This blog is inspired by this amazing thread by @illwriteitdown about the experience of receiving your timetable and the feelings it generates.
I’ll try to pick off each issue as best I can.
Let’s start with keeping up with their KS2 scores:
There are a number of issues with the use of KS2 scores for setting targets in KS3/4. The 2 biggest ones I can think of are that learning isn’t linear, far from it. And secondly using Maths/English KS2 scores as a way of setting targets in other subjects for KS4 (the process that many schools use is data provided by FFT) is problematic.
FFT produce a series of chances graphs for every child based on historical data collected over many years that includes numerous background characteristics. Schools use these to set targets for their students, but it is down to the school about how rigid they are with these.
Some schools will insist that because FFT says that child A has an FFT target of a 7, then the school will hold you accountable for that if they don’t achieve it. This is a flawed approach to the use of FFT, and shows a lack of understanding of the appropriate application of the data.
Other schools will look at the FFT data, and understand that it is useful for looking at a cohort target, e.g. 74% of students achieving FFT20 of 5+. They will look at the cohort and expect a department to deliver this, but will be slightly less concerned about who those students are. The chances graph gives heads of department a useful set of data to support the process of identifying the most likely candidates, but it shouldn’t be used for a “putting all your eggs in one basket” approach.
I’ve worked in both these types of schools. The school with a rigid view of individual students that included holding staff accountable based on FFT targets for each student was an RI school that struggled to make it to good. The (in my view) more enlightened school was securely good and looking to improve further.
Using Maths/English KS2 data for setting progress targets for other subjects:
Just writing it makes you realise how fraught with issues this is. Yes, FFT data can be and often is extremely useful for giving an indicator about possible future performance, but to hold teachers accountable to this data for individual students or classes is one of the biggest issues I’ve seen with the high stakes accountability that is blighting the state school system in this country.
Test scores resulting in demoralised staff and students
This one’s easy – if you are writing tests that result in low scores for a group where motivation is absolutely critical to their chances of success, you need to write some new tests.
It is so important for building up students that they get into the habit of doing well. A huge part of this for them is their test scores (it also helps teachers too!). If you know that students aren’t going to succeed on a test, don’t give them the test.
Do the numbers say you’re failing?
This is tough. It is really difficult to look beyond the numbers. HoDs will always be asked to rank classes, to use the data to start a process of evidence gathering. An experienced HOD will not just look AT the data, they will look BEYOND the data. Data is at best a starting point. It is used to start an enquiry.
Ele makes some really important points – “you can lead a horse to water”, “it’s not your fault” etc.
The issue here is that schools are stuck in a brutal cycle of high stakes accountability. Schools are now responsible for most aspects of bringing up a child. It’s the teachers fault that a student doesn’t attend revision, that they don’t do their homework, that they don’t revise, etc.
These things aren’t on individual teachers. They are about the culture and ethos of the school.
If you have a strong culture around learning, preparation for assessments, understanding the learning process is much more than just a set of test scores etc. then it creates the environment where teachers are able to impact on these issues with their classes. Where this culture doesn’t exist, or isn’t well embedded or consistently encouraged, it makes it so much more difficult for teachers to have impact beyond a small group of their students.
What can you do when the culture isn’t there yet?
This is where departments can really make a difference. Get everyone pulling together. If a large department works together to tackle the issues of poor homework, lack of preparation for assessments etc. then it can impact beyond your classroom and department, and support the wider school.
It requires the whole team to spend time working together to draw up a plan, implement it consistently and over time, and be relentless with it. By doing this you will effect change. It isn’t a quick fix. Embedding a change in ethos and culture takes time, and there will be bumps along the way. All the best leaders know that the key to embedding culture change takes everyone buying in and playing their part It is the same at a department level too.
Part 2 to come when I get a chance.
Thoughts and ideas from a maths teacher 