DATA


Colin Logan asks six key questions about how schools can


and should be using their data to help boost student performance


importance of data in evaluating performance – for example in preparation for an Ofsted inspection – but is your school making the most of your data in order not only to inform interventions and strategies for improvement but also, as importantly, to evaluate their effectiveness? Here are six quick questions to start you off.


T What data should we collect?


Schools often make the mistake of creating a shopping list of data to collect “because it might come in useful”. They often end up being “data-rich but information-poor”. Far better to start with the questions that you want


the data to help you answer, and then identify what data you need. For example: “Are our most able students achieving as much as they should?”


Do all staff understand what we want?


If colleagues do not understand what you are asking for, there is a fair chance that the resulting data will either be of little use or could even lead you down the wrong track. For example, there is a huge difference between “estimates”, “predictions” and “targets”. Agree your


Union address: NAHT Ofsted: Yet more changes


School inspection is shifting again after Ofsted


unveiled a number of changes for September. Russell Hobby looks at some of the key points


THE RESULTS of the consultation on Ofsted’s new framework are in. There was, shall we say, a little bit of unhappiness with the original proposals, much of it eloquently expressed in the pages of SecEd. This was stoked by an unnecessary escalation of


rhetoric culminating in the “stress” faux pas. Really, we need a government that knows how to inspire as well as condemn (the funny thing is, inspiration works). The retreat on no-notice inspections was clearly


foreshadowed – it will be short notice rather than no-notice. This is important. A headteacher has a right to be present in a school when it is inspected; not only because it is a make or break moment in their career, not only because Ofsted is supposed to be inspecting their leadership, but mostly because the performance of inspection teams is so variable it requires a confident leader in situ to challenge them. It is disappointing that there is nothing in the new proposals to address this quality issue. Although no-notice attracted the most attention,


some of the other changes are more interesting if a little more subtle. There has been some watering down in the changes to the new “requires improvement” category which is to replace “satisfactory”. The “three strikes and you’re out” approach,


where a school will go into special measures on its third requires improvement judgement in a row will now not be automatic; still likely though. The inspection cycle will be extended from one to


two years. Most importantly, requires improvement will not make a school eligible for intervention and, therefore, forced academisation. That’s big. These are important changes to a set of proposals


that threatened to tip large numbers of schools over the brink into failure without any corresponding support. Nothing could have been more detrimental to the progress already being made in our education system. In any case, we are seeing an increase in the number school leaders, including good and outstanding ones, who are seeking retirement rather than face another round of ritual humiliation: it doesn’t matter how sharp your accountability system is if there is no-one to hold accountable. The level of hostility between the profession and


government is such that these changes are unlikely to reduce tension by themselves. The government often faces a dilemma – engage the profession or secure the headline. Too frequently it opts for the latter. The changes also leave much undone. The Parent View website remains a threat


to successful leadership; its unverified and unrepresentative judgements, married to the amplifying effects of social media, risk exposing schools to campaigns that would make The X Factor look like a dignified evaluation process. As Sir Michael Wilshaw knows only too well, sometimes you need to make unpopular decisions. We also need action on the quality of the inspection


process. This is too variable and too subjective. Frequent changes of framework mean even the inspectors struggle to keep pace, and decisions on the ground seldom match the aspirations at the centre. Too few inspectors have recent and relevant


experience in the schools they are inspecting; and the conflict will make recruiting serving leaders even harder. It cannot be right when large chunks of reports are cut and pasted from each other; or when minds are made up before the inspection has begun. We need to think more radically still. Evaluation


and external challenge should be part of our professional habits, not imposed from outside. We will listen to difficult news from someone we trust when we might react with anger and defensiveness to the same views from a stranger. Indeed, one of the highest costs of the constant


criticism of the profession is that it makes it difficult to hear legitimate concerns. A peer-to-peer model of inspection could strengthen the bonds between schools in a time of fragmentation, really connect feedback to improvement, and (perhaps) make Ofsted itself less relevant.


• Russell Hobby is general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers. Visit www.naht.org.uk


he former president of Italy, Romano Prodi, once said of Silvio Berlusconi: “The prime minister clings to data like a drunk to a lamppost – more for support than illumination.” Most schools now realise the


Six steps to using data well


own simple definitions and ensure that these are includ- ed in all requests given to staff.


Do you use different sources?


RAISEonline and Fischer Family Trust (FFT), for example, both provide value-added analyses of your school’s performance but they each use different models. RAISE is now totally context-free, although it does give separate analyses for large numbers of vulnerable groups. FFT, on the other hand, currently


includes at least gender and month of birth in all its models. Both have value, but you do need to be aware of these differences before drawing any conclusions.


Do we have a whole-school system?


A school tracking system needs to satisfy several potentially conflicting requirements. It should be comprehensive – including whole-school, subject- level, SEN, gifted and talented and behaviour and attendance data, for example – but also needs to be


Talking CPD Lessons from Alberta


Many of the world’s best education systems have learnt


that collaboration works. So why haven’t we? Phil Parker explains


I RECENTLY spent some time working with schools in Redcar and Cleveland, an experience which reaffirmed my belief in what can be achieved against the odds of the prevailing climate in education. The senior leaders I met talked about the


importance of collaboration. Not competition you’ll notice. Far from it, they are actively working together to develop their schools and provide a range of opportunities for students and teachers alike. They share teachers, a crucial factor in these days


of limited budgets; students get to study a course by visiting another school. Furthermore, there isn’t the tension between students from different schools that you might expect. As one head told me: “Students from other


schools go into the playground and mix with our students readily. I’ve seen some of our kids even pay for food in the canteen for someone who’s visiting us. It’s just part of how we are as a community.” I was running an event looking at creating a


common “language of learning” across the schools, a way to potentially bring students and teachers from their schools even closer together. The atmosphere was relaxed, positive and constructive. During lunch, a teacher from one school popped out to see an NQT she had helped train who was now teaching in the host school. There was warmth here, discussion centred on how well she had settled in, what innovations she was planning, and how some of her ideas had been derived from her experiences in her training school. Collaboration. You can imagine how that word


will be treated with distrust in the murky heart of the Department for Education. It isn’t part of the brave new world envisioned by our political master who has modelled his strategy for global dominance on the highest scoring, British-speaking education system in


the world – Alberta in Canada. But this is where the strategy falters. The emphasis on competition in this Canadian state has been abandoned – and what for? Collaboration. Edgar Schmidt, superintendent for Edmonton’s


public schools, says: “We’ve been able to change the rhetoric to less of competition and more about collaboration and co-operation. After all, who are we competing against?” In Alberta, the role of head is one of “instructional


leader”. They are (as the name suggests) teachers first and foremost. They lead the collaboration between schools in their district and meet regularly to find out how they can collectively improve the education of their communities. There is still choice, but choice doesn’t have to be driven by competition. It can be driven by co-operation. It appears to be so different in Britain doesn’t it?


The discussions at events I’ve attended have focused on two issues – fear; as in those schools where staff are not allowed out on courses because a “no-notice” inspection is imminent. The second is risk; where innovation is stifled because it can adversely affect that small percentage of the student population which could cause a slight drop in pupil achievement. Last September, a report by the All-Party


Parliamentary Group for Education, Overcoming the Barriers to Literacy, identified one barrier as being the lack of CPD. It showed a substantial number of teachers didn’t possess the expertise needed to address this fundamental problem, one which sits at the heart of the new inspection framework too. What is happening is that most schools are busy


re-inventing the wheel in isolation. Local authorities are not there to provide the support, bringing in experts costs money that can be ill afforded right now. Surely the answer lies in collaboration? It does in


Alberta. They’ve realised there is success to be found in working co-operatively rather than competitively. Redcar and Cleveland are starting to do the same thing. We can only hope other areas learn the lesson from Alberta.


• Phil Parker is an ex-senior leader of a successful school and is now a director of Student Coaching Ltd. Visit www.studentcoaching.co.uk


Further information


Information about the Alberta strategy can be found at www.teachersmedia.co.uk/videos/autonomy-choice -and-competition


tailored to suit its different audiences. Governors and classroom teachers will need their own bespoke summary data reports which will be different to those produced for senior and middle leaders. If your tracking system is fragmented – perhaps


with separate systems in different subjects or for SEN or gifted and talented – your ability to use the data effectively and in a proactive manner will be seriously weakened.


Do we have a data gatekeeper?


Having one person with overall responsibility for data collection, analysis and dissemination is fine. Having someone who owns the data and decides what everyone else can see, is not. You need a clear policy on what you collect and


why, who does what with it and when, who then gets a report and in what format and what they are then supposed to do with it. But you also need your staff to share ownership of the data and to be able to interrogate it themselves (obviously within certain limits). It is amazing how often I come across heads of


English and maths, for example, who have never seen RAISEonline or who have only been given a copy of one chart or table. Schools that do not allow middle leaders to interrogate RAISE and FFT are missing a trick in their drive to raise achievement.


Do we use data to evaluate impact?


Schools are good at saying what they do but less so in demonstrating the impact. All interventions – one- to-one, behaviour and attendance and SEN support, homework clubs and the rest – cost money. But does your school take time to evaluate how successful they are, for example in terms of improved attendance, attainment and progress, and then use that information either to do more of the same or to stop and start doing something else? Most schools find it helpful to undertake a


thorough self-evaluation or to have an objective review of their data and assessment practice and how it operates at all levels – teachers, leaders, governors and parents – to make sure that their data provides both support and illumination.


SecEd


• Colin Logan is a former headteacher and senior advisor with the National Strategies. He is currently head of performance data at The Schools Network.


12


SecEd • June 14 2012


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16