Case Study

School name:

AlderGrangeCommunity & TechnologyHigh School.

Headteacher’s name:

Iain Hulland.

Headteacher’s phone number:

01706 223171.

Email:

Area of focus:

The development of self-evaluation.

What was the starting point for the practice?

This has been an issue of evolution rather than revolution and while the contents of this “box” overlap with the one below, the key elements in the philosophy of School Self-Evaluation which underpins all we do, are:

  • the arrival of the Value Added Project. The school was found to be one of the weakest-performing in the LEA. It was necessary for us to ask some hard questions and do something about it when we did not like the answers. This has been a key and constant theme in the school’s climate ever since.
  • the Governing Body was always ambitious for the well-being of the pupils in its charge and having seen the hard data, set about making in all the school’s appointments, staff with the same core values.
  • as Deputy Head (1990-97) then as Head (1997 onwards) my colleagues and I put the school’s Philosophy (Values and Aims Statements) as the starting point for all we do. The current version (Summer/Autumn 2001) continues to lay emphasis on our responsibility for the growth of the whole child and our responsibilities in supporting staff, parents/guardians/carers, governors and others in the school learning community as the key means to promote this.
  • movement towards achieving this is, of course, through the annual School Development Plan but we have also used each Inspection as a “line in the sand” to plan the next stage of the school’s development. After the 1997 inspection, for example, I drafted and as a school we discussed and agreed a paper which laid out the “Strategic Objectives” for 1997-2002/3 (the assumed date of the next inspection). We achieved all of these, or were in a position to see that any outstanding goal WOULD be achieved in the next year.
  • This was further reflected in a document known as the School Priorities Organization Chart. This takes every element of the Values and Aims Statement and assigns them to a named person; everything we SAY we’re going to do is, therefore, someone’s job. The chart is arranged into 3 levels. The “front line” activity of everyday life affecting pupils’ learning, the “tactical support” arrangements necessary to sustain these and the “strategic necessities” upon which the whole structure is based. This is reflected in senior staff’s roles and responsibilities.
  • The current version was discussed and agreed in its present form after the 2002 inspection. [Attached]. It helps give shape to the development planning process, helps focus on key priorities and gives the school the feel of forward momentum all the time.
  • The preparations for the Ofsted Inspections of 1993 and 1997 gave us an initial framework for self-evaluation, not least because use of the Ofsted model, while imperfect in many ways, did give us the means to ask the key questions AND demonstrate progress. (The “headline” judgement in 1993 was “Overall, Alder Grange is a good school” and by 1997 it was “Alder Grange is a good school with many very good qualities”. In the 2002 inspection it was “Alder Grange is a very good school with many outstandingly good features and few weaknesses”)
  • The appearance of the LEA’s Ofsted Self-Evaluation course in 1997, together with the LEA’s Self-Evaluation “Model” provided a still clearer and comprehensive framework and enabled us to build on the earlier practices (about which more below).
  • The opportunity I had to work on the presentation team with the three senior LEA Advisers gave we a wonderful opportunity to learn more, partly by being involved in “teaching” what I’d learned to others, partly by gleaning much valuable insight from those colleagues’ experiences on training and initial steps towards SSE.
  • In the meantime we devised our own Evaluation Criteria, based on these but incorporating our collective judgements as to what we held dear and the most telling statements of the last Ofsted Inspection.

What were the significant milestones in its development?

  • Please see the attached School Policy on Self-Evaluation. I wrote this as a guidance document for colleagues on the LEA’s SSE course as a suggested “way in” to the process of making what we’d covered on the course applicable to their school. It is far from perfect and would hardly meet any need but it does reflect the key stages WE adopted between 1997 and 2001. Each of those processes has been completed, largely in that order, in our school with the result that all members of the school community have an increasingly clear understanding of what its all about and how their contribution can be made.
  • A key element was ensuring that the staff and governors understood what SSE is NOT – i.e. a stick with which to beat people. It IS about recognizing the very good work people do but giving them the right to reflect, using a range of data, upon their practice and the school systems that support it. And, given that what we seek to build is on ever-changing sand, its about giving people their right to develop their skills and approaches to meet ever-changing needs and expectations.
  • A key element was the agreement of staff to link the SSE processes to Continuing Professional Development and the Performance Management strategy. The underpinning philosophies, as noted above, were the same for the SSE, PM and CPD strategies so that the evaluation of data regarding the functioning of all “levels” and teams generated data to support CPD work and justify decisions re Performance Management and Professional (and pay) progression.
  • Currently in an advanced state of discussion is the attachment referred to below re the next steps – a systematic, even systemic, shift in responsibility to middle leaders.

Which members of the school and/or wider community have been involved and what was their role?

This is probably best illustrated in the attachments, especially the one outlining the next steps, but essentially it works like this:

  • Statistical analysis of outcomes at KS3 and KS4 are made by senior staff and middle leaders both separately and in partnership. At Senior Leadership level this almost always leads to the identification of hypotheses as to why things are going well – or not – across the board and in specific areas.
  • These are shared with, and augmented by discussions with middle leaders.
  • An agreement is made as to how this will be investigated. It may be that pupil interviews or reviews of pupils’ work or lesson observations – or a combination of any two or all three of these – will be deployed.
  • Outcomes are examined by the departments and discussed with the relevant senior staff.
  • Follow-up action is agreed and implemented.

Therefore:

  • All – certainly most - teaching staff are involved directly.
  • Pupils tend to be involved directly via pupil interviews but these are not yet as frequent and all-embracing as they will become,
  • Governors receive the “headlines” of these outcomes via relevant committees and the full governing body reports etc.

In addition

  • Parents are routinely in receipt of questionnaires via an independent consultancy
  • Staff and pupils also have opportunities to complete questionnaires re their perceptions.

How has the practice been modified or improved during development?

Because the picture of what we needed to do was quite clear practice has developed and become more systematic, rather than shifted emphasis. The section and “milestones” and what can be picked up elsewhere in the documentation probably will give a clearer picture.

What has been the impact of the project on pupils’ learning?

External verification (by HMI, Ofsted, LEA colleagues and others) identifies the strong relationships, high quality of teaching and learning and strong climate for learning in the school. This is reflected in the high levels of support from parents.

How has this been measured?

Despite the presence of a selective grammar school a short distance away, making our intake anything but truly comprehensive, and certainly not static in its prior attainment entry profile, we have steadily improved on all KS3 and KS4 measures since 1992 but most substantially since 1997. We now exceed national norms at Both Key Stages and have PANDA grades for similar schools of straight A and A*s

This isn’t the whole story, of course. What IS important is the “feel” of the school and the sense that all its members have high expectations and are prepared to fight for them. The sense that ALL members of the school community are studying/learning and wanting to bet better at what they do is of, I think, inestimable value.

This was reflected in the HMCI report on 2002-3 in which we were named as an outstanding school and in the continuing discussionsI have with David Bell HMCI about how inspection can improve Self-Evaluation and vice-versa.

What are the next stages in the development process?

As suggested above, the process has been incremental and evolutionary, although the vision of what it should and could be has been quite clear since 1997/98. The next stage is to ensure a systematic deployment of the key Self-Evaluation activities in all the Subject Departments and the Pastoral teams. Currently, operations have been appropriately aimed at individual issues as they have emerged. The next step is to place the power and responsibility for managing a rolling programme of self-evaluation with “middle” managers, and to do this as part of their evolution into “middle leaders”. Linking this to overall self-evaluation by the Senior Leadership Group (SLG) should not be an issue as a result of the way the SLG is structured.

What difficulties have you encountered and how have you tried to address them?

  • Given that all schools are extremely busy places and that we have to place an emphasis on responding to problems and pushing through initiatives (internally or externally generated), we all tend to be involved in “fire fighting”. Making time was, therefore, the single largest obstacle to progress.
  • While the idea of SSE is to work smarter not necessarily harder, a closely related issue was defining how roles and responsibilities had to change to accommodate the emphasis which HAD to be placed on it.

Our responses were as follows:

  • The School Priorities Organization Chart was reviewed and it was agreed to make 2 new Assistant Headships so that the new structure. The structure is now one in which all senior staff have responsibilities for leading AND SUPPORTING SSE work – all aimed at teaching and learning:
  • The Deputy Head (Curriculum, Teaching and Learning is responsible for all that goes on in the classroom)
  • The Deputy Head (Pupil Progress) leads the Pastoral Teams in identifying obstacles to pupils’ progress and attacking them,
  • The Assistant Headteacher (Administration and Assessment)’s role is probably self-explanatory
  • The Assistant Headteacher (School Development) leads the co-ordination of SSE work at department and whole-school levels while
  • The Assistant Headteacher (School Community) leads the development, implementation and evaluation of the strategies supporting Parental Partnership, School Governance and wider Community links.
  • This restructuring and expansion of the SLG focused tightly on SSE and school improvement but had to be mirrored in the way we worked – via a restructuring of key meetings and their agendas.
  • For example, key tasks are outlined per half term and a “flight plan” agreed re who does what, when and how it links to other key staff’s work.
  • These are reflected in the 1:1 meetings I TRY to have with all key staff each week, and the weekly SLG strategy meetings (often with other key staff invited).
  • They are reflected also in the overall plan for the school calendar. We have used for several years a ”School Systems and Development Diary” which aims (with varying degrees of success) to ensure all key staff and teams have a chance to work smarter by linking development work to key maintenance tasks – and to ensure that the terms of reference of all key leadership/management groups and their pattern of meetings interlock. [I attach the current version for information]
  • ICT is increasingly developed to support these developments. We want the technology to do as much of the hard work as we can.

Do you believe this practice could be replicated or developed in other schools? In what ways?

Yes. In all ways – although I accept that each school’s starting point must be difference, as must their line of attack once they’ve got the momentum going. THAT’s the hard part.

Date: February 16 2004.

ALDERGRANGE COMMUNITY & TECHNOLOGYSCHOOL

SCHOOL SELF-EVALUATION STRATEGY

OUTLINE ACTION PLAN

The appropriate elements of this outline must be followed when:

  • introducing any new element of the SSE strategy at any level
  • inducting any new colleague into the school staff.
  1. CLARIFYING PERCEPTIONS (OF SLG).
  • DRAFT POLICY ON PURPOSES OF SSE

LINKED TO ESTABLISHED SCHOOL PROCEDURES AND INITIATIVES

i.e. RATIONALE, PURPOSES, GUIDELINES (HOW IT WILL WORK) and CONCLUSION.

  • ROLLING PROGRAMME OF REVIEW/EVALUATION OF POLICIES/PROCEDURES/PERCEPTIONS.
  1. CONSULTATION WITH STAFF.
  • CONTEXT AND PRINCIPLES OF DRAFT POLICY SHARED WITH YEAR MANAGERS AND CURRICULUM MANAGERS, DISCUSSED AND CLARIFIED.
  • CONSIDERED BY ALL STAFF AT FOLLOWING PASTORAL/DEPARTMENT TEAM MEETINGS.
  • FEEDBACK AND FURTHER DISCUSSION AT ENSUING MMT TEAM MEETINGS.
  • NB. NEED TO ENSURE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SSE AND PM!
  • STAFF INVOLVED IN CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT POLICY (AND PM POLICY) TO ENSURE “OWNERSHIP”.
  • AGREEMENT re. RESPECTIVE ROLES OF SMT AND MMT.
  • SLG FOCUS:
  • “STRATEGIC” LEVEL
  • TEACHING, LEARNING AND PROGRESS EVALUATIONS
  • MMT FOCUS:
  • INVOLVEMENT IN EVALUATIONS OF T, L & P
  • ATTAINMENT AND PROGRESS
  • REVIEW OF POST SPECIFICATIONS TO ENSURE EXPECTATIONS CLEAR.
  1. IDENTIFICATION OF WHOLE-SCHOOL CONTEXT.
  • CREATION OF “WHOLESCHOOL ROLLING DATABASE” USING PANDAs ON SPREADSHEETS TO IDENTIFY POSSIBLE TRENDS.
  • LINKING THESE TO EXISTING SELF-EVALUATION DATA (VAP etc.).
  • CREATION AND EXPLORATION OF HYPOTHESES.
  • CONSIDERATION OF THESE BY MMT TEAMS.
  • DEVELOPMENT OF SIMS SYSTEM (esp. ASSESMENT MANAGER) TO SUPPORT THIS.
  1. AGREEMENT re. RANGE OF EVIDENCE NEEDED FOR SSE
  • FEEDBACK TO MMT ON OUTCOMES OF THIS COURSE re.:
  • DISCUSSIONS WITH PUPILS
  • EXAMINATION OF PUPILS’ WORK
  • INTEGRATION OF EXISTING DATA/SYSTEMS AT DEPARTMENT LEVEL
  • TO BE REVIEWED ANNUALLY THROUGH SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT AND DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES.
  1. SCHOOL SYSTEMS AND DEVELOPMENT DIARY.
  • AMENDED TO ENSURE STAGES “LOCKED” TOGETHER.
  1. EVALUATION CRITERIA ESTABLISHED.
  • BASED ON LANCASHIRE MODEL but
  • AUGMENTED BY:
  • LAST OFSTED REPORT
  • S3 AND S4
  • NEW FRAMEWORK AND HANDBOOK
  • SCHOOL PRIORITIES.
  • CONSIDERED AND ADOPTED BY STAFF (AS BEFORE)
  1. INTRODUCTION TO GOVERNORS.
  • PRINCIPLES VIA HEAD’S REPORT ON SDP AT TERMLY MEETING.
  • IN DETAIL VIA APPROPRIATE COMMITTEES.
  • GOVERNOR TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES.
  • GOVERNORS’ WORKING GROUP ON SSE OF GOVERNING BODY.
  1. REVIEW OF SCHOOL MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE.
  • ESENTIAL TO GIVE “SPACE” FOR KEY PROCESSES TO BE LED.
  • IMPACT OF SSE ON ROLE OF HEADTEACHER – STAYING “STRATEGIC”.
  • DEPUTIES
  • ARE “TEAM LEADERS” AND INITIATORS BUT
  • INCREASINGLY MUST BE ANALYSTS AND EVALUATORS
  • MUST BE FREE TO DO THIS.
  • WIDENING OF SENIOR LEADERSHIP “GROUP” AS NEEDED.
  1. REVIEW OF S.D.P. STRUCTURE AND PROCESSES.
  • 5 YEAR “VISION” AS CONTEXT.
  • WHAT NEXT OFSTED REPORT SHOULD SAY
  • INCLUDING EVALUATIONS OUTCOMES IN DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
  • AT SCHOOL AND DEPARTMENT LEVELS
  • LINKED TO FINANCE PLAN (VIA “CONVERGENCE” OF SDP AND FINANCIAL YEARS) AND INCLUDING RESPONSES TO POINTS OF LAST OFSTED REPORT.
  1. THE “NUTS AND BOLTS”.
  • USE OF DATA FROM THIS COURSE AND EVALUATION CRITERIA TO AGREE:
  • CRITERIA/PROCEDURES FOR EACH ELEMENT OF DATA GATHERING
  • PATTERN OF ACTIVITIES (BROADLY IN THIS ORDER UNDER MOST CIRCUMSTANCES):
  • REVIEW OF EVIDENCE OF THE YEAR GROUP
  • REVIEW OF PUPILS’ WRITTEN WORK
  • DISCUSSIONS WITH PUPILS
  • LESSON OBSERVATION
  • REVIEW OF ANY OTHER EVIDENCE
  • RELATING THIS TO SCHOOL SYSTEMS AND DEVELOPMENT DIARY (SEE 5 ABOVE).
  • ALL AMENDED re. FITNESS FOR PURPOSE.
  • IDENTIFICATION OF INSET NEEDS FOR EACH GROUP OF STAFF
  • RELATING THESE TO PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT CALENDAR/PROCESSES (AND INCLUDING PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT ISSUES).
  • IMPLEMENTATION ON AN AGREED BASIS.
  • EVALUATION OF THE EVALUATION PROCEDURES (AGAINST S3 AND S4 CRITERIA) SCHEDULED.

I Hulland

March 2001.

ALDERGRANGE COMMUNITY & TECHNOLOGYSCHOOL

SCHOOL “PHILOSOPHY” : VALUES AND AIMS

Autumn 2001

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this document is to set out, in detail, the personal, philosophical and professional values upon which we base our thinking and work, and our aims which define how we intend to act upon these values in all we do. It is essential that we ensure our values, and the aims arising from them, are shared and clearly understood, so that our vision of what our school community should be and should achieve can be translated into reality.

This statement of our philosophy, therefore, is the starting point of all we do. It is the starting point of every school Policy and System and is reflected in the Role and Post Specification of every member of staff. It forms the basis of all the judgements we make about our work and is clearly reflected in our Evaluation Criteria. It is reflected in our strategic objectives and in more detailed content in the School Development Plan.