Upload
beck-stevens
View
23
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Using Action Research to Identify and Address Underachievement 2008-2009. 29 April 2008 Edgbaston Cricket Ground. What will my school be expected to do?. Undertake an action research project to identify how the attainment of identified underachieving pupils might be improved. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
29 April 2008Edgbaston Cricket Ground
Using Action Research to Identify and Address
Underachievement 2008-2009
What will my school be expected to do?
Undertake an action research project to identify how the attainment of identified underachieving pupils might be improved.This will involve:• Identification of the research question/hypothesis• Identification of focus pupils, completing diagnostic analysis to ascertain learning needs• Identification of research approach and actions to be undertaken• Completion and submission of bid through production of an action plan• Conduct action research project• Interim evaluation and production of brief (written) report• Collection of evidence of impact• Evaluation of impact and production of brief (written) summary report
Centre-based workshops (including the action research process); in-school consultancy; networking with schools researching similar issues.
Timescale: * Bids submitted by 16th May 2008* Results of bid and allocation of £4,000 funding by the end of June
2008* Action Research Project conducted
between September 2008 and June 2009.
* Interim report submitted by 1st December 2008 and second allocation of £4000 in January 2009
* Final report submitted mid July 2009.
What support could be available?
Actual and projected results for KS4 5+ A*-C including English and Maths by gender based on average improvement rate 2005 to 2007
42.6
44.1
45.9
47.6
49.2
50.9
52.5 53
46.7
48.3
50.1
51.8
53.5
55.2
56.9
38.5
40.0
41.8
43.5
45.1
46.8
48.4
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Target 2011
perc
en
tag
e o
f p
up
ils a
ch
ievin
g 5
+A
*-C
in
c E
ng
/Math
AllGirlsBoys
target for 2011
2005 to 2007 actual results 2008 to 2011 projected results
Progress in English from KS3 to Key Stage 4 English GCSE by individual levels/grades, gender and free school meals
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
KS3 Lev 3FSM to KS4
A*-E
KS3 Lev 3non-FSM toKS4 A*-E
KS3 Lev 4FSM to KS4
A*-D
KS3 Lev 4non- FSM to
KS4 A*-D
KS3 Lev 5FSM to KS4
A*-C
KS3 Lev 5non-FSM toKS4 A*-C
KS3 Lev 6FSM to KS4
A*-B
KS3 Lev 6non-FSM toKS4 A*-B
KS3 Lev 7FSM to KS4
A*-A
KS3 Lev 7non-FSM toKS4 A*-A
pe
rce
nta
ge
of
pu
pil
s
Girls Boys All
Progress in Maths from KS3 to Key Stage 4 Maths GCSE by individual levels/grades, gender and free school meals
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
KS3 Lev 3FSM to KS4
A*-E
KS3 Lev 3non-FSM toKS4 A*-E
KS3 Lev 4FSM to KS4
A*-D
KS3 Lev 4non- FSM to
KS4 A*-D
KS3 Lev 5FSM to KS4
A*-C
KS3 Lev 5non-FSM toKS4 A*-C
KS3 Lev 6FSM to KS4
A*-B
KS3 Lev 6non-FSM toKS4 A*-B
KS3 Lev 7FSM to KS4
A*-A
KS3 Lev 7non-FSM toKS4 A*-A
per
cen
tag
e o
f p
up
ils
Girls Boys All
Actual and projected two overall two level progress from KS3 to KS4 in English 2005 to 2011 based on increased improvement in specific progression groups 2008 to 2011
58.6
71
54.056.2 55.5
59.4
63.2
67.0
70.9 71
54.056.2 55.5
56.3 57.1 57.8
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0
65.0
70.0
75.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Target 2011
perc
en
tag
e o
f p
up
ils
current projectednew projection
2005 to 2007 actual point difference 2008 to 2011 projected point difference
target for 2011
target for 2011
Actual and projected two overall two level progress from KS3 to KS4 in Maths 2005 to 2011 based on increased improvement in specific progression groups 2008 to 2011
32.3
40
25.6
27.127.8
31.1
34.4
37.7
40.940
25.6
27.127.8
28.930.0
31.1
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Target 2011
pe
rcen
tag
e o
f p
up
ils
current projectednew projection
2005 to 2007 actual point difference 2008 to 2011 projected point difference
target for 2011
Actual and projected results for KS4 5+ A*-C including English and Maths by free school meal entitlement (FSM) based on average improvement rate 2005 to 2007
42.644.1
45.947.6
49.250.9
52.5
46.547.8
49.551.0
52.554.0
55.5
18.119.7
21.523.2
24.926.6
28.3
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
per
cen
tag
e o
f p
up
ils a
chie
vin
g 5
+A
*-C
inc
En
g/M
ath
Allnon FSMFSM
2005 to 2007 actual results 2008 to 2011 projected results
Actual and projected results for KS4 5+ A*-C including English and Maths by free school meal entitlement (FSM) based on current improvement rate and new rate if
progress in Maths to Grades C and B is increased
18.119.7
21.523.2
24.926.6
28.3
25.9
30.3
34.6
39.0
46.547.8
49.551.0
52.554.0
55.555.5
54.052.5
51.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
pe
rce
nta
ge
of
pu
pil
s a
ch
iev
ing
5+
A*-
C i
nc
En
g/M
ath
Current projection FSMNew projection FSMCurrent projection non-FSMNew projection non-FSM
2005 to 2007 actual results 2008 to 2011 projected results
BLACK PUPILS ACHIEVEMENT
PROGRAMME
Dr Lorna Cork
ACTION
RESEARCH
RAISING ACHIEVEMENT
Black Caribbean Pupil Density Map
IMPACTED ON:
• Enjoying and Achieving
• Parent and community partnership
• Mentoring for Learning
ACTIVE LEARNING THROUGH:
• Network meetings
• Engaging speakers/community groups
• Professional and peer support
• Practical guidance material
Pupil Voice:
‘Read more books’
‘Learnt about Black culture and the things I can do to become successful’
Professional Voice
‘There is a raised awareness of ethnicity data which has challenged teacher expectations’
‘Programmes like this are essential’
I
Key Stage Three 2006 2007
LAC LA NAT LAC LA NAT
No in cohort 136 123
No who sat all 82 61
% Entered 60 50
% achieving Level 5 +
English Tests 34 66 72 29 69 74
Mathematics Tests 30 70 77 25 70 76
Science Tests 29 63 72 26 65 73
For Key Stage 3 we need to be asking:
• Why is it that such a low percentage of the cohort actually entered all their SATs?
• What caused the 10% lower entry in 2007 as compared with 2006• What steps do we need to take to make sure that LAC attend school
and sit the test?• Why is the performance so much lower than their peer group?• Are we using LACES staff and all other resources available to us to
boost these young people’s scores?
Gifted and Talented
Paul Wolstenholme
Gifted and Talented
1. Underachievement = the failure to fulfil potential
2. How would you know if your Gifted and Talented pupils were underachieving?
The process for raising the achievement of G&T pupils is the same process as raising achievement for other pupils.
1. Identify underachievement
4. Monitor progress and evaluate impact
3. Put an intervention plan into place
2. Explore Reasons for underachievement
Intervention strategies that work
1. Assessment for Learning
• The 24 KMOFAP teachers showed an average effect size of 0.35
• That is they boosted their classes GCSE grades by about a half grade.
• This would raise a school’s performance from the bottom quarter of the league tables to the top third.
Intervention strategies that work
2. Assertive Mentoring In 1998 the GCSE A*-C results for Hurworth School were 38%. They considered their biggest problem to be ‘laddishness’. In 2007 it was 91% (81%) including English and maths. They believe that the gradual and sustained improvement was due to the implementation od assertive Mentoring firstly with their Year11 and subsequently also with their Year 9.
Frank Orboski
Looked After Children
I
GCSE 2006 2007
LAC LA NAT LAC LA
No in cohort 127 161
No who sat 1+ 84 99
% Entered 66 99 61
% achieving
1 A*-G 55 98 98 60 98
5 A*-G 37 90 90 39 92
5 A*-C 13 59 59 13 62
For GCSE we need to be asking:
• On the 2006 entry 99% of the LA Cohort were entered for at least 1 GCSE. Why were only 66% of the LAC cohort entered?
• Why did this drop to 61% in 2007
• Do we make sure that LAC educated “off site” follow courses that at least lead to some accreditation?
• How do we explain the gap between LAC and their peer group?
• What can we do to address this gap?
I
We are ALL the Corporate Parents for LAC:
• Would we be satisfied with these results for our own children?
• Why should we be satisfied with them for children for whom we are “Corporate Parents”?
• What are we doing about it?
Minority Ethnic Achievement Programme
and
EAL
Marion Sharieff and Paddy Walsh
• Leadership & inclusion• Effective use of data• Learning and teaching• Literacy and learning across the curriculum• Parents & the community
Minority Ethnic Achievement Project (MEAP)
Objectives of the Project
To ensure that the attainment of the focus groups is raised by:
• improved teaching and learning within the core subjects in KS3
• Appropriate targeting of intervention and support• Increasingly effective partnerships with parents
and community
Outcomes – pupil level
• Better understanding of their ‘working at’ levels and what they need to do to improve
• Awareness of the ‘pupil voice’ informing teaching and learning in the focus subject
• Increased motivation and enjoyment in lessons• Increased rates of progress• Higher aspirations
Outcomes – school level
• Improved quality of teaching and learning and more effective use of Strategy and EMA resources
• Increased confidence in planning for a diverse range of pupils
• Higher expectations of pupils• More effective partnership with EMA colleagues• More effective partnerships with parents and communities
Outcomes at LA level
• Mainstreaming of minority ethnic achievement• Increased capacity to develop and sustain improvements
in the achievement of PBST heritage pupils• Establishment of effective networks for promoting and
disseminating effective practice
Raising the attainment of Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Somali and Turkish heritage pupils – Guidance for developing inclusive practice is to be used with The management guide to support school leaders in developing a strategic approach to raising attainment
Guidance Materials
White Underachievement
Karamat Iqbal
1.Largest underachieving group
2.Multiple disadvantage - lack of ‘social capital’, least resilient
3.Excluded from race equality
4.No national strategy
5.Lacks ‘respectable’ representation
White underachievement – Key Points
• White 25000
• Black 1194
• Mixed 618
• Pakistani 601
• Indian 307
• Bangladeshi 231
GCSE/GNVQ No Passes 2003Nationally
• White boys on free school meals who did not achieve any GCSE passes in 2003 were “the largest of any group”SEU 2004
• “But lowest of all, in those average test results, are White working class boys” P Hewitt 2005
• White British on FSM, lowest achieving (5+ A*-C) at 20% DfES 2005
There is a problem!
• ‘Attention has sometimes focussed on the low attainment of deprived White boys but deprived White girls do not fare much better’
• 17% White British boys on FSM achieved 5+A*-C (50% non FSM)
• 24% White British girls on FSM achieved 5+A*-C (61% non FSM) DCSF 30.04.07
Underachieving White British pupils
White 2496 Pakistani 937 Black 381 Mixed 299 Indian 211
Birmingham pupils who did not achieve 5 A*-C 2007: 4795
1. Lack of cultural/linguistic resources
2. Disadvantaged by neighbourhood
3. ‘socio-economic disadvantage is more strongly associated with low achievement amongst White British pupils than among other groups’ DCSF 30.04.07
4. ‘Most ethnic groups have significantly smaller chances of being low achievers than White British’ and ‘White British students least able to weather economic disadvantage’ Cassen + Kingdon 2007
Foundational disadvantage
those tangible substances (that) count for most in daily lives of people: namely goodwill, fellowship, sympathy, and social intercourse among the individuals and families who make up a social unit…
The individual is helpless socially, if left to himself…If he comes into contact with his neighbour, and they with other neighbours, there will be an accumulation of social capital, which may immediately satisfy his social needs and which may bear a social potentiality sufficient to the substantial improvement of living conditions in the whole community.
The community as a whole will benefit by the co-operation of all its parts, while the individual will find in his associations the advantages of the help, the sympathy and the fellowship of his neighbours
Robert D. Putnam ‘Bowling alone’ 2000
Social capital
They don't mention us English
1. ‘Everyone hates the White working class male’- (Rod Liddle 14.11.04)
2. ‘The prejudice that still shames the nation’ – (Nick Cohen 16.03.08)
3. ‘We found a number of cases where teachers referred to diversity and ethnicity in a way that focused almost exclusively on minority ethnic groups and their cultures. White ethnicity ..was not considered’ (Diversity and Citizenship in the curriculum DfES 2007)
Who gives a damn about White underachievement!
• Trades unions!• The Church!• Political parties!• Media!• Equality campaigners!• Professionals!• Schools• Others
1. Acknowledge the problem2. Need for explicit strategy & resources3. Acknowledge & celebrate White ethnicity4. Parental & wider community involvement5. Seminars & workshops6. Investment into development of social/cultural capital7. What works!
Recommendations
Discussion
1. What are your issues?
2. In addressing underachievement, should we focus on:– Social class– Race– Gender
3. How to address political sensitivity surrounding White underachievement
Research Opportunities
Karen Wilson
Amanda Daniels
Gail O’Brien
SEN Underachievement
• Many researchers have shown that lower sets contain a disproportionate number of boys, socially disadvantaged pupils, pupils from minority ethnic groups and summer-born children
Research
• Identification, assessment and monitoring
Over-representation and changing demographics• Evaluating provision
SEN provision is historical and not matched to changing priorities
Factors to consider regarding SEN pupil population
• Data analysis• Analysis of the learner, the environment,
teaching and learning styles• Identification of distinct cohorts and
monitoring for possible over representation• Review current provision• Re thinking old patterns of support• Prepare the ground for any new interventions• Fidelity regarding those interventions• Agreeing impact measures
What to consider?