Essex & Thames Primary SCITT Data Report 2013-16

(July 2016)

Contents

Introduction / Page 3
  1. Outcomes for Trainees
  2. Attainment
  3. How well Trainees Teach
  4. Analysis of Final Teaching Grades
  5. Data analysis and variables (2012-16)
  6. Relationship with Academic Achievement
  7. Overall Trainee Confidence Data
  8. NQT Performance
/ Page 5
Page 6
Page 12
Page 12
Page 15
Page 17
Page 18
2. Recruitment and Employment Data
2.1Recruitment
2.2Completion and Employment Rates / Page 20
Page 21
  1. Quality of training across the partnership
  2. Overall Consistency
  3. Quality of Placements including Mentoring
/ Page 22
Page 27
4. Benchmarking as Evidence of Quality / Page 28
5. Summary / Page 29

Introduction

Over a three year period, 59% of trainees achieved a grade 1 for their teaching, when assessed against the QTS. Essex & Thames’ current three-year retention rate stands at 96%. This data clearly demonstrates that Essex & Thames is consistently training outstanding teachers who remain in the profession.

Essex & Thames has a clear vision (Annex A, Thames Vision Document) for the quality of training offered that is understood by all the partners in the organisation. Since its inception over fourteen years ago Essex & Thames has consistently produced outstanding primary teachers. Essex & Thames expects many trainees to be outstanding, and none less than good and this is judged against criteria agreed by all partners (Annex B, Essex & Thames Assessment and Grading Handbook). The detailed data analysis (summarised in this document) allows Essex & Thames to secure continual improvement even when grades against the standards clearly lie within the outstanding range.

In order to assess and evaluate all elements of the training programme, Essex & Thames employs sharp grade descriptors, gathers data systematically and has robust systems for quality assurance and moderation (Annex C, Essex & Thames QA Policy). From 2015-16, assessment criteria (Annex B, Thames Assessment and Grading Handbook) have been improved in order to ensure greater levels of transparency and consistency across the partnership.

The following data is gathered throughout the year:

Area being assessed and evaluated / Data Source / Points at which data is gathered and scrutinised
Trainee competence /
  1. Grades against QTS
  2. Lesson observations
  3. A) Impact on pupil progress
B) Data supplied by schools /
  1. Nov, Dec, Feb, Apr, May, July.
  2. Half termly (by PTs)
  3. A) Half termly (PT meetings),
B) Tracking data (July)
Trainee progress /
  1. Progress against PD targets
  2. Professional development meetings with HTs
  3. Reflective logs
/
  1. Half termly (by PTs)
  2. End of TP2 and TP3
  3. Termly (by PTs)

Trainee confidence /
  1. Self-evaluation docs
  2. Exit survey
/
  1. Sept, Dec, Feb, Apr, May.
  2. July

Quality of centre-based training /
  1. Trainee evaluations
  2. Exit survey
  3. NQT survey
/
  1. Nov, Dec, Feb, Apr, May.
  2. July
  3. Feb +1 year

Quality of placement / 1. Trainee evaluations / 1. Apr, July. (+ informally half termly to PTs)
NQT and destination data /
  1. Focussed NQT audit
  2. NQT focus group data
  3. Annual NQT audit
/
  1. Nov
  2. Nov
  3. July

PT = Personal Tutors

Once the annual data analysis has been completed, it is then communicated to the Headteachers and Governing Body of Runwell Community Primary School in the form of a written report and is discussed at the Headteachers’ AGM. Any actions are then delegated as appropriate. The data is then disseminated to all members of the partnership via a series of meetings held in the first term. The written report is then further summarised and shared through the SCITT newsletters.

1. Outcomes for Trainees – Overall Competence Data

This section of the report focuses on trainee competence; later sections will focus on trainee confidence and consider their relationship.

1.1 Attainment

Evidence of high quality outcomes for trainees is clearly demonstrated in our attainment data, which shows that the majority of trainees were awarded Grade Ones against the QTS Standards over a three-year period. The grading criteria are robust and awards of grades are based on the judgements of school-based professionals. We have also seen a decrease in the number of Grade Threes awarded so that no grade 3s have been awarded in the last 3 years.

Distribution of Overall Final Marks

Year / G1s in teaching / G2s in teaching / G3s in teaching
2013-14 / 67% / 33% / 0%
2014-15 / 65% / 35% / 0%
2015-16 / 45% / 55% / 0%
3-year Average / 59% / 41% / 0%

In 2015-16 we introduced a more rigorous grading system that is firmly rooted in pupil progress. We anticipated that this would lead to a drop in the number of Grade 1s but are confident that this grading system is accurate. We also anticipate that, as the system becomes embedded, the number of Grade 1s will rise slightly. The number of withdrawals has remained consistent with 3 withdrawals in 2013-14, 3 withdrawals in 2014-15 and 4 withdrawals in 2015-16.

1.2 How well Trainees Teach

As in previous years, Trainee grades against each of 11 Standards were collated and an average grade was calculated in order to identify any areas that might be further enhanced thereby achieving even higher standards in future cohorts. Trainee progress is assessed against the 11 individual Standards at the end of each of the three Terms (T1, T2, T3), enabling a thorough analysis of progress to be carried out against each Standard. The average grades at the end of Term 3 for each Standard are especially valuable as they indicate the typical final attainment level of Trainees.

To be categorised as Outstanding, thescore for a Standard needs to fall within the range 1.0-1.5. In 2015-16, the data showed that cohort averages for 6 out of the first 8 Standards [1, 2, 3, 4, 7 & 8] satisfied the Outstanding criteria. The cohort averages for Standard 5 & Standard 6 were only 0.1 away from Outstanding. The T3 data for Standards 9-11 was recorded this year as a simple Pass/Fail. However, as the cohort averages were 1.6 for these three Standards at the end of T2, the projection is that each was definitely Outstanding by the end of T3. A direct comparison with the Standards data for last year shows that 5 out of the first 8 Standards had improved averages over their counterparts for the 2014-15 cohort, with the remaining 3 Standards showing parity with last year.

Standard / Sub-section / T1 / T2 / T3 / T3 2014-15
1. Set high expectations which inspire, motivate and challenge.
T3 Average Grade -
2014-15:1.5
2015-16: 1.4 / a) Establish a safe and stimulating environment for pupils, rooted in mutual respect. / 2.3 / 2.0 / 1.4 / 1.3
b) Set goals that stretch and challenge pupils of all backgrounds, abilities and dispositions. / 2.8 / 2.2 / 1.6 / 1.7
c) Demonstrate consistently the positive attitudes, values and behaviour that are expected of pupils. / 2.3 / 2.0 / 1.3 / 1.3
2. Promote good progress and outcomes by pupils.
T3 Average Grade -
2014-15:1.5
2015-16: 1.5 / a) Be accountable for pupils' attainment, progress & outcomes. plan teaching to build on pupils' capabilities and prior knowledge. / 2.8 / 2.2 / 1.5 / 1.6
b) Be aware of pupils’ capabilities and their prior knowledge, and plan teaching to build on these. / 2.6 / 2.2 / 1.5 / 1.6
c) Guide pupils to reflect on the progress they have made and their emerging needs. / 2.8 / 2.3 / 1.6 / 1.6
d) Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of how pupils learn & how this impacts on teaching. / 2.7 / 2.2 / 1.5 / 1.5
e) Encourage pupils to take responsible and conscientious attitude to their own work and study. / 2.5 / 2.2 / 1.4 / 1.4
3. Demonstrate good subject and curriculum knowledge.
T3 Average Grade -
2014-15:1.6
2015-16: 1.5 / a) Have a secure knowledge of the relevant subject(s) and curriculum areas, foster and maintain pupils' interest in the subject, & address misunderstandings. / 2.6 / 2.0 / 1.5 / 1.7
b) Demonstrate a critical understanding of developments in the subject and curriculum areas & promote the value of scholarship. / 2.8 / 2.2 / 1.5 / 1.6
c) Demonstrate an understanding of & take responsibility for promoting high standards of literacy, articulacy and the correct use of standard English, whatever the teacher's specialist subject. / 2.5 / 2.0 / 1.3 / 1.4
d) If teaching early reading, demonstrate a clear understanding of systematic synthetic phonics. / 3.1 / 2.2 / 1.6 / 1.6
e) If teaching early mathematics, demonstrate a clear understanding of appropriate teaching strategies. / 3.0 / 2.1 / 1.5 / 1.6
4. Plan and teach well structured lessons.
T3 Average Grade -
2014-15:1.5
2015-16: 1.4 / a) Impart knowledge and develop understanding through effective use of lesson time. / 2.7 / 2.2 / 1.4 / 1.6
b) Promote a love of learning & children's intellectual curiosity. / 2.5 / 2.1 / 1.4 / 1.4
c) Set homework and plan other out-of-class activities to consolidate and extend the knowledge & under- standing pupils have acquired. / 2.3 / 2.4 / 1.6 / 1.7
d) Reflect systematically on the effectiveness of lessons and approaches to teaching. / 2.4 / 2.0 / 1.3 / 1.4
e) Contribute to the design and provision of an engaging curriculum within the relevant subject area(s). / 2.8 / 2.1 / 1.4 / 1.4
5. Adapt teaching to respond to the strengths and needs of all pupils.
T3 Average Grade -
2014-15:1.6
2015-16: 1.6 / a) Know when and how to differentiate appropriately, using approaches which enable pupils to be taught effectively. / 2.8 / 2.2 / 1.6 / 1.6
b) Have a secure understanding of how a range of factors can inhibit pupils' ability to learn, and how best to overcome these. / 2.8 / 2.2 / 1.6 / 1.5
c) Demonstrate an awareness of the physical, social and intellectual development of children, and know how to adapt teaching to support pupils' education at different stages of development. / 2.9 / 2.3 / 1.6 / 1.6
d) Have a clear understanding of the needs of all pupils, including those with special educational needs; those of high ability; those with English as an additional language; those with disabilities; and be able to use and evaluate distinctive teaching approaches to engage and support them. / 2.9 / 2.3 / 1.7 / 1.7
6. Make accurate and productive use of assessment.
T3 Average Grade -
2014-15:1.7
2015-16: 1.6 / a) Know and understand how to assess the relevant subject and curriculum areas, including statutory assessment requirements. / 3.0 / 2.4 / 1.7 / 1.8
b) Make use of formative and summative assessment to secure pupils' progress. / 2.9 / 2.4 / 1.6 / 1.8
c) Use relevant data to monitor progress, set targets, and plan subsequent lessons. / 2.9 / 2.4 / 1.7 / 1.8
d) Give pupils regular feedback, both orally and through accurate marking, and encourage pupils to respond to the feedback. / 2.7 / 2.2 / 1.4 / 1.4
7. Manage behaviour effectively to ensure a good and safe learning environment.
T3 Average Grade -
2014-15:1.4
2015-16: 1.4 / a) Have clear rules and routines for behaviour in classrooms, and take responsibility for promoting good and courteous behaviour both in classrooms and around the school, in accordance with the school's behaviour policy. / 2.3 / 2.0 / 1.3 / 1.4
b) Have high expectations of behaviour, and establish a framework for discipline with a range of strategies, using praise, sanctions and rewards consistently & fairly. / 2.4 / 2.0 / 1.4 / 1.4
c) Manage classes effectively, using approaches which are appropriate to pupils' needs in order to involve and motivate them. / 2.4 / 2.1 / 1.4 / 1.4
d) Maintain good relationships with pupils, exercise appropriate authority, and act decisively when necessary. / 2.3 / 2.0 / 1.3 / 1.3
8. Fulfil wider professional responsibilities.
T3 Average Grade -
2014-15:1.5
2015-16: 1.4 / a) Make a positive contribution to the wider life and ethos of the school. / 2.3 / 2.0 / 1.4 / 1.5
b) Develop effective professional relationships with colleagues, knowing how and when to draw on advice and specialist support. / 2.2 / 1.9 / 1.3 / 1.4
c) Deploy support staff effectively. / 2.6 / 2.1 / 1.5 / 1.4
d) Take responsibility for improving teaching through appropriate professional development, responding to advice & feedback from colleagues. / 2.2 / 1.9 / 1.4 / 1.4
e) Communicate effectively with parents with regard to pupils' achievements and well-being. / 2.7 / 2.2 / 1.5 / 1.6
9. Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school.
T3 Average Grade -
2014-15:1.2
2015-16: N/A / a) Treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher's professional position. / 2.1 / 1.7 / N/A / 1.2
b) Having regard for the need to safeguard pupils' well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions. / 2,2 / 1.7 / N/A / 1.2
c) Showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others. / 2.0 / 1.7 / N/A / 1.2
d) Not undermining fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect, and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs. / 2.0 / 1.6 / N/A / 1.2
e) Ensuring that personal beliefs are not expressed in ways that exploit pupils' vulnerability or might lead them to break the law. / 2.0 / 1.6 / N/A / 1.2
10. Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach, and maintain high standards in their own attendance and punctuality.
T3 Average Grade -
2014-15:1.2
2015-16: N/A / 1.9 / 1.6 / N/A / 1.2
11. Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks that set out their professional duties and responsibilities.
T3 Average Grade -
2014-15:1.3
2015-16: N/A / 2.1 / 1.6 / N/A / 1.3

Actions taken to secure continued improvement:

  1. Additional mentor training for new mentors in the use of AfL (in and between lessons) for both staff and trainees;
  2. A continued agreed focus by Personal Tutors on the quality of mentor feedback in relation to AfL;
  3. Enhanced use of statutory data for planning in centre-based training for trainees primarily based in years EYFS-1 and 3-5;
  4. Additional SEND content in all lectures;
  5. Additional emphasis on communicating with parents.

Progress Made Across The Year

Average Grades
Assessment Point / 2015-2016 / 2014-2015 / 2013-2014
Baseline / 2.7 / 2.7 / 2.7
TP1 / 2.6 / 2.5 / 2.6
Mid TP2 / 2.4 / 2.1 / 2.3
TP2 / 2.2 / 2.0 / 1.9
Mid TP3 / 1.9 / N/A / N/A
Final Grade / 1.6 * / 1.4 / 1.3

* Predicted

From the table and chart above, for each of the last 3 years the steady improvement of Average Grades between consecutive Assessment Points over the course of the year is clear, with the largest leap in progress expected in Term 3. The pattern of consistent improvement in 2015-16 was the same as the previous two years: identical Baseline Average Grades resulted in Predicted average Final Grades of 1.6 for 2015-16 and actual average Final Grades of 1.4 for 2014-15 and 1.3 for 2013-14.

1.3 Analysis of Final Teaching Grades

A thorough data analysis was carried out using Final Teaching Grades and other information about the Trainees that was gathered during the year. This was used to try to identify any trends or interesting relationships between the Trainees’ FTG and specific information from their background and performance. In addition, the data could be used to check consistency and accuracy in the grading. The data for this year’s cohort again clearly verifies that the assessment systems in place are robust and that the essential trends continue to be in a substantially positive direction.

Final Teaching Grades for trainees were categorised as either Outstanding (Grade 1) or Non-outstanding (Grade 2 or Grade 3). These Grade scores over the four years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 were then analysed altogether to determine whether differences in Trainees’ Final Teaching Grades could be correlated to any of a variety of background variables for which data about the Trainees had been recorded. The data was analysed using cross-tabulations and non-complex descriptive statistics. Final Grades refer to teaching grades alone, which were determined by the schools.

1.4 Summary of Data Analysis Looking at Variables (2012-16)

Reliability of Formative Assessment Data:

The annual cohort size each year has declined again from its peak in 2013-14 of 88 Trainees. When all 4 year cohorts are taken together, the plenary data set comprises 272 Trainees. Analysis of this four-year data set yields the following observations:

  1. The TP1 scores were rounded downwards to the nearest whole number and assigned to one of three categories. These clearly show a strong positive correlationbetweenhigh TP1 score and Final Teaching Grade score. 91% of those with a TP1 score between 1.00 and 1.99 obtained a Final Teaching Grade of 1. In contrast 56% of those with a TP1 score between 2.00 and 2.99 obtained a Final Teaching Grade of 1. Only 19 out of 272 Trainees had a TP1 score of 3.00 or more, and only 34% of those obtained a Final Teaching Grade of 1.
  2. Likewise, the TP2 scores were all rounded downwards to the nearest whole number and assigned to one of three categories. They show a less pronounced positive correlation with Final Teaching Grade score than TP1 but there is nonetheless a clear relationship between the two. 77% of those with a TP2 score of 1 obtained a Final Teaching Grade of 1. In contrast, only 37% of those with a TP2 score of 2 or 3 obtained a Final Teaching Grade of 1. This relationship is potentially linked to Trainees’ strengths when working with particular age ranges.

The data suggests that TP1 score is a better predictor of a FTG score of 1 while TP2 score is a better predictor of those who will not get a FTG score of 1. The data also indicates a high degree of consistency between schools.

Demographic Variables:

AGE GROUP
YEAR COHORT / 21-25 / 26-30 / 31-35 / 36-40 / 40+ / TOTAL
2012-2013 / 39 / 11 / 1 / 4 / 3 / 58
2013-2014 / 52 / 14 / 9 / 5 / 8 / 88
2014-2015 / 45 / 7 / 7 / 2 / 7 / 68
2014-2015 / 33 / 12 / 1 / 2 / 10 / 58
TOTAL / 169 / 44 / 18 / 13 / 28 / 272
YEAR COHORTS by AGE GROUP

This year’s data confirms that the age profile of trainees has changed over time, and that this change is settling into a pattern. A larger proportion of Trainees were aged 31+ in the 2015-16 Year Cohort (22%), in the 2014-15 Year Cohort (24%),and in the 2013-14 Year Cohort (25%) than in the initial 2012-13 Year Cohort (14%). More notably this year, nearly all (77%) of the Trainees aged 31+ were actually aged 41+. This continues a trend where the percentage of Trainees aged 40+ out of the whole cohort was 5% in 2012-13, 9% in 2013-14, 10% in 2014-15, and 17% in 2015-16.

  1. Aggregated over the four years, there were notably better Final Teaching Grade scores for female trainees over male trainees. 66% of female trainees obtained a Final Teaching Grade of 1 while only 48% of their male counterparts obtained a Final Teaching Grade of 1. As previously, though, a confounding factor is that male trainees had generally poorer prior academic qualifications than female trainees, and this may play some part in their relative success.
  2. There were poorer Final Teaching Grade scores for those aged 31-40. Only 58% of those aged 31-40 obtained a Final Teaching Grade of 1 compared with 62% of those aged 21-25, 68% of those aged 26-30 and 64% of those aged over 40. The differences between age groups are in-between marginal and substantial.
  3. Regarding Ethnicity, it is impossible to conclude anything because the ethnicity data continues to be almost totally homogeneous over the four years studied.
  4. Regarding Disability, 63% of those without a disability obtained a Final Teaching Grade of 1 compared with 53% of those with a disability - a marginal difference.
  5. Significantly fewer teachers (52%) with a Lower Second Class Degree got a Final Teaching Grade of 1. Those with a First Class Degree were much more likely (77%) to get a Final Teaching Grade of 1. Those with an Upper Second Class Degree were somewhere in-between, with 65% getting a Final Teaching Grade of 1. Only two trainees brought a Third Class Degree into their training year, which is too few to draw any conclusion from though one of the two achieved a grade 1.
  6. The Interview Grades were rounded for consistency across the four year Cohorts, and for simplicity in the analysis. Of those with an Interview Grade of 1, 74% attained a Final Teaching Grade of 1. Of those with an Interview Grade of 2, 62% attained a Final Teaching Grade of 1. For those with an Interview Grade of 3, there was a further drop so that 56% obtained a Final Teaching Grade of 1.
  7. The proportion of trainees obtaining a Final Teaching Grade score of 1 shows a significant change from the previous trend of continual improvement. 45% of trainees obtained a Grade 1 in 2015-16 compared with 55% of trainees in 2012-13, 69% of trainees in 2013-14, and 76% of trainees in 2014-15. This abrupt change in the pattern of attainment in Final Teaching Grade, as already noted, is because we have introduced a grading system whose yardstick is pupil progress.

In conclusion, women continue to do better than men and trainees aged 31-40 do less well than other age groups. Those trainees with long classroom work histories do less well in their teaching outcomes, which is thought to be due to their having to effectively “un-learn” what they may have believed/done as LSAs. Interview grades remain a good indicator of trainees who are more likely to need additional support, and this confirms the accuracy of appraisals made at interview. There is a clear downturn in the year-by-year trend of progressive improvement in the proportion of trainees attaining a G1 in their Final Teaching Grade, but this finding is qualified because different scoring criteria were used.