Version 5

Quality Assurance across the Partnership

Updated Guidance; October 2015

Introduction:

To ensure high quality provision across the Bishop Grosseteste University (BGU) Partnership monitoring and evaluation activity are undertaken:

a) Monitoring: to ensure planned actions are implemented and to track progress

b) Evaluation: to know the quality of aspects of our provision and inform our improvement planning

c) Review of impact: opportunity to ‘take stock’ of our progress towards our vision and the cumulative impact of improvements upon outcomes.

The existing systems across the Partnership currently are:

Moderation:

  • Agreements between school based mentors (SBM) and university based mentors (UBM)
  • Moderation visits from a core team member in complex cases
  • University led moderation meetings

Evaluation:

  • Evaluative visits by core team members to borderline cases
  • External Examiner scrutiny

During the spring and summer terms 2015, QA visits were undertaken across the Partnership and this guidance has been updated in light of the outcomes from that activity. The aim of the BG Partnership is to further embed this QA practice each term to ensure high standards and to inform development planning.

Approach

With the changing emphasis in the role of the university based mentor it is important to ensure consistent and high standards. To ensure that processes are being operated effectivelyand that trainees are enabled to achieve high standards (through their impact upon pupil progress and learning over time), the following process is adopted across all primary routes

  1. A sample of trainees will be visited with a particular focus upon the quality and consistency of judgements across the Partnership. The way the university based mentor facilitates high quality will be the focus. This visit will take account of:
  1. The use of the Assessment Toolkit
  2. The use of the lesson observation grids
  3. Target setting, focusing upon pupil progress and learning over time
  4. The use of the e-rpd
  5. Feedback from the Partnership.
  1. Some visits will specifically focus upon priority areas.In 2015-16 this shall be the Foundation subjects and phonics for the 7-11 age phase.

General monitoring and QA visits:

The monitoring and QA team will be identified by TDMT. The brief will be to conduct visits in a manner of co-operation and courtesy. It is not the role of the QA team member to bring QA issues to the attention of UBMs or school colleagues whilst in schools.

The QAteam member will contact the university based mentor and the school to arrange a convenient time to visit and this will be followed by confirmation to the school based mentor, trainee and university based mentor. As far as possible, the visit should coincide with the university based mentor’s visit.

The agenda for the visit will be agreed with the school but ideally should consist of:

-A meeting with the school based mentor (15 mins)

-A meeting with the trainee teacher, including evidence of pupil progress (15 mins)

-A meeting with the university based mentor (15 mins)

-A sample of trainee teaching observed with the mentors (20 mins)

-If timings permit, the team memberwill join a de-brief session with one of the mentors (maximum 30 mins)

-Access to trainee’s e-rpd and school file (20 mins)

The QA team member will follow the schedule provided and complete a short report (see page 3).Prompt questions and criteria are available on page 5 to support this process. It is not the intention to ‘grade’ the UBM to offer some feedback using the criteria.

The report will be returned to the ITE Regional Partnership Lead and Head of Partnerships. This information will inform the quality, coherency and consistency of the Partnership’s training.Individual feedback to schools will be available, on request.

Foundation Subjects and Phonicsvisits:

As for the general QA visits, the team for foundation subjects and phonics visits will be identified by TDMT. The brief will be to conduct visits in a manner of co-operation and courtesy. It is not the role of the team member to bring QA issues to the attention of UBMs or school colleagues whilst in schools.

The team member will contact the school to arrange a convenient time to visit and this will be followed by a confirmation letter to the school based mentor, trainee and university based mentor.

The agenda for the visit will be agreed with the school but should consist of:

-A meeting with the school based mentor (15 mins)

-A meeting with the trainee teacher, including evidence of pupil progress and completion of the short phonics trainee questionnaire (15 mins)

-A meeting with the university based mentor, if available (15 mins)

-If timings permit, the team memberwill join a de-brief session with one of the mentors (maximum 30 mins)

-A sample of trainee teaching phonics or foundation subjects (20 mins) (if possible)

-Access to trainee’s e-rpd and school file (20 mins)

Additionally, where appropriate, such as where mentors and/or trainees would benefit from further advice or guidance to raise trainee attainment and ensure at least expected pupil progress, the following activities should be included:

  • Discuss elements that cumulatively will influence trainee progress and pupil progress;
  • Identify current targets/areas for development;
  • Identify strategies (e.g. observation of lead teachers; working 1:1 etc.);
  • Agree actions (trainee/mentor) and success criteria. (See Target-setting exemplar at back of this document – also available on Partnership VLE.)

The team member will follow the schedule provided and complete a short report (see below). The report will be returned to the ITE Regional Lead and Head of Partnerships. This information will inform the quality, coherency and consistency of the Partnership’s training. Individual feedback to schools will be available, on request.

Quality Assurance Report

Name of Team Member undertaking QA
School
Trainee
School Based Mentor
University Based Mentor
Date
Focus of Visit
(please highlight) / GENERAL / PHONICS / FOUNDATION SUBJECTS
Activity / Tick and date when completed
Contact with school established
Letters sent to all parties
Trainee Observation
Notes
Agreement with UBM/SBM judgements: YES/NO
Use of the grade descriptors in the assessment toolkit
Notes - SBM
Notes – UBM
Notes – Trainee
Use of the lesson observation grids
Notes - SBM
Notes – UBM
Notes – Trainee
Use of the e-rpd
Notes - SBM
Notes – UBM
Notes – Trainee
Target Setting – focused on pupil progress
Notes - SBM
Notes – UBM
Notes – Trainee

Ensure that the school has been thanked for their co-operation in the visit.

Give the school an open opportunity to give us constructive feedback.

1

Version 5

Prompt questions and criteria to support the Quality Assurance visit

How did the UBM support the SBM?

What activities are undertaken on a UBM visit?

What is the quality of the feedback and does it relate directly to the criteria in the lesson observation guidance and the grade descriptors?

Are targets SMART?

The following table is helpful in considering the impact for different aspects of support:

Aspect / High impact / Low impact
Identification and support of individual learning needs / Highly effective identification of the trainees’ individual learning needs through use of observation, dialogic feedback and comprehensive evaluative assessment techniques e.g.checking marked work against progress. Excellent support provided through guidance to SBM,– clear target setting, customised support (as appropriate).Trainees enabled to discuss and debate, evaluate and reflect and therefore make better than expected progress. / Good identification of individual training needs through observation and dialogic feedback analysis techniques. Some evidence of other assessment techniques.
e.g. Marked work. Good individual support evident through work with SBM.
Most trainees making better than expected progress as a result of support / Some identification of individual learning needs through observation.
Some individual support evident through feedback.
A more didactic approach rather than a discussion. Support is sufficient to enable learners to make progress – not necessarily to match their potential. / Insufficient or no identification of individual trainees’ learning needs. Little evidence of effective observation analysis or use of dialogic assessment techniques. Insufficient or no support of learning needs in lesson – support for SBM insufficiently developed and insufficient training opportunities highlighted even though clearly needed
Assessment / Learning / knowledge / progress of all trainees regularly checked, supported and challenged. Highly effective, probing and clearly focused questioning skills reinforce learning and challenge further learning. Responses excellent (i.e. praise, support, guidance) enhancing learning.
Has a full and comprehensive understanding from the SBM that the pupils have made expected, good or better progress. / Learning / knowledge / progress of most regularly checked and supported. Clearly focused questioning skills reinforce the trainees’ learning and challenges further learning. Responses encouraging (i.e. praise, support, guidance) and clearly enhances learning.
Has spoken with the SBM about the progress of the children to ensure progress is what is expected / Learning / knowledge / progress of most appropriately checked and supported. Some use of questioning to reinforce learning and challenge further learning. Cursory guidance on what trainees need to do to improve. Evidence that outcomes of assessment on pupil progress have been checked. / Learning / knowledge / progress of most insufficiently checked or supported. Insufficient guidance on what trainees need to do to improve. Little evidence support to SBM is being given. Little evidence that pupil progress is being taken into account.
UBM as support and advice for SBM / Participates effectively as a team member, sharing the development of effective practice to SBM. Trains SBM in mentoring, and gives excellent advice on process, target setting, and interventions. / Proactively shares good practice and enjoys working as a team member. Shares paperwork processes and gives advice readily to SBM. Some training given to SBM. / Demonstrates an ability to work as a team member, sharing the development of effective practice, does little to train SBM in mentoring. / Reluctant to participate as a team member, or share the development of effective practice. Little training given in any aspect of the mentoring role.
Accuracy of judgement / Consistently makes robust judgements of trainees’ levels of attainment against the Teachers’ Standards. Consistently supports SBM. Is a consistent and accurate moderator of trainees’ progress across the BGU Partnership. / Judges trainees’ levels of attainment against the Teachers’ Standards accurately. Support for SBM. Is a consistent moderator of trainees’ progress across the BGU Partnership? / Judges levels of attainment in consistently. Little support for SBM. Not a consistent moderator of trainee progress across the partnership. / Struggles to judge trainees’ levels of attainment against the Teachers’ Standards. Targets have an acceptable degree of accuracy. Lack of consistency across the BGU Partnership.
Good UBM subject knowledge / The UBM uses their in-depth subject knowledge of ITT to support the SBM, supports all trainees, including able trainees, and extends their learning. / The UBM is able to use subject knowledge support learning by SBM. Supports and extends trainees. / The UBM demonstrates adequate subject knowledge, puts in some support for SBM and supports trainees / There are noticeable gaps, misconceptions or inaccuracies in the UBM’s subject knowledge of ITT. Little support given to SBM. Gives limited support to trainees.
High expectations and use of data. / UBM uses and collates data effectively, has high expectations of the trainees and aims for all to be good or outstanding / UBM collates data and has expectations of trainees being graded good or outstanding / UBM has data but does not support SBM and trainee effectively to ensure progress / The UBM does not use or collect the data effectively, and SBMs and trainees are not supported to ensure good progress
Open questions used / The UBM uses carefully chosen open questions to extend trainees’ learning and understanding, to enable them to evaluate and reflect effectively / The UBM asks carefully chosen open questions to encourage thinking skills, problem solving and discussion / The UBM uses open questions in the course of the feedback / The UBM does not ask open questions, is didactic in approach, tells rather than discuss.
Dialogue between UBM,SBM and trainee. / Effective use of dialogue, SMART target setting, feedback, professional dialogue and advice re: interventions freely and professionally given. The trainees and SBM s have opportunities to express and discuss aspects of the training and learning / Opportunities for dialogue are available in the feedback, SMART targets are set and used to promote training and learning / There are opportunities in the feedback for the SBMs and trainees to engage in dialogue and although targets are set they are not SMART and some advice given re: progress / There are few, if any, opportunities for the SBM and trainee to engage in dialogue, feedback is limited, targets set are not SMART.

1