•Progress and performance

•School development

•Monitoring and evaluating

•Development

•School development has been placed in organisational culture, with a focus on learning and teaching

•Studies 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).

•Development

•Researchers 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, supporting

•Climaco’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.

•Development

•Beverton 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.

•Development

•Prew 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.

•Outline

•criteria which have been suggested in research for the evaluation and measurement of educational quality

•factors teachers perceive as quality identifiers and descriptors

•mechanisms which are useful for producing more knowledge about schools and for increasing teachers' capacity to interpret this knowledge

•Objectives

•to 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 comprehensible

•to 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 processes

•to develop school performance images or profiles which may act as 'operative referents' for evaluation and comparability purposes

•to promote the policy and practice of self-evaluation and reflection at school level

•Statement

•It 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 whole

•Scheerens (1990), Horwitz (1990) and Simons (1989)

•Action

•Targets

•Responsibilities

•Timeframe

•Success Criteria

•Action

•school 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 exists

•The indicators are to be useable and accessible by subject practitioners and school leadership.

•Action

The 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.

•Targets

Participating teachers:•Develop set of appropriate performance indicators for pupil performance in the KSSR BI strand across Level1 within negotiated domains•To incorporate the performance indicators into mid-term planning for the subject•To develop appropriate data collection methods, focused on producing a corpus of useable data•To develop data routes for multi-level analysis

•Targets

For key school stakeholders:•To develop a forum for school data analysis•To develop a school structure to support teacher data collection•To develop a shared means of analysis to drive school development

•Responsibilities

Subject Teachers:•To conduct a subject audit as a basis for development of subject and phase performance indicators, taking into account curricular aims, school capacity•To integrate formalised performance indicators into mid-term planning•To formalise data collection methods through developing tools to produce a corpus of pupil data suitable for analysis

•Responsibilities

Key school stakeholders:•To participate in initial school exploration of performance indices•To timetable and organise school session for key participants to share and analyse data collected by subject teachers•To produce a method of dissemination as part of the data route

•Timeframe•The 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 semester •The integration of the formalised performance indicators into mid-term planning for start of second semester •The collection and compilation of data in a 3 week cycle•The key school stakeholders session to analyse data in mid semester period, reporting at close of second mid-semester

•Success Criteria

•Are 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?

•Success Criteria

•For 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?

•Success Criteria

•For the participating stakeholders•Is 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?

•Measuring Performance

•Performance Indicators:

•help schools to review the effectiveness of their work with a view to enhancing improvement and sustainable development

•Help schools report their performance to key stakeholders

•Measuring Performance

•Performance Indicators:

•Schools decide on the indicators to be collected based on the school needs

•Schools use the data from the Performance Indicators to review the school development plan

•Measuring Performance

•Produce data sets for the school for analysis

•Help build a depiction of the school as it currently is

•Allows school planning from a data base

Performance indicator focus

44%

48%

4% 2% 2%

phonic awareness vocabulary items reading strategies writing strategies speaking strategies

•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

•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 focus

•The 9 PIs give a stronger curricular focus and guide use of supporting materials, out-with the text book

•Activity Design

•Initially, 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 abilities

•The curricular focus gave a discrete aim for the activities

•Procedure altered to take account of micro-planning; breaking a 15 minute activity into 2-3 minute stages, often administrated by the pupils

•Assessment Bands

•Initially, the issue was raised of the suitability of the band descriptors to be used in a formative assessment context

•Based on this issue, we followed a procedure of researching band descriptors from more developed curricula

•In development, a 6-band school-based set of descriptors for use in level 1 BI.

•Data collection and recording

•Another factor identified was the ways of getting the data from the classroom, and the method of recording this for analysis

•There were already formative assessment systems in place in the classroom, with pupil traffic lights, peer assessment and some use of success criteria

•In development, further ways of monitoring performance against curricular indicators were required

Data collection activities in trial-cycle

13%

57%

30%

group presenting / performing for whole class paper-based testing paper-based writing production

•Ways forward

•Develop a set of Level 1 BI band descriptors for use in the BI classes to collect and record data

•Draft 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 information

•Develop integral classroom practices throughout Level 1 BI to ensure the validity of data collected

•Success Criteria

•Are 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?

•Success Criteria

•For 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?

•Success Criteria

•For the participating stakeholders•Is 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?