1 / 56

Oak Wood Primary

Oak Wood Primary. Review of Pupil Progress 2011 - 2012. Intro.

tadita
Télécharger la présentation

Oak Wood Primary

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Oak Wood Primary Review of Pupil Progress 2011 - 2012

  2. Intro • The ‘quadrangulation’ process enables the analysis of different forms of data, ranging from ‘hard’ or ‘raw’ data (such as comparisons against National Progression data) to ‘soft’ or ‘contextualised’ data (such as attendance). The aim throughout is to structure the data conversation answering the “so what?” combining information from a range of sources, and ultimately providing evidence to support teacher judgement on progression • The plan is that this can then be used to meet with external bodies, report to governors and that eventually subject coordinators will use the same template for their analysis of subject data

  3. 1. Achievement compared against National Data (e.g. National Progression Guidance, CASPA) 2. Progression compared against school’s expectation Overall judgement and Action 4. Professional judgment including context of year 3. Achievement compared against own targets and previous rate of progress Quadrangulation Outstanding Good Satisfactory Inadequate

  4. The Process • Quads 1 and 2 are for analysis of ‘hard’ data and so are purely statistical e.g. “80% of pupils progressed as expected in line with National Progression guidance” • Quads 3 and 4 are for analysis of ‘contextualised’ data and if relevant how this affects pupil progress. As such there is some element of judgement based upon professional knowledge of the context, • The ‘quadrangulation’ process moves through the quads in order. • However before you can determine how well a group / individual pupil has progressed against the school’s expectations you first need to calculate the group’s / individual’s progression. Analysis of pupils progression will then inform the benchmark for the school’s expectations of what is good / outstanding progress which takes into consideration National Progression Guidance

  5. National Progression Guidance

  6. Warwickshire guidance criteria for describing pupil progress at the end of each year

  7. Warwickshire guidance criteria for describing pupil progress over a Key Stage

  8. These are figures generated from Oak Wood Primary’s overall figures on achievement 2011-12 with respect to National Progression Guidance For 2011-12 we have set the Oak Wood Expectations at the same level as the National Progression Guidance (except for PMLD following on from the work during the previous year), this was in light of the changing cohort of pupils – much more complex, and that we also knew that the BSquared baseline data for our pupils entering Key Stage 1 was uncertain and therefore the National Guidance is our default position. Therefore this year for quadrangulation purposes Quad 1 and 2 are the same

  9. Whole School Over arching viewpoint of whole school context: • Achievement • Progression • Individual Education Plans • Impact of behaviour and attendance upon progression When comparing progression against National (unless comparing Key Stages (KS)), progress will be extrapolated across Key Stage 2. At present data from Early Years into KS1 is inconsistent and as such there is no progression guidance for KS1 (the Department for Education has said it will be releasing guidance during the year). Warwickshire Guidance is based upon National Progression and so we will use this

  10. Whole School Progression Compared Against National Expectations Narrative: Using CASPA comparisons, 80% of pupils progressed above the CASPA expectation (2010-11 25%). Analysis of whole school data shows an average progression of 1.4 levels (2010-11 1.1), which across the Key Stage (KS) compared against National Progression guidance (Upper Quartile (UQ) = 3 levels) shows an average progression of: KS1 – 2.8 levels which is Good progress KS2 – 5.6 levels which is Outstanding progress Traffic light graph for core subjects progression

  11. Key Stage 1 - 2 Progression Narrative: CASPA analysis of end of Yr 3 results to end of Yr 6 shows that all pupils make at least expected progress with all bar 2 pupils make above expected progress. CASPA suggests that there is a slight difference in progression between the subjects over the Key Stage, however closer analysis of data shows compared to National Expectations 78% of pupils make Outstanding progress, and that over the last year 5 out of 6 pupils made outstanding progress in Literacy and Science, 100% in Maths. The 1 pupil who made good progress had significant health problems in Yr 6 which affected specific parts of learning. Data shows that pupils make good to Outstanding progress in relation to their starting points and when compared against other schools nationally pupils at Oak Wood make Outstanding progress.

  12. Key Stage Progression Compared Against National Expectations Narrative: Analysis of CASPA data shows the same proportion of pupils in KS1 & KS2 progressing above CASPA expectations with no pupils not meeting CASPA expectations. Closer analysis of key stage data shows 84% of pupils in KS1progress above UQ at an average of 1.5 (3 across the KS), KS2 = 1.1 (4.4 across the KS) and therefore both show Outstanding progress compared against National Expectations of above 3 levels Traffic light graph for core subjects progression

  13. ASD Whole School Achievement Compared Against School Expectations Narrative: Achievement – Analysis of targets shows that 80% of targets were met or exceeded which is outstanding. Closer analysis shows that 31% of targets were exceeded at an average of 0.1 levels per pupil , which compared to last year suggests that targets are much more rigorous. Average targeted progression for the Key Stages would expect KS1 = 2.2 levels, KS3 = 2.4 which would mean KS2 = 2 levels which would mean good progress , again comparing to last year suggesting that teachers are being more aspirational in the target setting. Actual pupil progression was outstanding and so this suggests that the target setting process is not as rigorous as it could be, and therefore the judgement reflects this. The use of Progression Guidance materials was introduced during the 2011-12 academic year and so targets set for July 2013 should reflect this. This slide is linked to the Excel ‘super tool’ to demonstrate individual achievement against own targets for the year, and subsequently progress against school’s expectations

  14. Whole School Contextual Data • Narrative for contextualisation and consideration of further soft data e.g. physical interventions, consideration of absence records, social contexts of individuals etc. These can have dramatic impact when the ‘vulnerable group’ consists of a very small number of children. Especially valuable when using the ‘quadrangulation’ to scrutinise individual child achievement • Narrative • Whole School 2010-11 Baseline Data validated by Local Authority for year on year analysis • External moderation of work validates the judgements given by teachers when assessing work • Introduction of professional judgement based upon all evidence alongside existing systems supports accurate judgement rather than relying upon tick list • Introduction of sublevels for attainment levels supports more accurate predictions for progression, and the introduction of progression guidance during the year for teachers has supported more rigorous target setting for 2012-13 and therefore will be able to be analysed next year. • Extension of Early Years curriculum into KS1 promoting learning in a more appropriate way for the needs of our pupils • IEP target setting more rigorous and introduction of Key Skills referencing to ensure Key Skills are at the forefront of teaching, with a clear process for monitoring appropriateness of target setting

  15. Analysis of IEP Objectives • Narrative • Whole school average of 2.9 targets met out of 3 • 94% (60 pupils) achieved all 3 objectives • 5% (3 pupils) achieved 2 objectives: • Pupil was reluctant to dress independently but will do so at Dad’s house. Mum has not had much success at home and like school, feels that he is easily distracted rather than lacking the skills. School/home will continue to work on this but not as an IEP. • Pupil was able to complete the tasks with verbal prompts and minimal adult support. The targets were reviewed and changed regularly but these actions did not enable pupil to complete the objective in full. • Pupil did not achieve targets 1a and 1c, has made progress, however not able to complete consistently • 2% (1 pupil) did not achieve any objectives: • Pupil was absent from school for whole of Autumn term and so did not have opportunity to work on all targets. For each objective pupil achieved 2 out of the 3 targets

  16. Whole School Contextual Data • Narrative for contextualisation and consideration of further soft data e.g. physical interventions, consideration of absence records, social contexts of individuals etc. These can have dramatic impact when the ‘vulnerable group’ consists of a very small number of children. Especially valuable when using the ‘quadrangulation’ to scrutinise individual child achievement • Behaviour – • Analysis of progress for 19 pupils with recorded physical interventions (PIs) show 1.5 levels of progression, which is Outstanding progress, however it is important the we concentrate upon minimising disruption to the individual’s learning • When looking at personal IEP targets for pupils with PIs –all pupils achieved all 3 of their objectives (compared to whole school average of 2.9), suggesting that pupils needs are being met • Attendance – • Whole School Attendance for 2011-12 was 93.2% (2010 – 2011 was 91.8%) which was above the school target of 92% • 38 pupils below school average , (17 Reception, 9 KS1, 12 KS2) • Local Authority Threshold for attendance is 85%, • 10 pupils below 85% attendance, (4 pupils N1 age) Analysis of progression for this group shows an average of 1.4 levels of progression, which is Outstanding progress, and shows the impact of a school development priority on supporting low attendees. • 1 pupil had a significant absence due to an operation ,( 54.4% attendance) - discussed above in IEP analysis, progression was 2.2 levels • 1 pupil had 77.3% attendance. There was close liaison with home and support for Mum. Progress was 1.4 levels • Progression for these 2 pupils shows impact of supports put in place (close home school liaison)

  17. Review of Whole School • National / Oak Wood Expectation: • Upper Quartile Progression: = KS1– 3, KS2 -3 • Outstanding Progression: • KS1 ≥75% pupils >0.75levels per year (above UQ progression) • KS2 ≥ 75% pupils >0.75 levels per year (above UQ progression) • KS1: 1.5 levels per year = 3 levels across Key Stage. 100% of pupils achieved at least 0.75 levels progress • KS2: 1.1 levels per year = 4.4 levels across Key Stage. 97%of pupils achieved at least 0.75 levels progress • IEP • Whole school average of 2.9 targets met out of 3 • 94% of pupils achieved all 3 objectives. • Behaviour – • 19 pupils with recorded PIs show: • 1.5 levels of progress (Outstanding) • All pupils achieved all 3 objectives • Pupils with behavioural challenges progress less well than their peers • Attendance – • Attendance for 2011-2012 was 92.3% above target of 92% • 10 pupils below 85% attendance (LA Threshold), • average of 1.4 levels of progression – Outstanding • 2 pupils with significant absence made Outstanding progress, showing impact of work through year to support low attendees • 80% of targets were met or exceeded • 31% of targets were exceeded • Average target = 0.7 • Targets exceeded by average 0.1 • Targets much more rigorous, however need to ensure aspirational • (Judgement reflects concerns with target setting process)

  18. Whole School • 1. Achievement compared against National Data • 2. Progression compared against school’s expectation • 3. Achievement compared against own targets and previous rate of progress • 4. Professional judgment including context of year Overall Judgement =

  19. Action Plan for Whole School • Assessment: • Ensure teachers are aware of ‘where child is at’ and their next steps in learning, using ongoing assessment strategies • Replacement of B Squared with I Can Statements to support professional judgement and record lateral progression, linking with EYFS to ensure secure baselining • Communication strategies - standardising key vocabulary and symbolisation • Developing early reading and writing skills • Develop systems for recording and reporting behaviour incidents to ensure timely interventions can be introduced to support pupils

  20. Vulnerable Groups Comparison of Vulnerable Groups as compared to whole school context: • Achievement • Progression • Individual Education Plans • Impact of behaviour and attendance upon progression When commenting upon progression, progress will be extrapolated across Key Stage 2. At present data from Early Years into KS1 is inconsistent (the Department for Education will be releasing guidance during the year) and as such Ofsted / DfE / LA will look at progression across Key Stage 2

  21. Gender - Progression Narrative: In general boys are over-represented in the school cohort and so girls are a vulnerable group. Analysis of data shows that boys make an average of 1.4 levels, compared to girls 1.3 levels. The difference is not significant when other analysis is undertaken. Compared against National Expectations progression is outstanding for boys and girls, with a very slightly higher proportion of girls making Outstanding progress. This shows an impact from the whole school priority to ensure the curriculum meets the needs of girls

  22. FSM - Progression (Pupils for whom we receive Pupil Premium Grant) Narrative: CASPA data suggests that there is a difference in progression between pupils who receive Free School Meals and the whole school average, however closer analysis shows that pupils make Outstanding progress and in fact out perform the whole school average. Children who receive FSM make an average of 1.5 levels of progression with 92% of pupils making above UQ / Outstanding progress: KS1: 3 levels across the Key Stage = Outstanding KS2: 6 levels across the Key Stage = Outstanding

  23. LAC - Progression Narrative: Even though the numbers of children who are Looked After are small the data shows that pupils who are Looked After progress at least as well as their peers. This shows that pupil’s emotional needs are being met to ensure that children who are Looked After are not disadvantaged and progress well. Analysis of data shows that children who are Looked After make an average of 1.4 levels with 100% of pupils making Outstanding progress, which is outstanding compared against both National and Oak Wood expectations: KS2: 5.6 levels across the Key Stage = Outstanding

  24. EAL - Progression Narrative: The data shows that for pupils who have English as an additional language there a slight difference in progression, depending upon the source of data either slightly better or worse, however the amount is not significant and the group is small and so differences are at a very individual level. CASPA data shows that 100% of pupils make above expected progress. Closer analysis of data shows that Children with EAL make an average of 1.3 levels of progress (compared to the whole school average of 1.4) with 100% making Outstanding progress. KS1: 2.6 levels across the Key Stage = Good KS2: 5.2 levels across the Key Stage = Outstanding

  25. Ethnicity - Progression Narrative: CASPA analysis shows that 86% of pupils who are not White British / other make above expected progress, compared to 79% of pupils who are White British. Closer data analysis shows a difference in the average progression (1.2 compared to 1.4) which across a Key Stage is significant, however looking at he proportions of pupils making Outstanding progress shows that 100% of pupils who are not White British make outstanding progress. Due to the relatively small numbers within the different ethnic groups the progression data is affected by individuals, and so differences will be investigated at an individual level. Overall the data suggests that pupils who are in an ethnic minority are not at a disadvantage at Oak Wood Primary

  26. Vulnerable Groups ASD Narrative: Overall vulnerable groups are not disadvantaged at Oak Wood Primary School, and in some cases out perform the whole school average. The data last year suggested two vulnerable groups, girls and EAL, were underperforming and through a focus on the curriculum this year these gaps have been reduced

  27. Vulnerable Groups - Achievement ASD • Narrative: • Achievement – When comparing the percentage of targets met / not met / exceeded (whole school – 49%/21%/31%), there is some difference between the vulnerable group and their peers: • LAC – 87.5% met / 12.5% not met • Ethnicity other than White British – 33% met / 33% not met / 33% exceeded • This may indicate lower expectations for these sub-groups, however generally both are small groups and so individual performance will affect the data significantly: • The group of pupils who are LAC are the most able group, and the difference in target / actual is on average 0.1 suggesting that the targets set are accurate., however there is an issue with progression guidance for pupils working at NC levels which will be discussed later • Ethnicity – 1 pupil had significant medical issues (increased seizural activity) which affected speech and language, 1 pupils made 1.2 levels and 1.0 levels of progress but missed out on 2 targets suggesting that the targets were very aspirational • As mentioned within the whole school narrative their is a need to review the target setting process to ensure targets are challenging and aspirational, hence overall judgement. This slide is linked to the Excel ‘super tool’ to demonstrate individual achievement against own targets for the year, and subsequently progress against school’s expectations

  28. VulnerableGroups • Narrative for contextualisation and consideration of further soft data e.g. physical interventions, consideration of absence records, social • contexts of individuals etc. These can have dramatic impact when the ‘vulnerable group’ consists of a very small number of children. Especially • valuable when using the ‘quadrangulation’ to scrutinise individual child achievement • Behaviour • Pupils in vulnerable groups are not over represented in the behaviour data, and behaviour has already been discussed with no impact achievement • Attendance • There is a slight difference in attendance between the groups, however the attendance for each group has improved, indicating the impact of the work carried out through the year. The attendance for girls was very low 2010-11 and though has improved is the one group below the school average and so we need to ensure that the good work carried out so far continues • IEP • There is no significant difference between groups, however pupils within the vulnerable groups meet a slightly higher proportion of their IEP targets • The data suggests that pupils within vulnerable groups are not disadvantaged at Oak Wood Primary School

  29. Review of Vulnerable Groups • National / Oak Wood Expectation: • Upper Quartile Progression: = KS1– 3, KS2 -3 • Outstanding Progression: • KS1 ≥75% pupils >0.75 levels per year (above UQ progression) • KS2 ≥ 75% pupils >0.75 levels per year (above UQ progression) • Boys:91% of boys make Outstanding progress, at an average of 1.4 levels per year • Girls:92% of girls make Outstanding progress at an average of 1.3 levels per year • Free School Meals: 92% of pupils make Outstanding progress at an average of 1.5 per year • Looked After Children: 100% of pupils make Outstanding progress at an average of 1.4 per year • English as an Additional Language: 100% of pupils make Outstanding progress at an average of 1.3 levels per year • Ethnicity: 100% of pupils make Outstanding progress at an average of 1.2 levels per year • Behaviour • Pupils in vulnerable groups are not over represented in the behaviour data, and behaviour has already been discussed with no impact achievement • Attendance • There is a slight difference in attendance between the groups, however the attendance for each group has improved markedly, indicating the impact of the work carried out through the year. Girls still slightly below whole school average • IEP • pupils within the vulnerable groups meet a slightly higher proportion of their IEP targets • The data suggests that pupils within vulnerable groups are not disadvantaged at Oak Wood Primary School & do well • Some difference between the vulnerable group and their peers • LAC – 87.5% met / 12.5% not met • Ethnicity other than White British – 33% met / 33% not met / 33% exceeded • may indicate lower expectations • LAC are the most able group, and the difference in target / actual is on average 0.1 • Ethnicity – 1 pupil had significant medical issues (increased seizural activity), 1 pupils made 1.2 levels and 1.0 levels of progress but missed out on 2 targets suggesting that the targets were very aspirational • (Judgement reflects concerns with target setting process, also discussed in Whole School)

  30. Vulnerable Groups • 1. Achievement compared against National Data • 2. Progression compared against school’s expectation • 3. Achievement compared against own targets and previous rate of progress • 4. Professional judgment including context of year Judgement for Vulnerable Groups =

  31. Action Plan for Vulnerable Groups • Continue with introduction of the use of progression materials to ensure target setting for the different vulnerable groups is challenging and aspirational • Develop strategies to support the development of pupils' mental health and well-being; Training on Attachment Disorder and brain trauma • Primary / Secondary – sensory diets : • Part of school day / timetable / integral t o support pupils to prepare and be ready to learn

  32. Groups of pupils by learning need and difficulty Comparison of Groups compared to whole school context: • Achievement • Progression • Individual Education Plans • Attendance • Impact of interventions There is a lack of clarity for guidance for pupils who are working in the National Curriculum Levels and the relation to progression across the Plevels. i.e. CASPA assign 1 point for P7-P8 progression and 1 point for NC1C to NC1B, this causes anomalies for science without a CBA breakdown, and for levels above NC2 when 1 level progression equals 3 points. Therefore we see 1 whole NC level whether NC1,2,3 etc as 1 level progression and will use DfE expectations of at least 2 levels progress, however Oak Wood Expectations for pupils with MLD are based upon our knowledge of SEN and are the same as SLD progression . We accept that due to the anomaly our pupils with MLD will not be seen to achieve as well, however will continue to use whatever measures are available

  33. PMLD Narrative: The attainment of our pupils with PMLD shows that they fall within the upper range of PMLD nationally.

  34. PMLD - Progression Narrative: The PMLD cohort is small, however CASPA analysis shows 100% made above expected progress. Closer analysis of data shows that 92% of pupils made Outstanding progress at an average of 1.3 levels per year: Further analysis shows: KS1 = 1 pupil - 1.0 level, across Key stage is 2 levels – National Expectations = Good, Outstanding compared against Oak Wood Expectations (>1.6) KS2: 6 pupils – average 1.4 levels across Key Stage is 5.6 – Outstanding compared against both National and Oak Wood expectations

  35. PMLD - Achievement ASD Narrative: Achievement Analysis of targets set shows that 95% of targets set for pupils with PMLD were met, with an average difference of 0.2 levels between the set target and actual progression, which shows an improvement on last year suggesting that the targets were more accurate. Average target progression was 0.7 levels which would be Good for KS1 and Outstanding for KS2, suggesting that teachers are being aspirational, even though more pupils exceeded their targets than last year and than the whole school average This will hyperlink to the Excel ‘super tool’ to demonstrate individual progress against own targets for the year.

  36. PMLD • Narrative for contextualisation and consideration of further soft data e.g. physical interventions, consideration of absence records, social contexts of individuals etc. These can have dramatic impact when the ‘vulnerable group’ consists of a very small number of children. Especially valuable when using the ‘quadrangulation’ to scrutinise individual child achievement • Narrative: • There has been continued whole school work with the development of the curriculum to ensure it meets the needs of all pupils, including the embedding of Routes for Learning, • IEP • All pupils met their 3 IEP targets • Attendance • Attendance for 2011-12 was 88.6% (an improvement on 2010 – 2011 was 83.3%), however below the whole school average of 92.3% • 5 pupils had attendance below the whole school average, however there were 2 pupils with attendance below the LA threshold of 85% • Of these two pupils – one pupils was in N1 and the other made 1.4 levels of progression and met all their IEP targets • Pupils with PMLD, due the nature of their disability have significant health issues, however analysis of the data shows that progression has not been significantly affected by levels of attendance, however this is an area for development to ensure time in school is maximised, and absence doesn't affect progression

  37. Review of Pupils with PMLD • National / Oak Wood Expectation: • Upper Quartile Progression: = KS1– 3, KS2 -3 • Outstanding Progression: • KS1 ≥75% pupils >0.75levels per year (above UQ progression) • KS2 ≥ 75% pupils >0.75 levels per year (above UQ progression) • PMLD = 83% of pupils make above UQ progress, at an average of 1.3 levels per year • KS1 : 1.0 levels = 2 across Key Stage – Good • KS3: 1.4 levels – 5.6 across Key Stage - Outstanding • Oak Wood Expectations for PMLD; • Outstanding 75% pupils >1.6 levels across KS • PMLD = 100% of pupils make Outstanding progress • KS1: 1 level per year = 2 levels • KS2: 1.4 levels per year = 5.6 levels • Continued development of the curriculum to ensure it meets the needs of all pupils, including the embedding of Routes for Learning, • IEP • All pupils met their 3 IEP targets • Attendance • Attendance 88.6% (2010-11 83.3%) • 2 pupils below LA 85% threshold – one pupil N1, one pupil made 1.4 levels progress – Outstanding. • Pupils with PMLD, due the nature of their disability have significant health issues, however analysis of the data shows that progression has not been affected by levels of attendance, • 95% of targets set for pupils with PMLD were met (2010-11 71% met) • 45% exceeded by an average of 0.2 levels (2010-11 29% by an average of 0.5) • Average target progression was 0.7 levels which would give Outstanding progression compared against Oak Wood Expectations

  38. PMLD • 1. Achievement compared against National Data • 2. Progression compared against school’s expectation • 3. Achievement compared against own targets and previous rate of progress • 4. Professional judgment including context of year Judgement for PMLD =

  39. Action Plan for PMLD • Assessment: • Ensure teachers are aware of ‘where child is at’ and their next steps in learning, using ongoing assessment strategies • Replacement of B Squared with I Can Statements to support professional judgement and record lateral progression, linking with EYFS to ensure secure baselining • Communication strategies - standardising key vocabulary and symbolisation • Developing early reading and writing skills

  40. SLD Narrative: The attainment of our pupils with SLD shows that they fall within the wide range of SLD nationally, however the distribution is slightly skewed towards attainment in the upper 50%

  41. SLD - Progression Narrative: CASPA data shows that 82% of pupils with SLD progress above expected. Closer analysis of data shows that 92% of pupils made Outstanding progress at an average of 1.5 levels per year which is Outstanding Further analysis shows: KS1 = 16 pupils – average 1.7 levels, across Key stage is 3.4 levels – Outstanding compared against National and Oak Wood Expectations KS2: 23 pupils – average 1.3 levels across Key Stage is 5.2 – Outstanding compared against both National and Oak Wood expectations

  42. SLD - Achievement ASD Narrative: Achievement Analysis of targets set shows a similar profile to that of the whole school. 78% of targets were at least met with 34% exceeded by an average difference of 0.2 levels, compared to 2010-11 where 72% of targets were exceeded by an average of 1.3. Pupils make outstanding progress and do meet targets set. The data suggests that targets are accurate and with an average target of 0.8 levels per year (KS1 = 1.6 – requires improvement, KS2 = 3.2 – Outstanding) they are more aspirational than last year. The introduction of Progression Guidance materials for target setting for 2012-13 should increase challenge of targets. Judgement reflects lack of challenge for targets in KS1 This will hyperlink to the Excel ‘super tool’ to demonstrate individual progress against own targets for the year.

  43. SLD • Narrative for contextualisation and consideration of further soft data e.g. physical interventions, consideration of absence records, social contexts of individuals etc. These can have dramatic impact when the ‘vulnerable group’ consists of a very small number of children. Especially valuable when using the ‘quadrangulation’ to scrutinise individual child achievement • Narrative: • IEP • Analysis of IEP data shows that pupils with SLD met 2.9 of their targets which is in line with the whole school average • Attendance • Attendance for 2011-12 was 92.5% (2010 – 2011 91.1%), compared to 92.3% for the whole school • 19 pupils had attendance below the whole school average • 5 pupils had attendance levels below the LA 85% threshold • The average progression for this group of pupils was 1.5 levels – slightly above the whole school level, and therefore shows that attendance has little impact upon progression • 2 pupils’ attendance was significantly below : • 54.4% - pupil had a significant operation and missed 1 full term (discussed in Whole School) • 77.3% - persistent absentee, as discussed in Whole School absence • As discussed earlier both made Outstanding progress showing impact of home support

  44. Review of Pupils with SLD • National / Oak Wood Expectation: • Upper Quartile Progression: = KS1– 3, KS2 -3 • Outstanding Progression: • KS1 ≥75% pupils >0.75levels per year (above UQ progression) • KS2 ≥ 75% pupils >0.75 levels per year (above UQ progression) • SLD – 92% of pupils made at least UQ / Outstanding progress • KS1: 84% of pupils made at least UQ / Outstanding progress at an average of 1.7 levels. Across Key stage is 3.4 levels = Outstanding compared against National and Oak Wood Expectations • KS2: 100% of pupils made at least UQ / Outstanding progress at an average of 1.3 levels . Across Key Stage is 5.2 levels = Outstanding compared against both National and Oak Wood expectations • IEP • Analysis of IEP data shows that pupils with SLD met 2.9 of their targets in line with whole school • Attendance • Attendance = 92.5% (2010-11 91.1 • 19 pupils had attendance below the whole school average of 92.3% • 5 pupils had attendance levels below the LA 85% threshold • The average progression for this group of pupils was 1.5 levels • 2 pupils with significant absence (as discussed in Whole School Absence) both made Outstanding progress • 44% of targets met (2010-11 26% met) • 34% of targets were exceeded by an average of 0.2 levels (2010-11 72% exceed by an average of 1.3) • Suggests target setting much more accurate • Average target progression 0.8 which is more aspirational, however for KS1 is requires improvement, KS2 is Outstanding • need to continue work with the target setting process to ensure targets are challenging and aspirational • (Judgement reflects concerns with target setting process)

  45. SLD • 1. Achievement compared against National Data • 2. Progression compared against school’s expectation • 3. Achievement compared against own targets and previous rate of progress • 4. Professional judgment including context of year Judgement for SLD =

  46. Action Plan for SLD • Assessment: • Ensure teachers are aware of ‘where child is at’ and their next steps in learning, using ongoing assessment strategies • Replacement of B Squared with I Can Statements to support professional judgement and record lateral progression, linking with EYFS to ensure secure baselining • Communication strategies - standardising key vocabulary and symbolisation • Developing early reading and writing skills

  47. MLD Narrative: The attainment of our pupils with MLD shows that they are generally attaining at a level below that of pupils with MLD nationally

  48. MLD - Progression Narrative: CASPA data shows that 60% of pupils with MLD progress above expected. (compared to no pupils 2010-11) Closer analysis of data shows that 89% of pupils made Outstanding progress at an average of 1.2 levels per year which is Outstanding: KS2: average 1.2 levels across Key Stage is 4.8 – Outstanding compared against both National and Oak Wood expectations Progression overall is Outstanding, however for pupils working at NC levels we need to take into consideration the comments made at the start of this section, and for the pupils working on NC levels if we were to measure the sublevels as 1 level then the data would be more impressive

  49. MLD - Achievement ASD Narrative: Analysis of targets set 80% of targets were at least met, with shows slightly more targets met and less exceeded than the whole school. There was an average difference of 0 levels between the set target and actual progression indicating that the targets set were accurate. For pupils with MLD the average target progression was 0.5 levels which would be Inadequate in KS1 and Good in KS2. However we need to take into consideration the comments made re guidance for pupils working at NC levels, as target setting is made more challenging with the lack of progression guidance. If we were to measure the sub-level as one level then pupils would make Outstanding Progress but this would be on a different scale to the majority of pupils who are working on Plevels. Though pupils are meeting their targets and making Outstanding progress the judgement needs to reflect the low aspirational target setting (even considering the statement on NC levels) This will hyperlink to the Excel ‘super tool’ to demonstrate individual progress against own targets for the year.

  50. MLD • Narrative for contextualisation and consideration of further soft data e.g. physical interventions, consideration of absence records, social contexts of individuals etc. These can have dramatic impact when the ‘vulnerable group’ consists of a very small number of children. Especially valuable when using the ‘quadrangulation’ to scrutinise individual child achievement • Narrative: • The curriculum is in the process of being reviewed and throughout the year there has been a focus on Key Skills and making learning fun. Ensuring the curriculum provides pupils with greater opportunities that are more appropriate • There was a focus on challenging the more able pupils following 2010-11 data analysis (reflected in improvement in achievement data) • IEP • 100% of pupil met all three of their IEP targets • Attendance • Attendance for 2011-12 was 96.5% (2010 – 2011 95.1%), compared to whole school attendance of 92.3% • 1 pupil (KS2) had attendance (90%) below the whole school average; made 1.1 levels progress which across the Key Stage would be Outstanding (4.4 levels)

More Related