Evaluation and Self Review Day: 25 th May, 2015

 Support the inquiry cycle used by schools with a specific focus on how effectively your literacy approaches and strategies meet the needs of students achieving below curriculum expectations in literacy.  Rubrics are intended to help English-medium schools reflect on and use a variety of information sources to answer for themselves the evaluative questions set out in the 10 rubrics.

 Examine school practices and identify areas of strengths and needs to set actions for improvement

 Reflect and discuss previous school outcomes to identify further actions for improvement and embed sustainability. Year 3  Include final rating Year 1 or 2- school report.  What actions, strategies and thinking took place or will take place?

How well is your school accelerating your students achieving below curriculum expectations in literacy, really? What does the accelerated progress pattern look like for boys compared to girls? For Māori and Pasifika students? For English language learners? For students with special learning needs and those considered "transient‟? Who is getting "left behind‟?

What intervention programmes are currently operating in your school for students achieving below curriculum expectations in literacy? (based on what evidence or observations) How effectively and appropriately does your school choose cost –effective mix of approaches and interventions for students achieving below curriculum expectations in literacy?

 1. Strategic and successful schools  2. Schools strategically trialled a new approach  3. Schools aware of the need to accelerate progress  4. Schools with little sense of urgency. ERO Raising achievement in Primary Schools: Accelerated learning ALiM & ALL, June 2014, pg 2

ERO Accelerated Learning in Primary Schools: ALiM & ALL, June 2014, pg 8

 ERO found four distinct groups of schools of the 93 participated in ALiM and ALL.  1. Twenty-eight percent of schools (n=26) were strategic and successful in their actions to accelerate progress and had a whole school focus on underachievement.  2. Twenty-five percent of schools (n=23) had strategically trialled a new approach that had successfully accelerated progress for the students involved. They were now developing systems for the whole school to benefit from the trial. These two groups were effective as the schools responded innovatively to underachievement.

 3. Thirty-four percent of schools (n=32) were aware of the need to accelerate progress and had invested in one-off initiatives. The schools were not systematic in their practices to respond to underachievement.  4. Thirteen percent of schools (n=12) had little sense of urgency to accelerate progress and had a minimal increase in students’ achievement. These two groups were less effective as the schools responded with more-of-the-same to underachievement report. ERO Accelerated Learning in Primary Schools: ALiM & ALL, June 2014, pg 10