Changes to the weightings in 2015/2016

10. 5+ A*-A or equivalent (new measure) Overall performance during the previous three years 10.75 eFSM learners’ performance during the previous three years 10.75 Relative progress (based on overall performance) 10.75 Performance set against FSM level of the school 11.75 The overall total weight in each group of indicators remains the same however the weighting is split to allow an increased weighting to the eFSM residual element and lower weightings to the other indicators. Giving the same weighting to raw data as to contextualised indicators gives those non-deprived schools an advantage as they can off-set their shortcomings in contextualised indicators with a high raw score. In addition, this change allows schools to be questioned more robustly about the performance of all pupils, specifically those eFSM.

11. Step 1 – Standards (Secondary) There are 14 performance measures in total for secondary schools: Level 2 threshold including English/Welsh First Language and Mathematics (L2 incl. E/W & M) Overall performance during the previous three years Free School Meal (FSM) pupil performance during the previous three years Relative progress (based on overall performance) Performance set against Free School Meal (FSM) level of the school Capped Points Score including English/Welsh First Language and Mathematics Overall performance during the previous three years FSM pupil performance during the previous three years Relative progress (based on overall performance) Performance set against FSM level of the school

12. Step 1 – Standards (Secondary) 5+ A*-A or equivalent Overall performance during the previous three years FSM pupil performance during the previous three years Relative progress (based on overall performance) Performance set against FSM level of the school Absence Current performance set against FSM level of the school Persistent absentees set against FSM level of the school

13. Step 1 – Standards (Secondary) Changes to eFSM measure In 2015/2016 the assessment of the attainment of eFSM pupils at L2+ will move from step 2 to step 1. Where performance of eFSM L2EWM learners is below the agreed eFSM target (30% in 2015, 32% in 2016, 34% in 2017) the schools standards group defaults to at least a 3 on the standards axis. This replaces the previous approach in 2014/2015 where the improvement group defaulted to a C on the leadership axis. If a school achieves less than the agreed eFSM target then it cannot receive less than Yellow level of support. Where the proportion of e-FSM pupils achieving the L2+ threshold in a secondary school is below the agreed national floor target of 30% (for 2014/2015) the school cannot be treated as an exception to the matrix. However, this will ensure that an appropriate level of support is provided to meet the needs of the learners.

14. A clear target for a 3 year period will be set, this will remain as a three year average in order to generate the step 1 data. A school level target is set as follows; 2015 – 30% 2016 – 32% 2017 – 34% Setting a three year target will give schools a clear upfront target to work towards and remove any concerns in relation to changing direction throughout the school year. It will also continue to highlight the key priority of closing the gap and improving outcomes for FSM learners with the aim of achieving the 37 % target detailed in the tackling poverty action plan. Step 1 – Standards (Secondary) Changes to eFSM measure

15. Step 1 – Standards Changes to new and amalgamated schools in 2015/2016 Data will be produced for Step 1 but not published for the first full year of a schools operation – the data calculation method will remain as it is. Step 2 and Step 3 will be carried out by the consortia using step 1 to inform the process. Step 2 and Step 3 will be published on My Local School. Year 2 of operation will generate a published step 1 and will of course still have an element of historic data within the calculation. It will be weighted in favour of the most recent year but will still cover a 3 year period. It should be noted that whilst step 1 data will not be formally published, the consortia will continue to use step 1 to inform the overall process and will be expected to act upon any issues identified by the data.

16. Step 2 and step 3 of the categorisation model are led and owned by the consortia. In order to ensure that the system is transparent and consistently applied across Wales the ADEW Quality Standards Group has reviewed their supplementary guidance and have made the following refinements; Clarified and strengthened the approach to regional moderation including the development of nationally agreed documentation to support the process. Strengthened quality assurance procedures at a regional and national level. Developed a nationally agreed process for use where a school logs a disagreement with the categorisation judgement. All such cases will be referred to the relevant regional moderation board. Developed a regional moderation process and national verification process. The first meeting of the verification board will take place in December. Step 2 / Step 3 – Standards Changes for 2015/2016

17. Reviewed the rare exceptions and developed lines of enquiry for challenge advisers to use to ensure that the process for determining whether or not a school should be judged to be a rare exception is robust and applied consistently across Wales. Revised the criteria for leadership, learning and teaching to inform judgements about improvement capacity at Step 2 and to support school self- evaluation. Revisited and simplified the support category definitions which now clearly highlight the level of challenge advisor support a school could receive when placed in each category. Step 2 / Step 3 – Standards Changes for 2015/2016

18. Step 2 – Improvement Capacity A judgement of A-D is generated in relation to capacity to self-improve.

19. The process of coming to a judgement on a school’s capacity to improve begins with the school’s own self-evaluation. The judgement on capacity to improve is to do with the school’s capacity to drive its own improvement for the future and focuses on leadership, learning and teaching. This part of the process will take into account: Stakeholder engagement, including that with the LA. Inclusion and ALN. Safeguarding. Step 2 – Improvement Capacity

20. In coming to a judgement about the school’s capacity to self-improve, school leaders and school improvement professionals will use the refined criteria; Step 2 – Improvement Capacity * full version is available on WG website

21. Step 2 – Potential rare exceptions It is important that the Challenge Adviser (CA) has fully implemented Step 2 before considering any of the potential rare exceptions below to enable the grid to be overridden. Primary / Infant / Junior schools only Schools where 50% or more of pupils over the last 3 years are in receipt of free school meals. Schools with an average cohort of five or less pupils in an individual key stage or both key stages (in the case of a primary school) over the last three years. Primary / Infant /Junior and Secondary schools Schools with a registered learning resource base where a deeper analysis of data over a three-year period indicates performance is in FSM Benchmark group quarter 1 or 2 (Estyn guidance for the inspection of primary / secondary schools September 2014 – Annexe 7). Schools with 15% of pupils (in Infant / Junior / Primary) and 8% of pupils (Secondary) whose stage of English acquisition is judged to be A, B or C on the agreed National Language Acquisition Model.

22. In order that best fit is applied consistently e.g. if a school is bordering on the next category down, a Challenge Adviser will discuss with their line manager. The principle of caution will be applied in the first instance. Step 2 – Principal of ‘best fit’

23. Step 3 – Final overall support category Changes for 2015/2016 The outcomes of Step 1 and Step 2 will be combined to determine the school’s support category (Step 3 of the process). The final categorisation will be based on a colour coding system, discussed with the school and agreed with the local authority. The categorisation colour indicates the level of support a school requires – Green, Yellow, Amber or Red (with the schools in the green category needing the least support and those in the red category needing the most intensive support). Each Challenge Adviser will determine the nature of the bespoke support package to be provided to each school according to need which may result in the allocation of additional days support. This additional support could be delivered by a range of providers.

24. Step 3 – Final overall support category Changes for 2015/2016

25. Disagreement Process There is a national process that can be implemented where there is disagreement with the categorisation at step 2 or step 3. Details can be found on the consortia website.

26. Timeline 2015/2016 ActivityTimeline National Categorisation at regional level Early autumn term 2015 Regional Moderation process Early November 2015 National verification process Early January 2016 Publication of all 3 steps of categorisation on My Local School website End of January 2016

27. WG Guidance document The final detail of the National School Categorisation System can be found in the Welsh Government Guidance Document for schools, local authorities and consortia.

28. Step 2 – Improvement Capacity A judgement of A-D is generated in relation to capacity to self-improve. ‘A’ being the schools showing the most capacity to self- improve and ‘D’ being the schools showing the least capacity to self-improve.

29. The process of coming to a judgement on a school’s capacity to improve begins with the school’s own self-evaluation. The judgement on capacity to improve is to do with the school’s capacity to drive its own improvement for the future and focuses on leadership, learning and teaching. This part of the process will take into account: Stakeholder engagement, including that with the LA. Inclusion and ALN. Safeguarding. Step 2 – Improvement Capacity

30. In coming to a judgement about the school’s capacity to self-improve, school leaders and school improvement professionals consider the extent to which a school has: The capacity to lead and bring about improvement and implement the School Development Plan; A successful track record in managing change, addressing underperformance and responding to recommendations from inspection and from the consortium; Appropriate systems to review progress, monitor areas for improvement and take effective action to remedy them; High quality teaching and learning; Effective pupil tracking systems which enable school leaders to identify and target the performance of specific groups of learners; Resilience to change. Step 2 – Improvement Capacity

31. Challenge Advisers use a set of agreed indicators when making a judgement based on a school’s leadership, learning and teaching. These are applied using a best-fit evidence-based approach using professional judgement, scrutiny and dialogue within the framework; Where leadership underperforms, the Challenge Adviser should expect that the school’s leadership team has clear plans and arrangements to bring about improvement; Where overall pupil performance is declining, the school’s leadership team need to be clear that intervention will be required; The involvement of key stakeholders in the self-evaluation process influences the judgement on how well leadership is developed within the school. Step 2 – Improvement Capacity

32. Ineffective self-evaluation means that schools cannot judge well enough their areas for improvement. These schools should expect to be categorised no better than C for capacity to self-improve; Schools must have clear accountability systems which are robust and affect continuing improvement in teaching, learning, and in pupils’ outcomes; Schools should be able to demonstrate effective strategies for improving quality, which impact positively on teaching and learning. Step 2 – Improvement Capacity

33. Another key element of the framework is the learning and teaching in the school. In judging the learning and teaching, Challenge Advisers need to be assured that; All staff have well defined roles and understand their responsibilities; Clear appraisal arrangements with focused development priorities should be the norm for all teachers; Those aiming for excellence should be supported to improve and excel; Those underperforming should be clearly identified, and targeted for support and improvement within a clear timescale. Step 2 – Improvement Capacity

34. In order that best fit is applied consistently e.g. if a school is bordering on the next category down, a Challenge Adviser will discuss with their line manager. The principle of caution will be applied in the first instance. Step 2 – ‘Best fit’

35. The combination of Step 1 and Step 2 will trigger a bespoke programme of support, challenge and intervention; The final support category is formally agreed between the local authority and the consortium and a ‘colour’ of support (Green, Yellow, Amber, Red) will trigger support; The categorisation will be used to plan the targeting and deployment of resources by consortia and the Welsh Government in respect of national capacity building programmes. Step 3 – Final overall support category

36. Each Challenge Adviser will determine the nature of the bespoke support package to be provided to each school according to need. Step 3 – Final overall support category