18 July 2017
The Headteacher and Chair of Governors
All schools (including Nursery, Primary, Secondary, Special, PRUs and Academies)
Dear Colleagues
PEER REVIEW – 2017-2018
“Peer review” refers to the arrangements and processes whereby one school’s provision and performance is reviewed by one or more peer schools.
Peer review carried out as part of the common framework known as “Getting Better Together” (GBT), contains some core elements and expectations. This document sets out those expectations, offering a guide for the process and a template for the recording of the outcomes of the core part of the review. However, the exact detail of those arrangements is determined by the participating schools and it is also up to individual schools whether they use the GBT model.
The main purpose of peer review is to enable schools to carry out self-review activity in collaboration with a supportive but challenging peer professional. Within the GBT model, it is a core element in providing a common approach to the ‘mutual accountability’ expected in cluster working. The primary audience for the outcomes of peer review is the school itself, and, through agreed sharing protocols, the cluster. Where a peer review identifies the need for further external support, this can be shared as agreed with the Local Alliance (LASL). The Record itself is sent to the LA where it is stored on behalf of the Local Alliance and distributed according to the protocols agreed by the LASL.
The guidance explains a model for the three core activities and provides a template for the record. Guidance for the optional activity is issued separately. It assumes that all participants already understand the rationale and the research that underpins peer review and its purpose as part of the Cumbria Alliance framework for school improvement. For those new to peer review, engaging for the first time, background material can be found at http://www.cumbriaalliance.org.uk/ and training is available through the GBT project or can be arranged through your local cluster by contacting your Cluster Communication Lead.
This material is intended in the first instance for use with all ‘Universal Support’ schools. However, where peer review activity is also planned with ‘Targeted’ or ‘Intensive Support’ schools, this should be undertaken with the participation of the link general adviser.
For the 2017-18 academic year, it is fully appreciated that the government is consulting on changes to primary assessment arrangements and has introduced substantial changes to the secondary arrangements and that therefore, this guidance material may be subject to revision. Nevertheless, it was felt that schools would appreciate an early sight of the materials revised following feedback from last year’s peer review activity.
I hope you will find the documentation useful; should you have any questions regarding the material, please do not hesitate to raise these with Sandy Cameron, Area Senior for Carlisle and Eden.
Yours sincerely
Lorrayne Hughes
CASL Chair
on behalf of the CASL Board
Page intentionally left blank
3
REVIEW OF PUPIL ACHIEVEMENT 2017Section 1 – details of the school and the participants in the review
SchoolDfE number / Number on roll / School support level
Last Ofsted (date) / Judgement (Overall) / Judgement (Leadership and management) / Judgement (Outcomes)
Next Ofsted / Imminent / this academic year / not expected / Completed inspection checklist? / Yes / No
PARTICIPANTS / ATTENDEES
Name / School
FOR TARGETED AND INTENSIVE SCHOOLS
General Adviser
Date of meeting / Date of report / Report author
Please e-mail completed record as follows:
North LASL schools:
South LASL schools:
West LASL schools:
REVIEW OF PUPIL ACHIEVEMENT 2017Section 2 – school’s latest self-evaluation judgements
Outcomes for children and learners / Teaching, learning and assessment / Leadership and management, including governance / Personal development, behaviour and welfare / Post-16 / early years / Overall effectivenessThe grades / judgements below are those provided by the school through its self-evaluation process and are not the judgements of the peer reviewer(s). The evaluative commentary should either confirm that the school has good evidence to support the grades and are agreed with the reviewer, or that there is a difference of opinion.
Section 3 – review of pupil achievements, and the discussion of the school’s self-evaluation summary and improvement priorities
Key points of the review and discussion: (brief, summative, evaluative)Agreed priorities for improvement:
REVIEW OF PUPIL ACHIEVEMENT 2017
Section 4 – agreed actions / priorities
Summary agreed judgement: PLEASE DELETE AS APPROPRIATEThe headteacher and peer reviewer agreed WHOLLY / SUBSTANTIALLY / PARTLY with the self-evaluation and WHOLLY / SUBSTANTIALLY / PARTLY with the priorities for improvement of the school.
Comment:
Agreed follow-up actions / activity / support needs:
5
Page intentionally left blank
5
GUIDANCE: PEER REVIEW – WHAT DOES IT COMPRISE?
The model of peer review promoted by CASL through the Getting Better Together (GBT) framework comprises the following:
1. An annual review of pupil achievement (core activity).
2. A discussion of the school’s self-evaluation summary and improvement priorities (core activity).
These first two activities are usually carried out at the same meeting, though this is not required.
3. Completion of a record of the review and discussion (core activity).
4. One or more extended visits to the school to focus on an aspect of the school’s work and the impact of its improvement activity (optional).
It is expected that there will be preparatory work for the review meeting and self-evaluation discussion. This could include:
· Pre-meeting discussion/meeting to agree the agenda for the review and who is invited to participate (which might include other senior staff and/or the chair of governors for part or all of the meeting).
· Pre-meeting self-evaluation of the school’s outcomes (by, for example, updating the ‘pupil outcomes’ part of the school’s self-evaluation summary).
· Part completion of the Record (sections 1 and 2) by the reviewed school.
· Exchange of relevant documents such as relevant data sets, self-evaluation summary and improvement plan.
The joint review of the school’s performance data is then carried out. This is not just of national published data, but school generated data for those year groups not subject to statutory testing or examinations (a list of question prompts to help focus the discussion is provided at Appendix A). It can take account of all those pupil achievements that the school wishes to include.
There should also be a preview of the school’s projected performance in 2018 and 2019, to help identify anticipated trends and agree remedial action to be taken to halt or reverse an emerging decline.
The discussion of the school’s self-evaluation summary and improvement priorities can follow the achievement review and comprises:
· Noting any significant contextual factors – such as a new or acting headteacher, falling or rising roll, complaints or capability/disciplinary procedures which are impacting on the school’s capacity to implement its improvement agenda and which may require external support.
· Agreeing (or recording disagreement with) summary evaluative judgements of the school’s performance; the implications for updating the school’s self-evaluation; confirmation or amendment of the priorities and actions in the improvement plan.
· Brief review of staff performance appraisal and identifying priorities for professional development activity.
/Continued
· Consideration of the latest judgements provided by the school in its self-evaluation against the six key judgements for inspection; and discussing the evidence base the school has used to support the judgements. What is recorded is not an evaluation by the peer reviewer. NB:There is no expectation that all of the key judgements must be discussed in depth.
For schools where inspection is anticipated in the current academic year, it may be helpful to use the pre-inspection checklist (provided separately). This is intended to “flag” any significant or urgent issues to be added to the agenda for discussion or to the school’s list of follow-up actions after the meeting.
For schools that have capacity for staff to provide support to other schools, or to the local alliance, this can also be noted at the end of the Record.
The Record of these two activities needs to be completed as follows:
1. Part completion of the Record (sections 1 and 2) by the reviewed school (if this did not happen as part of the preparation stage).
2. Agreement of the content of the remainder of the record (sections 3 and 4).
3. Agree the main findings to be shared with the local cluster, including whether there is a need for additional support to the school and/or a formal change of the level of support from the LASL.
4. Completion of the record by the peer reviewer.
5. Return of the record to the reviewed school for final agreement.
6. Submission of the final record to the LA/LASL by the reviewed school.
PEER REVIEW OF PUPIL ACHIEVEMENT 2017 – WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN?
1. The primary purpose of this activity is for the school to undertake a thorough review of the progress of all pupils (not just those who have been subject to statutory testing or examinations) during the previous academic year.
2. To prepare for the meeting you need to refer to the prompt questions (provided separately) and the following sources of information:
· For the review of 2017 pupil performance it would assist to have at hand:
- 2017 provisional results and assessments;
- your school’s own analysis of pupils’ attainment and progress for 2017;
- additional comparative data provided by the LA;
- Fischer Family Trust (FFT) contextual value added data;
- Analyse School Performance (ASP) data, where available (formerly RAISEonline);
- post-16 analysis tools eg Alps, Post-16 Tracker, where appropriate.
· For the 2018 and 2019 preview you will need:
- FFT individual pupil estimates;
- your school’s own target setting data.
/Continued
3. The agenda for the achievement review should include:
· Focused discussion of Outcomes for Learners, making selective use of the prompt questions provided, to include
- summer assessments/exams;
- pupil progress in year groups for which there are no statutory assessment arrangements;
- recording any significant factors that contributed to or inhibited success;
- other pupil achievements;
- significant actions taken by the school in response: eg to adjust staffing, resourcing, leadership responsibilities, monitoring, CPD, support or interventions;
- priorities for the year ahead arising out of the analysis of results;
- identifying any risk that the future performance of current cohorts may fall below national standards and what the school proposes to do to reduce that risk;
- resolution of any issues notified to the school by the general adviser arising from Initial Performance Assessment (IPA).
The prompt questions are intended to guide the discussion. There is no expectation that they must be exhaustively covered.
4. The meeting should involve the Headteacher and the colleagues providing external challenge. The Chair of Governors or other representative from the governing body should join for at least part of the meeting. Many schools now also involve the Deputy Head or other senior members of staff in such meetings.
COMPLETING THE RECORD
5. The reviewing school should complete Sections 3 and 4 (“evaluative commentary” and “agreed actions/priorities”) to
· capture the main points of the discussion above;
· confirm if the evidence base shared is sufficient and convincing to support the self-evaluation judgements;
· note explicitly if judgements have not been confirmed or an aspect was not discussed;
· note any agreed actions to be taken before the next peer review meeting or, for Targeted and Intensive Support schools, before any other relevant monitoring milestone such as the SIM;
· where appropriate, include recommendations for level changes, changes to support, and what will be shared with LASL.
6. The Record, when complete, should:
· be brief;
· be evaluative;
· clearly confirm whether it is agreed that the school is an effective school;
· be no longer than three pages – the cover page and no more than two further pages of evaluative commentary.
There is no need to record the data itself; there is a need to record an evaluative judgement stating what that data (taking account of other evidence) indicates about pupil achievement.
/Continued
7. Where it is not agreed that the school is effective, or it is agreed that the school is not as effective as it should be, there should be a clear indication of follow up actions to secure agreement or to secure support.
8. Where the review is carried out by a peer headteacher, the report should be completed by the peer (entering their name in the “report author” box) and sent to the reviewed school’s headteacher. The reviewed school’s headteacher can confirm that they have received the report by entering their name alongside the name of the report author.
9. The completed report should be sent by the reviewed school to
· the chair of governors, whose responsibility it is to make sure the outcomes of the review are shared with the governing body;
· the relevant local authority business support office (email link is on the front page of the report); it will then be forwarded to the Chair of your LASL and the relevant general adviser.
EHL/LIS/SC
18 July 2017
5
Appendix A
PROMPT QUESTIONS TO SUPPORT REVIEW OF LEARNING OUTCOMES / LEADERSHIP
This guidance is intended to support a discussion that should take place during the autumn term with a focus on reviewing
· the outcomes for children and young people and projected future outcomes;
· the quality of teaching, learning and assessment;
· the effectiveness of leadership, management and governance.
The template offered to record the outcomes of the discussion is deliberately minimal; both to reduce workload and to capture the minimum information required to arrive at a judgement about the current performance of the school which can be shared with the LASL.
The questions are intended to prompt consideration of both external tests and the school’s own internal end of year assessments for all year groups.
Wherever appropriate, responses in the review report should include an evaluation of the impact of actions taken by leaders, including governors, to capture cause and effect and to support the school to tell its story. Summary reports will need to ensure that any areas flagged through data analysis are clearly referenced.