Presentation on theme: "Progress and performance"— Presentation transcript:
1 Progress and performance School developmentMonitoring and evaluating
2 DevelopmentSchool development has been placed in organisational culture, with a focus on learning and teachingStudies show the primacy of improvement situated in teacher-based classroom reflective study as opposed to overlaid top-down changes (Reed and Learmonth 2001), with a school’s capacity for cultural change cited as a key organisational element (Harris and Hopkins 2000).
3 DevelopmentResearchers have suggested that there can be little curriculum or school development without there first being teacher development.In Bremner and Cartwright’s study (2004) it was posited that teachers were more comfortable in setting performance indicators and pupil targets than school leaders, supportingClimaco’s (1992) research in the developmental relevance in using school-set performance indicators to develop multi-level organisational understanding of both pupil progress and school self-image of performance.
4 DevelopmentBeverton and Sewell (2002) suggest that the most effective models of school improvement come from local interpretation and implementation of larger state policy programs.Black and William (1998) offer a powerful observation that where a school focuses strongly on performance, the standard of learning declines, yet conversely where a school emphasises learning, performance increases.
5 DevelopmentPrew and Quaigrain (2010) focus on the school-level data used to drive school improvement in rural schools, linking development with teacher account giving, and Wildy and Clarke (2012) posit a taxonomy of rural school culture change from acceptance to inquiry, with the latter being an achievable driver for organisational development.Bana (2010) cites stakeholder participatory accounts and dialogue as critical to overcoming the pathology of organisational silence found in a study of rural schools, and Dubnick (2005) emphasises the development of multi-level accountability in behaviours associated with account-giving discourse.
6 factors teachers perceive as quality identifiers and descriptors Outlinecriteria which have been suggested in research for the evaluation and measurement of educational qualityfactors teachers perceive as quality identifiers and descriptorsmechanisms which are useful for producing more knowledge about schools and for increasing teachers' capacity to interpret this knowledge
7 Objectivesto design and work out a model of educational indicators that may provide a description of the performance of the system and of its basic units; these indicators are to be simple and comprehensibleto support schools in organising and developing their own information systems so that they can answer demands for accountability and use these systems in management and in grounding their decision-making processesto develop school performance images or profiles which may act as 'operative referents' for evaluation and comparability purposesto promote the policy and practice of self-evaluation and reflection at school level
8 StatementIt is assumed that 'quality change' in schools is more effective when teachers and other educational actors are involved in both the conception and planning of the change processes and in its monitoring (Bollan & Hopkins, 1987)Quality change is learnt and, as such, cannot be acquired in isolation; it involves the institution developing as a wholeScheerens (1990), Horwitz (1990) and Simons (1989)
10 Actionschool exploration of the appropriacy of potential performance indicators for pupils in the context of the English strand of the KSSR primary curriculum.From this the participating schools will develop a working model of educational indicators which provide a description of both pupil performance and the system in which this existsThe indicators are to be useable and accessible by subject practitioners and school leadership.
11 ActionThe participating teachers then incorporate the performance indicators into the subject mid-term planning as a track of pupil progression; developing capacity for data collection, then formalising data sharing.Around this, the action of the study would be to facilitate development of school-based organisational structure that supports and sustains this practice; developing data routes for collected data to be available for, and subject to, multi-level stakeholder analysis; for these groups to use the data to develop a school self-image of performance in the target subject area, promoting reflection at a teacher and school level; and inducting schools into a new discourse which would assist the development of data-driven decision making and planning.
12 TargetsParticipating teachers:Develop set of appropriate performance indicators for pupil performance in the KSSR BI strand across Level1 within negotiated domainsTo incorporate the performance indicators into mid-term planning for the subjectTo develop appropriate data collection methods, focused on producing a corpus of useable dataTo develop data routes for multi-level analysis
13 TargetsFor key school stakeholders:To develop a forum for school data analysisTo develop a school structure to support teacher data collectionTo develop a shared means of analysis to drive school development
14 ResponsibilitiesSubject Teachers:To conduct a subject audit as a basis for development of subject and phase performance indicators, taking into account curricular aims, school capacityTo integrate formalised performance indicators into mid-term planningTo formalise data collection methods through developing tools to produce a corpus of pupil data suitable for analysis
15 ResponsibilitiesKey school stakeholders:To participate in initial school exploration of performance indicesTo timetable and organise school session for key participants to share and analyse data collected by subject teachersTo produce a method of dissemination as part of the data route
16 TimeframeThe school-based exploration of performance indices, the subject audit and development of performance indicators to be completed and in place by close of first school semesterThe integration of the formalised performance indicators into mid-term planning for start of second semesterThe collection and compilation of data in a 3 week cycleThe key school stakeholders session to analyse data in mid semester period, reporting at close of second mid-semester
17 Success CriteriaAre the performance indicators suitably descriptive for pupil attainment and achievement?Do they reflect the school’s view of achievement?Do they reflect the curricular aims?Do they allow for pupil progression across identifiable learning areas?
18 Success CriteriaFor the resultant data:Have the teachers and department developed effective monitoring tools and procedures to collect data?Does it allow for larger analysis and comparison?Do teachers have regular meetings to plan based on emergent data?Is there a clear data route to facilitate multi-level analysis of corpus?
19 Success CriteriaFor the participating stakeholdersIs the school using the data to drive curricular development?Does the stakeholder analysis allow the school to develop a self-image of performance in the target subject area?
20 Measuring Performance Performance Indicators:help schools to review the effectiveness of their work with a view to enhancing improvement and sustainable developmentHelp schools report their performance to key stakeholders
21 Measuring Performance Performance Indicators:Schools decide on the indicators to be collected based on the school needsSchools use the data from the Performance Indicators to review the school development plan
22 Measuring Performance Produce data sets for the school for analysisHelp build a depiction of the school as it currently isAllows school planning from a data base
24 Teacher discussion of issues and factors that arose during the research Participating teachers will give a brief account of the process of implementing the action plan
25 Developing Performance indicators produced a strong curricular focus Prior to the performance indicators, feeling that the content of the text book was the main teaching focusThe 9 PIs give a stronger curricular focus and guide use of supporting materials, out-with the text book
26 The curricular focus gave a discrete aim for the activities Activity DesignInitially, the classroom activities were designed to measure the 9 performance indicators; during the design process, activities were more often being set at a particular band (e.g. a band 3 activity) rather than allowing a range of abilitiesThe curricular focus gave a discrete aim for the activitiesProcedure altered to take account of micro-planning; breaking a 15 minute activity into 2-3 minute stages, often administrated by the pupils
27 Assessment BandsInitially, the issue was raised of the suitability of the band descriptors to be used in a formative assessment contextBased on this issue, we followed a procedure of researching band descriptors from more developed curriculaIn development, a 6-band school-based set of descriptors for use in level 1 BI.
28 Data collection and recording Another factor identified was the ways of getting the data from the classroom, and the method of recording this for analysisThere were already formative assessment systems in place in the classroom, with pupil traffic lights, peer assessment and some use of success criteriaIn development, further ways of monitoring performance against curricular indicators were required
30 Ways forwardDevelop a set of Level 1 BI band descriptors for use in the BI classes to collect and record dataDraft an assessment policy for Level 1 BI which covers how data is collected and recorded, the time-frame of this collection process, and a data-route for the informationDevelop integral classroom practices throughout Level 1 BI to ensure the validity of data collected
31 Success CriteriaAre the performance indicators suitably descriptive for pupil attainment and achievement?Do they reflect the school’s view of achievement?Do they reflect the curricular aims?Do they allow for pupil progression across identifiable learning areas?
32 Success CriteriaFor the resultant data:Have the teachers and department developed effective monitoring tools and procedures to collect data?Does it allow for larger analysis and comparison?Do teachers have regular meetings to plan based on emergent data?Is there a clear data route to facilitate multi-level analysis of corpus?
33 Success CriteriaFor the participating stakeholdersIs the school using the data to drive curricular development?Does the stakeholder analysis allow the school to develop a self-image of performance in the target subject area?