  
|
Posted By Christabel Shepherd,
29 March 2022
Updated: 25 March 2022
|
Christabel Shepherd, NACE Challenge and Curriculum Development Director, introduces the new NACE Essentials guide on this topic.
There is strong evidence that an educational equity gap exists across all phases of the English educational system and that the effects of disadvantage are cumulative, so that the gap tends to increase as children grow older, especially during secondary schooling.
Concerns about disadvantaged pupils have never been as acute as they are currently, nor felt as keenly following the coronavirus pandemic and related lockdowns. According to studies collated by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) in its online collection Best evidence on impact of Covid-19 on pupil attainment, primary pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds have experienced 0.5 months more learning loss in reading and 0.7 months more in mathematics compared to their non-disadvantaged peers. Secondary pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds experienced two months more learning loss in reading than their non-disadvantaged peers.
Information from the Education Policy Institute’s Annual Report (2020) points to the fact that the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers has stopped closing for the first time in a decade. Disadvantaged pupils in England are 18.1 months of learning behind their peers by the time they finish their GCSEs – the same gap as five years ago. The gap at primary school increased for the first time since 2007 – which may signal that the gap is set to widen in the future.
The stalling of the gap occurred even before the Covid-19 pandemic had impacted the education system – as shown in reports commissioned for the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission (2014), briefings published by the DfE for school leaders (2015), and research from the Sutton Trust (2015 and 2018).
Despite this worrying picture over many years, the plight of disadvantaged more able pupils continues to have been largely overlooked by schools. This may be based on an assumption that disadvantaged more able pupils will “be fine” and the misconception that, compared to less academically able learners, their needs are not as important or urgent.
However, evidence shows that academically able pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds are most at risk of under-performing (Sutton Trust, 2018).
The DfE’s most recent guidance for school leaders on the use of the pupil premium (November 2021) demonstrates increased expectations in terms of the identification of the specific challenges facing disadvantaged learners, and the planning of focused, evidence-based approaches to address those challenges effectively. Although reference to more able disadvantaged learners has been made in previous iterations of the pupil premium guidance for schools, it is now far more explicit: these pupils should receive just as much focus as less academically able pupils.
This is a welcome change, which should help to narrow the widening gap between these learners and their non-disadvantaged peers, and address the “levelling up” agenda. Like any group of pupils, more able disadvantaged leaners have a right to have their needs met and it is our moral responsibility as educators to ensure that this is happening so that these young people have the same life chances as their peers.
This month NACE has published a new NACE Essentials guide on the topic “Pupil premium and the more able”. Based on an in-depth review of education research evidence and literature, the guide provides support for school leaders to ensure that their school’s pupil premium funding can be used to maximise the opportunities for, and the achievement of, disadvantaged more able pupils. The key factors in developing a culture which will support the development and implementation of an effective pupil premium strategy are explored, and a range of specific evidence-based approaches aimed at meeting the needs of more able disadvantaged learners are exemplified.
The guide is available free for all NACE member schools, along with the full NACE Essentials collection. Read now (login required).
Not yet a member? Join our mailing list to access our free sample resources.
Tags:
access
aspirations
disadvantage
enrichment
leadership
policy
pupil premium
school improvement
transition
underachievement
Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
|
|
Posted By Nettlesworth Primary School,
29 March 2022
Updated: 24 March 2022
|
Donna Lee, Headteacher and Inclusion Coordinator at NACE member and Challenge Award-accredited school Nettlesworth Primary shares the school’s approach to ensuring the pupil premium is used to full effect.
At Nettlesworth Primary, we are committed to ensuring the teaching and learning opportunities we provide meet the needs of all pupils, including those of our most disadvantaged pupils.
We ensure appropriate provision is made for pupils who belong to vulnerable groups, focusing on adequately assessing and addressing their needs. These pupils benefit from individualised programmes based on an accurate understanding of what support best suits each pupil. Through this we aim to accelerate progress and overcome barriers to learning so that these pupils achieve similar outcomes to their peers, and to diminish the difference between those entitled to pupil premium (PP) funding and those who are not.
We focus on high-quality teaching and effective deployment of staff to support disadvantaged children. Following the national lockdown prompted by Covid-19, it is even more imperative that pupils are supported within school to ensure that any gaps in their knowledge can be addressed quickly and effectively, ensuring they have all the tools necessary to make progress.
All staff in school have contributed to the evaluation of the strategy. This has allowed a whole-school overview to be created, and has focused the attention of staff on the needs of the pupil premium children in their classes, those with the lowest levels of engagement during the pandemic, and those with the greatest recovery needs when returning to school.
Here are 10 approaches that have been key to ensuring effective use of pupil premium funding for all learners in our school, including more able disadvantaged learners:
1. Maximising staff performance and development
Systems and processes such as performance management and coaching are utilised to maximise employee performance. Through tackling underperformance, this secures defined and measurable outcomes through best use of time and efficacy. Performance management is integral to school improvement planning. Staff actively participate in the objective setting and review process, receiving effective feedback to progress priorities by tackling underperformance, celebrating success and developing human resource capacity through distributive leadership of priorities such as pupil premium, sport premium, special educational needs, and more able provision.
We emphasise the importance of ‘quality teaching first’ and aim to provide a consistently high standard through monitoring performance and tailoring teaching. External evidence is used alongside knowledge of our pupils to support our pupil premium strategy.
2. Investing in developing all staff members
We believe that using PP funding for CPD to ensure staff have the skills and training to take on more specialist roles brings the biggest impact. Investing in the development of staff such as teaching assistants and early career teachers leads to a higher level of expertise within the organisation. The creative use of human resources, in partnership with networking schools on a reciprocal basis, enables the development of a culture of mutual reliance and collective buy-in between the More Able Leads – learning from and with each other for mutual benefit for more able learners. This results in improvements in leadership knowledge, skills and behaviours, and improved attainment at greater depth against national comparatives.
3. Regular reports at governor meetings
Regular reports and attendance at governor meetings to update on progress helps to secure this focus within the organisation. Designated pupil premium governors and school leaders continually monitor the progress of the pupil premium strategy, adapting approaches when appropriate.
4. Committing to inclusive, flexible provision for all
We seek to be an inclusive school in which the curriculum is sufficiently flexible to fully match the individual learning needs of all children. Adopting an inclusive environment for all areas of our curriculum is essential to develop the needs of all our children. Our staff ensure that appropriate provision is made for all groups of children who belong to vulnerable groups. Our school has a whole-school ethos of attainment for all and views each pupil as an individual.
5. Pupil premium strategy shared with all staff members
The headteacher, in liaison with the Pupil Premium Lead, compiled and wrote the pupil premium strategy and shared it with the whole staff. Members of staff offered appropriate amendments to ensure all areas of the desired outcomes were met. The pupil premium lead then wrote an action plan to ensure the desired outcomes are achieved. This was then shared with all staff during a staff meeting. The strategy is reviewed each term.
6. Regularly updated pupil premium records
All teachers have a pupil premium file that clearly highlights all appropriate information regarding disadvantaged children, including more able learners, within their class. All staff are responsible for collating evidence for each child and continuously updating their files. The Pupil Premium Lead and Inclusion Coordinator monitor the files half-termly. These are very much working documents and staff utilise them to ensure an inclusive provision for our pupil premium children. The Pupil Premium Lead and Inclusion Coordinator track the progress of each disadvantaged child and create a termly overview for each file.
7. Planning for maximum progress in an inclusive environment
Teachers strategically plan, pitch, differentiate and deliver all lessons to ensure maximum progress is achieved in an inclusive environment. First-hand experiences are offered during each topic where the children can develop knowledge and skills. When developing our pupil premium strategy we take into account teachers’ feedback on pupils’ levels of engagement and participation, and their understanding of any challenges that disadvantaged pupils are facing.
8. Appropriate use of intervention groups
The Pupil Premium Lead liaises with the Inclusion Lead to devise appropriate intervention groups to ensure progression to diminish the gap in learning. Intervention groups include: Phonics, Reading, Maths, Lego Therapy, Breakfast Club, Tuition, Coordination Programmes and Nurturing. Each teaching assistant maintains an intervention file as a working document. These files are monitored every two weeks, and the progress of the children discussed with development points offered. The Pupil Premium Lead and Inclusion Coordinator monitor the progress of the disadvantaged children within these intervention groups. The Pupil Premium Lead, in collaboration with the Intervention Lead, delivered CPD to teaching assistants who deliver interventions to pupil premium groups, concentrating on activities, methods of recording, and introduction of a website page dedicated to pupil premium.
9. Mental health first aid
We have a member of staff who continues to develop her role within school of mental health first aider for any children who may be feeling vulnerable or have any worries or emotional issues which need support and intervention. We also have a group of children who are trained as mental health peers to support other children in the school. Many of these trained children are our more able disadvantaged learners. Staff have participated in training on highlighting strengths in pupils’ work and providing opportunities to raise their self-esteem within the classroom.
10. Increasing participation in enrichment activities
We seek to enable pupils to engage in school life fully, including support on healthy lifestyles and resources to access learning. We want children to be involved in enrichment within school, including accessing after-school clubs, visits and overnight residential trips. It is important to make decisions based on an understanding of individual pupils’ needs. Pupil premium funding is used to supplement and/or enhance educational visits and experiences across year groups, and to further target wider identified curriculum resources for pupil premium children across a variety of curriculum areas in order to aid children’s understanding, knowledge and key skills of development.
Read more:
Tags:
access
aspirations
disadvantage
enrichment
leadership
policy
pupil premium
school improvement
underachievement
Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
|
|
Posted By Chris Yapp,
08 September 2021
|
NACE patron Dr Chris Yapp explains why he believes real change is needed to the assessment system, with potential benefits for learners at all stages of life and development.
Given the significant focus on assessment in education that has followed the two years of the pandemic so far, the question for me when thinking about the future is: “How radical a change is needed?”
Whether it’s abolishing GCSEs or changing grades from A-Z to 1-9, the real issue at the heart of the future system is whether the new system reflects the individual’s efforts, aspirations and capabilities better than the system I grew up with, still largely intact. Importantly, can the system be more inclusive and less stressful to teachers and students alike?
So, what do I want to replace 10 GCSEs and four A-levels with?
For reasons I won’t bore you with, my wife and I have used the pandemic to learn Portuguese on Duolingo. We now have a 304-day streak, unbroken. We have around 55,000 points and now we achieve 300 points a day from a slow start.
I don’t want to talk about the pedagogy behind Duolingo. I have some criticisms there, but I think there are some really interesting lessons on assessment and, above all, feedback.
The lessons are structured in levels around topics. There are tips for each section. A typical lesson takes around 10-15 minutes. At the end of each session points are given. After a number of topics, stories are opened. There are also timed lessons. Today we reached 74% of the course. We have found some topics harder than others. Each question has a discuss button and people can raise concerns and ask questions. Some phrases are ambiguous, or the English translation is tortuous. There are examples where there are multiple correct answers that generate debate. We find some of the discussions around Brazilian Portuguese particularly fascinating. There are leagues with relegation and promotion.
For children raised with gaming, the idea of levels and points comes naturally. Retrying a level until you get it right is part of the experience, not evidence of failure. So, instead of a Grade C, why not produce a system with 100,000 points available in 10 levels, with the ability to see areas of strength and weakness?
Importantly, the scoring follows stage, not age. Many parents are quite happy when their offspring are doing Grade 4 piano and Grade 2 violin at the same time. It is not evidence of failure that different skills develop at different paces for different children.
Why shouldn’t a child leave school with, say, five million points scattered across a wide-ranging curriculum?
Let me illustrate with some examples of how the assessment system could be adapted to support more personalised learning built around a child’s interest and capability.
Khalid is 12. His hobby is photography. He wants to understand colour better. He wants to do that now. Unfortunately, the physics curriculum covers that when he’s 13 and the art curriculum at 11. Here, his interests outside school could motivate his development across multiple subjects at a pace and direction of his choosing.
Amanda is 13. Her mother is Italian and they speak Italian at home. The school does not have an Italian teacher. If they did, she might get an “A”, but instead will get a “C” in French. Here her A grade may reflect less on the school than a C grade does. The school “fails” if she gets a C, but “succeeds” if she gets an A. Here, the rigidity of the curriculum and assessment models reflect neither the individual nor her teachers.
Hazel is 8 and a bookworm. She devours books and loves to talk about them, be they stories, science, geography or history. How does assessing her reading against a narrow range of books tied to specific topics demonstrate her strengths and interests? She is fascinated by space and is reading teenage books on the subject.
Every teacher I’ve met could tell me similar stories about the children they have taught.
I think it’s important also to think about what this might say about professional development of teachers.
Geoff teaches French. He speaks a little Spanish and has picked up some Greek on holidays. Using my Duolingo example above, why would it not be possible for him to develop language skills in other languages as part of his own development? It could be built around his personal responsibilities for family and leisure activities – again stage, not age. For the school, the ability to widen its language portfolio could be a valuable asset.
Similar models might help a chemistry teacher improve his understanding of, say, biology. Imagine a personal development plan where teachers agreed to 5,000 points a year of personal development, rather than 10 days, which may be difficult to manage and pressure of time may make ineffective.
None of this would be easy, or quick. But building assessment into the learning, rather than a bolt-on much later, could free teacher time to better use.
So many children are let down, in my opinion, by the current system that I will be disappointed if all we end up doing is replacing one set of exams by another with a rigid exam system and season. I’ve known children affected by divorce, hay fever, asthma and death of a parent, as just a few examples, whose grades did not reflect either their abilities or effort, or the ability and commitment of their teachers. Even worse, the month a child is born still has effects on grades at secondary school.
So, the real challenge is whether this would be more inclusive or not.
Here I can sit on both sides of that argument and remain undecided on how to optimise the system. My one observation is that from a young age, gaming is part of children’s lives across a wider social spectrum than is current societal expectation of schools. When a child gets stuck at Level 7, their friends will often help or share ideas. There is both competition and collaboration at work. Both are valuable adult skills.
Finally, the rich data from this approach could enhance the role of teachers as researchers and create a stronger culture of action research within education at school and college level. For me, this allows the creation of a record of achievement that allows for “partial” subjects, not just a few. A school visit to a museum, for instance, could have a quiz that is incorporated into the child’s records. After-school activities might also benefit from this approach. I visited a school some years ago that had an astronomy group. They were sharing topics and materials with other schools. That collaborative learning between teachers and schools was interesting to observe. Yet, there was limited recognition within the current system for that personal development.
A new year begins after two of the most difficult times any of us have experienced in our adult lives. Thank you all, for your effort and commitment.
Change is coming: let’s make it work for all learners, be they teachers or students.
Read more:
Tags:
access
assessment
collaboration
CPD
disadvantage
independent learning
leadership
lockdown
policy
school improvement
technology
underachievement
Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
|
|
Posted By Christabel Shepherd,
25 March 2021
|
Christabel Shepherd, NACE Vice-Chair and Curriculum Development Director
Following her live webinar for those leading on policy and provision for more able learners (full recording now available), NACE Vice-Chair and Curriculum Development Director Christabel Shepherd shares her own experience of seeing how a focus on more able can drive sustainable whole-school improvement, and the importance of embedding this understanding across the school.
In my recent live webinar for those leading on more able, I outlined the importance of developing a whole-school approach – sharing examples of what it might look in practice and guidance on how to develop, coordinate and embed such an approach.
There is often a misconception that supporting more able learners is solely the responsibility of the more able lead/coordinator. This is not the case. Whilst the more able lead will advocate for the more able, oversee policy and monitor and evaluate provision, this doesn’t happen in isolation. Everyone in school has a role to play in championing more able learners and in developing a clear vision for them. Fundamentally all should have an agreed understanding of the “who and why”, which in turn leads to professional dialogue and planning around the “what and how”. Delivering that vision is therefore everyone’s responsibility. This is why it is so important for the more able coordinator to have a clear understanding of his/her role and clarity around where others will support. A good starting point for this is NACE’s “ leading on more able” resource collection.
With this in mind, what would a truly whole-school approach entail for each staff member?
Roles and responsibilities
- Headteacher/SLT: more able leadership must come from the top; key curriculum and pedagogy principles for more able learners should be embedded in school policies, planning, monitoring and evaluation cycles; appropriate support, resourcing and CPD should be in place.
- More able lead: the more able lead coordinates the approach across the school, working alongside colleagues at all levels to ensure the needs of more able learners are understood and met. This may include mentoring other staff members, forging relationships with external partners, sharing relevant research, best practice and CPD opportunities, and coordinating school-wide audit and evaluation of more able provision.
- Subject leaders: subject leaders should ensure there is a clear and shared understanding of high ability and high-quality challenge in their subject, including guidance on identification and tracking of more able learners (including underachieving/potentially more able) in the subject, and ensuring appropriate provision is in place.
- Teaching and support staff: all teaching and support staff should be aware of the school’s policy for more able learners, understand the importance of high-quality provision for the more able and its wider impact, and be equipped and supported to deliver high-quality provision for the more able within a school culture of challenge for all. Teachers should also be clear about the need and mechanisms for assessing the achievement of more able learners and how to feed such assessment information back into teaching.
The wider impact of a focus on more able
During the webinar I also shared my own experience of seeing how a focus on improving provision for the more able has a much wider impact. At Copthorne Primary School, of which I am currently Executive Headteacher (formerly Headteacher), the school has had outcomes well above the national average, despite being in an area of high deprivation and with a vast majority of learners speaking English as an additional language. I believe this is because of our continuing commitment to and focus on improving provision the more able.
When you focus on the more able and you teach to the top, it raises standards and aspirations for all. It makes both students and staff look at things completely differently. This approach has the power to transform the whole school culture: energising, empowering, and embedding a commitment to research-informed, quality-first teaching for all. I have seen this transformation first-hand.
This whole-school approach permeates all of NACE’s resources and support for schools, including the NACE Challenge Framework©, NACE Curriculum Audit© and the newly developed NACE Assessment Audit©. All offer a lens through which to ensure the needs of the more able are understood and addressed at whole-school and departmental levels, while raising standards across the board.
With over 30 years’ experience of teaching in both primary and secondary settings, Christabel Shepherd is currently Executive Headteacher of Bradford’s Copthorne Primary and Holybrook Primary Schools. As a member of NACE’s senior team, she plays a leading role in the development and delivery of training for those leading on more able policy and practice.
Additional resources and support
- Resource collection: Leading on more able – explore our full collection of resources for those leading on more able – including updated guidance and resources to support review and development of school policy in this area.
- Recorded webinar: Leading more able policy and provision in your school – the full recording of Christabel Shepherd’s recent webinar is available to purchase for just £100, exploring the themes covered in this blog post in greater detail.
- On-demand modular courses – flexible recorded CPD modules to support those leading on more able, and for use in wider training across the school; including a focus on the role of the more able lead, identification, curriculum audit, planning for challenge and more.
Tags:
collaboration
CPD
leadership
myths and misconceptions
policy
school improvement
Permalink
| Comments (2)
|
|
|
Posted By Jon Murphy,
17 March 2021
|
Does your school have a dedicated link governor for more able learners? If so, are you using this role to full effect? If not, how could you benefit from and effectively develop this role?
In this blog post, NACE Associate Jon Murphy – a former teacher governor representative, headteacher governor (ex officio), clerk to governing bodies for seven years, and currently chair of a primary school governing body – explains the benefits of the more able link governor role and shares advice for effective implementation.
Great school governing bodies are not at arms-length; they are hands-on. School leadership is done with them, not to them. Strong governing bodies are acutely aware of the differentiation between their leadership role, the day-to-day management responsibilities of the headteacher, and the fine dividing line that enables them to work in harmony.
Prior to March 2020, visitor registers reflect the considerable amount of time governors spent in school, often in their link governor role. Blank pages for last year’s entries are testament to the impact of national lockdown measures on the many people who enhance and enrich life of a school.
Media platforms such as Teams and Zoom have thrown us a lifeline, boosting our mental wellbeing by keeping family, friends and the wider world in touch. For school governing bodies, these platforms provide a virtual route into school, enabling them to carry out their core school leadership function. However, even though we have been grateful for the contact video conferencing has given us, not being able to physically visit schools has narrowed the full contributions school governors are able to give. One of the key roles that has suffered most has been that of the link governor, the nature of which is hands-on and school-based.
However, the much talked-about tunnel light is now shining brighter and growing larger. Soon, under careful risk assessment management, governors will again be signing the visitor register and crossing classroom thresholds.
Earlier this term the DfE published an updated guide to external reviews of school governing bodies in England. It cites reasons for a review, including to help the governing body be more skilled, focused and effective; to be confident that it has a clear delineation of roles and responsibilities; to have the right number of skilled and committed governors to meet the needs of the school or academy; and to hold school leaders to account for improving outcomes for all pupils, including those who are disadvantaged.
As schools re-open to all learners, it seems timely to refresh our memories of the key purpose of link governors and how they contribute to continuous school improvement and the raising of standards.
Appointing a more able link governor: what, why and how to get started
The primary role of the more able link governor is to provide a conduit between the governing body and the school, to collaboratively monitor how strategy translates into practice, and ultimately the impact policy has on the raising of standards for more able learners.
It is not a mandatory requirement for a school governing body to appoint one of its members to the position of more able link. However, most appreciate the value and benefit for more able learners that this more operational governor role brings to the school.
School governing bodies are most effective when they undertake an interests and skills audit to enable them to best deploy their members to specific roles. Interests and skillsets of individual governing body members should be carefully considered when allocating them to a specific link role. Aligning the skills of an individual to the area they are supporting will directly impact on the success and effectiveness of that person in the role of link governor.
Guidance for more able link governors: how to be effective in the role
Seek out opportunities for continuing professional development
More able strategy and operation in school is diverse. Understanding the extent of its reach and the depth of its provision can prove a challenge to the non-initiated or non-educationalist. In undertaking preparation for this role, it is advisable that appropriate professional development is undertaken. Many governor services offer excellent CPD on curriculum provision and specific areas such as more able and ALN/SEND, often facilitated by school-based staff.
In best practice, the school’s more able lead will make presentations at governing body meetings on provision the school makes for more able learners. These presentations are an excellent first-hand source of expertise, information and experience. To be fully effective the link governor should grasp professional development opportunities which will enable them to keep abreast of local and national developments (particularly significant in Wales at present, with the pace of reform and the inception of the new Curriculum for Wales).
Develop your knowledge and understanding of school data
Data training is an important part of the induction of a new governor. Prior to classroom visits, a great deal can be learnt about the impact of a school’s more able provision by looking at and understanding what data is saying about the performance of the cohort of more able learners. In its raw numerical form data gives an overview of performance, but it is at its most useful when accompanied with a commentary explaining patterns, trends, comparisons and reasons – not excuses – for performance.
Governors should never react to data but they should think about it. Data is at its most useful and powerful when it is used to generate questions. A thorough knowledge and understanding of data allows governors to undertake one of their core responsibilities: to hold the leadership team to account and to challenge standards and performance.
The more able link governor should be aware that data generally only covers “academic” subjects, and that provision for the more able extends far beyond just academic achievement. NACE’s approach is to look beyond definitions that focus solely on academic achievement, “to include those who may be underachieving or whose skills and knowledge may extend beyond national measures of progress and attainment.” Understanding the school’s target-setting processes provides another source of data and can say a lot about a school’s aspirations and ambitions for more able learners. Establish strong and positive relationships with school staff
As with any link governor position, establishing a working relationship with the more able coordinator and teachers based on mutual trust and transparency will determine the success of the role. Sensitivity to the perception that staff have when the link governor is invited into the classroom is critical. Teachers must see the purpose of a link governor as a source of support and as a critical friend, not as an inspector. Do not approach the task in terms of “I am…” but instead “I will…”. For example: “I will look forward to learning from you and supporting you in further developing provision for our more able learners.”
Following adequate preparation to undertake the role of more able link governor, the first port of call for staff contact would be with the school’s more able lead/coordinator. Initial discussions should focus on the more able policy that has been adopted (or not, as may be the case) by the school governing body. A valuable insight can be gained about how, when and by who the policy was developed. Discussions will focus on how the more able coordinator ensures that policy and strategy translate into practice within the classroom. Ownership of policy is directly linked to its effectiveness and the more able link governor has a vested interest in becoming one of the co-owners.
A governor new to the link role should approach their first learning walk or classroom visits as an informal awareness-raising exercise, an opportunity to talk to staff, to get to know them, and to learn about the different strategies and methods used to provide for the more able. Until you know what the practice is, you can’t start to make contributions to support and develop it. First impressions on initial classroom visits are critical in establishing a good working relationship between the link governor and school staff. Positivity opens doors; negativity closes them.
Undertake regular monitoring through visits and discussions
As the more able link governor builds experience, confidence and staff trust gained from the initial awareness-raising visits, they can start to extend their more formal monitoring responsibilities. Monitoring of provision and standards is an important function of the link governor. Learning walks and classroom visits will allow a well-informed link governor to monitor how well policy is being implemented.
Visits should not be ad hoc; the purpose of classroom visits should be carefully planned and focused. Provision for the more able is extensive; it touches most areas of curriculum delivery and wider aspects of school life. The more able link governor should let staff know the purpose and focus of their visit so staff can prepare and share best practice. During the classroom visit only the agreed focus should be monitored; it is important not to be distracted from that focus. Staff trust can easily be lost if a link governor comments on aspects of practice that are not part of the agreed focus.
Discussions with teachers provide a measure of how consistently policy is being delivered. Importantly, listening to pupil voice is a key priority as part of the monitoring process and will give a strong indication as to the impact policy is making on individual learners. Discussions with parents can be valuable, and where held, governors’ annual meetings provide a vehicle to listen to the parent voice and to gain their opinion on the provision made for their more able child. Through stakeholder discussion, monitoring allows the link governor to understand any pressures or barriers (budgets, lockdown!) that may affect implementation of policy.
Recognise and celebrate good practice
We all thrive on praise and the proverbial pat on the back is always most welcome. Praise can be a self-fulfilling prophesy (and teachers can be their own worse critics). Tell someone they are doing a great job and they aspire to do even better! Learning walks and classroom visits provide that face-to-face opportunity to acknowledge hard work and good practice. Link governors are the conduit between the staff, and at times, an otherwise faceless governing body. They are ideally placed to acknowledge, thank and celebrate a job well done by committed and dedicated staff.
Report back to support whole-school review and improvement
Following a learning walk, classroom visit, or listening to stakeholders, the link governor should prepare a brief bullet point report for feedback to either a governor’s sub-committee (e.g. teaching and learning sub-committee) or to the whole governing body. In no way should reports be personalised and name individual members of staff; they should be based on how well policy is being applied and its impact on the provision that is being made. When any report is more widely shared with governors, there should be no surprises for staff.
Full governing body meetings provide an ideal platform for the more able coordinator to champion the provision the school makes for more able learners and to make the case for the further allocation of budget and resources. The strength of a governing body lies in the sum of its parts and each link governor constitutes a part of the whole. When each feeds back their observations, the full governing body gains an invaluable evaluation into how effectively their strategic lead and policy development is impacting on raising standards for learners.
There is a direct correlation between well-informed and strategically effective governing bodies and the work undertaken by their link governors. Each governor link role adds value to school improvement. It is incumbent on each link governor to do the best possible job they can: “a chain is as strong as its weakest link”. We get out of bed in the morning to make a difference, and the difference a well-informed and skilled link governor can make to the learning opportunities for more able learners is indisputable. In my own link governor role, I for one look forward to when we can walk back through the school gates again, alongside staff and pupils, to make a difference together.
Additional reading and support:
Ask NACE... Could you benefit from additional guidance in establishing or developing your school’s more able link governor? Whether you are newly creating this role, or keen to develop its impact, our “Ask NACE” service offers 1-2-1 support bespoke to your individual needs and school context. Find out more.
Tags:
CPD
leadership
policy
school improvement
Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
|
|
Posted By Christabel Shepherd,
12 March 2021
|
Christabel Shepherd, NACE Curriculum Development Director and Vice-Chair
Definitions are important. If schools are going to ensure consistency of approach and provision, their definitions around more able learners must be clear, flexible, shared, and understood by all staff and stakeholders.
Definition is inextricably linked – in fact, essential – to the accurate identification of more and exceptionally able learners and their individual learning behaviours and needs. Accurate identification, in turn, is vital to ensuring that teachers effectively plan and provide for these learners in the classroom.
Clear definitions will also support parents of more and exceptionally able pupils, helping them to understand and distinguish between different descriptors and degrees of ability (such as ‘more’ and ‘exceptionally’ able) and the provision they might expect to be in place for these different groups.
Providing unambiguous definitions helps to prevent misconceptions. Agreed definitions will also help to avoid excessive labelling or perceived elitist descriptions.
Recommendations for schools
- To ensure that all staff take responsibility and are accountable for the identification of and provision for more and exceptionally able learners, develop or adopt your definitions together, ensuring a shared understanding of all the terminology used.
- Limit the number of definitions you use with regards to your more able learners. A suggestion is to use three as a maximum, clearly separating the different groups to which you are referring. For example, more able, exceptionally able and higher attaining. Using too many terms to describe groups of learners is likely to involve overlap within definitions and lead to confusion.
- Encompass within each definition the elements suggested below, so that there is no chance of any more or exceptionally able learners being missed.
- Beware of purely outcome-driven definitions. Those that are purely about the data omit consideration of performance in terms of many learning behaviours, skills and aptitudes which must be afforded equal importance. Such definitions also overlook underachievers or those who are potentially highly able.
- Rigidity in definition (especially in terms of numbers or percentages of pupils) should not be mistaken for clarity and can lead to issues by creating a glass ceiling, potentially missing those children who are more able but are not captured within the definition.
- Avoid imprecise language such as “significantly above their peers”. If this is used, define what that means in your context.
- Ensure that the definitions you use are clearly shown in your policy for the more able, and that all stakeholders, including parents and carers, understand them.
Developing clear and useful definitions
More able / most able / highly able
Due to their inherently similar meanings, it is easiest if the terms more able, most able and highly able are defined in the same way or encompassed within one “more able” definition which includes the following elements:
- Learners who have the potential or capacity for high attainment;
- Learners who demonstrate high levels of performance in an academic area;
- Learners who are more able relative to their peers in their own year group, class and school/college;
- Ability in all areas of the curriculum or in a specific subject/curriculum area, including the arts and physical activities.
Each of these elements is vital if the definition of “more able” is to be clear and encompass the breadth and flexibility needed to ensure outstanding provision.
Higher attaining
Whilst it is sensible to accept the terms more able, highly able and most able as having a shared definition, the term “higher attaining” has a distinct meaning and requires a separate definition.
This is an outcome-driven term and any definition adopted or developed for it must reflect this. If using this term, schools should ensure that it is simply a way of identifying learners based purely on their performance. Its use does allow schools to differentiate clearly between the more able, as defined above, and those who attain the highest standards. There is overlap between the two groups but, importantly, they can also be distinct.
So while this term can be useful, it should not be used interchangeably with or instead of “more able”; it means something entirely different.
Gifted
The important element of any definition of giftedness must include the term “exceptional”. According to an article on gifted children by Ireland’s Special Education Support Service, the definition of “gifted” which is accepted worldwide in educational and psychological circles is: “a child who shows exceptional ability in one or more areas such as mathematical, verbal, spatial awareness, musical, or artistic ability.”
As this term is often considered elitist and is certainly very emotive, its use has been largely abandoned by schools and replaced by the term “exceptionally able”.
Exceptionally able
The abilities and needs of the exceptionally able exceed those of the more able.
Within any definition of the exceptionally able it is important to:
- Distinguish between these and other more able learners in two ways: (1) By the use of the qualifying adjective “extremely”; (2) By the comparison with peers in all schools/across the entire population, as opposed to those within each particular school.
- Include reference to learners who have as yet unrealised potential for exceptional ability.
- Describe the needs of these pupils as going beyond those of students already deemed to require opportunities for enrichment and extension in the normal curriculum.
- Explain that exceptional ability may comprise both quantitative and qualitative aspects, but will certainly include high abstract reasoning ability and complexity of thinking.
In many schools the terms “gifted” and “exceptionally able” are used interchangeably as they share meaning and can be defined similarly. However, “exceptionally able” may be an easier term to understand, helping to define what is meant more clearly. It is also a much less controversial and emotive descriptor.
Talented
In the early years of the “more able” agenda, “talented” learners were defined by the DfES as those with particular abilities in sport, music, design or creative and performing arts. This group included those who were “vocationally gifted”, “those with an innate ability, who present a natural, outstanding aptitude or competence for exceptional performance.”
This definition was adopted by the majority of schools. In a nutshell, it was a way of labelling learners who were highly able in what were considered the non-academic subjects or spheres of learning.
In most schools today, there is little or no distinction made between the terms “more able” and “talented”. They share the same meaning.
Underachieving more able learners
In attempting to arrive at a useful definition for underachieving more able learners, schools should consider including the following criteria:
- Learners whose prior attainment demonstrates high levels of ability, but whose current performance fails to demonstrate this. Underachievement may be the result of barriers to pupils’ learning, including socio-economic factors, SEMH needs, language and communication issues, etc.
- Learners whose contributions, responses and learning behaviours suggest that they are more able, although this is not reflected in their written work or assessments. This may include those learners with “dual” or “multiple exceptionality”.
- Those who haven’t yet been identified due to too narrow a curriculum or limited learning opportunities. These are potentially more able learners.
Dual and multiple exceptionality
These terms describe learners who are more or exceptionally able and who also have additional learning needs e.g. dyslexia, autistic spectrum disorders, developmental coordination disorder, developmental language disorder, emotional and behavioural difficulties, physical and sensory differences. These additional learning needs or a disability can make it difficult to identify their high intellectual ability.
It is important to include this definition in more able policies as these pupils may otherwise be overlooked.
Achievement and attainment
When developing definitions and shared approaches for more able learners, it is also useful to have a clear understanding of these two key terms. In the NACE Essentials guide Breaking down barriers, Professor Carrie Winstanley defines them as follows:
- Attainment refers to the level or standard of a learner’s work as demonstrated by some kind of test, examination or in relation to a predetermined expected level. In UK schools, the common measures for attainment are Standard Attainment Tests (SATs) and public examinations such as GCSEs. The emphasis here is on how learners perform when tested.
- Achievement also refers to the success of a learner, but also takes into account the progress made and improvements demonstrated across time. The notion of added value over a term, year or key stage is part of the equation here, not merely the summative test scores.
Potential pitfalls to avoid
Beware of:
- Adopting too wide a range of “more able” terminology. This will mean more chance of definitions overlapping, resulting in confusion for staff and parents.
- Using definitions which include the use of vague or imprecise language. This could lead to definitions being interpreted differently by individual staff members or groups of stakeholders.
- Using purely outcome-driven definitions. This can lead schools to become over-reliant on data to support the identification of more able learners, carrying the risk of overlooking the many highly able young people who may, for a range of reasons, be underachieving.
- Including percentages within definitions. As well as potentially causing confusion, this is ultimately likely to limit the identification of many more able learners – particularly those who are potentially more able or underachieving more able.
- Using the term “gifted”. This can be very emotive and tends to be associated with individuals who have produced great works, or who demonstrate abilities far beyond those expected for their age, for example, a child who achieves a place to study at Oxford University at the age of 12. This term is often considered elitist.
Continuing to strive for clarity and a shared understanding of “more able” definitions should be an expectation of our practice and will help to shape improved provision for all more able learners.
References
- Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), Identifying gifted and talented learners – getting started (May 2008)
- Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), Gifted and Talented Education Guidance on Preventing Underachievement: A Focus on Exceptionally Able Pupils (2008)
- GiftedKids.ie, The "Gifted" Label - Help or Hindrance? (accessed February 2021)
- School Governing Blogspot.com, Understanding Attainment, Achievement and Statistics Commonly used (April 2011; accessed February 2021)
- Sutton Trust, Potential for success: Fulfilling the promise of highly able students in secondary schools (July 2018)
Additional reading and support
Tags:
dual and multiple exceptionality
exceptionally able
leadership
myths and misconceptions
policy
underachievement
Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
|
|
Posted By Chris Yapp,
14 January 2021
|
Dr Chris Yapp, NACE patron
The need for reform of the assessment is system is now being well argued at the national level. It is important to remember that the current assessment framework and exam results are an important part of the accountability framework by which schools are judged. The issue I wish to address here is: how does any new assessment framework that is developed impact on the accountability of schools? Importantly, what issues and problems of the current approach could be addressed by a novel approach?
If I ask you about the ethos of your school, I would probably have no difficulty in achieving consensus that “every child should be able to reach their full potential” would be a core value of teachers and educational leaders near universally. However, if I suggest that 80% of children should achieve their full potential in education by 2025, how would you react?
My experience is that few are comfortable with the target, even though you can’t reach 100% unless you go through 80% at some point. It would be easy to be cynical that teachers may aspire to the vision but react against trying to achieve it. There are numerous reasons why professionals are uncomfortable with this problem. First, how do you measure potential? Importantly, does the assessment framework reflect both achievement and potential?
There is an economic model, Goodhart’s Law, which has a long history of precedent in different fields and is now more widely understood as a general problem. The usual formulation of the law is: “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.”
Consider the following example: 80% of children should reach Level X by Year Y.
Apart from agreeing how that is measured, there is another big problem to be addressed. Once a measure becomes a target it can be “gamed”.
Consider two schools with similar catchment areas and performance facing this as a target.
In the first, the leadership team focuses resources on all children and their development and reaches 78% on the timescale set.
In the second, 10% of children are given minimum support and the resources are focused on the remaining 90%. The school achieves 82%.
Which is the better school? Which would you want to work in? Which would you want your children to go to?
In short, targets can distort ethos and with it the morale and self-worth of professionals. It happens with accounting in the private sector, in reward mechanisms and many other walks of life. My experience is that once you understand Goodhart’s Law you start to see it everywhere.
One of my favourite quotes of Sir Claus Moser sums it up well: “If you can measure the same thing in two different ways, you'll get two different answers.”
The different components of education are heavily interdependent. Teacher development is heavily dependent on curriculum design, which in turn is heavily dependent on assessment. Attempting to reform one without understanding the impact on the other parts is fraught with difficulties.
So, I welcome a focus on reforming assessment in schools. For me, it is long overdue. However, in the context of our 21st century economy and society we need to be more explicit about the ethos of our education system and its individual institutions. I believe in accountability systems, but they must be driven by ethos, not targets. The assessment measures that are developed need to reflect our societal and economic goals for education itself.
If our ethos is to optimise pupil achievement, the wise words of Plato come to mind: “Do not train a child to learn by force or harshness, but direct them to it by what amuses their minds, so that you may be better able to discover with accuracy the peculiar bent of the genius of each.”
Tags:
assessment
leadership
policy
school improvement
Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
|
|
Posted By Tony Breslin,
07 December 2020
|
Tony Breslin outlines three of the key headlines emerging from his new book, Lessons from Lockdown: The Educational Legacy of COVID-19, and explores the implications for able children and those working with them.
Headline writers, media pundits, parents and politicians may not agree on many things but on one aspect of lockdown they are united: the closure of schools is the lockdown strategy of last resort. Notwithstanding the growth in home schooling, evidence of a new relationship between the home and the school, and a new embrace for online pedagogies, few in education would disagree. However, the assumptions that underpin this unity need to be unpicked, and the experience of learners explored, if we are to learn some of the most important lessons of lockdown.
Based on conversations with over one hundred pupils, parents and professionals in special, primary and secondary schools, my new book, Lessons from Lockdown: The Educational Legacy of COVID-19, is an attempt to capture these experiences, and the emergent reality is much more nuanced than the headlines suggest. In respect of supporting able students, I identify here three themes that I believe are especially pertinent and elaborate on these below.
1. The need for curriculum catch-up varies enormously within and between schools, and between individual students.
Behind the widespread panic about school closures – whether that be close to total, as was experienced in the spring and summer or ‘bubble by bubble’ as it has been since September – lies the assumption that children have been ‘missing out’ and missing out, in particular, on curriculum content. This fear of missing out – and the consequent need to ‘catch-up’ – sits at the heart of many media headlines and politicians’ pronouncements. There can be no doubt that some children have missed out enormously, and that the socio-economically disadvantaged and those living in challenging domestic circumstances have suffered most. Nor can it be denied that those in examination cohorts have had to navigate their courses through a choppy and much varied landscape, and here the variability of experience is the critical issue. Since the stuttering re-openings of first June and then September, no two schools in the same locality have had the same route from lockdown. But claims of a universal educational Armageddon are wide of the mark. In this mix, and in almost every setting, some young people have prospered: the children who have blossomed as a result of the previously scarce family time afforded to them, those who have valued the freedom of home-learning, those who have enjoyed pushing on through an examination specification at their own speed and have consequently gained ground. In this regard the re-introduction to school of these ‘lockdown-thrivers’, as I identify them in Lessons From Lockdown, is not without its challenges, especially when the ‘disaffected-able’ form a part of this cohort.
Against this background, the smartest ‘catch-up’ strategies have started with diagnosis of need, not its presumption, and proceeded to offer highly personalised support that is particular to the learner, the group and the bubble. This, of course, is strongest when it is informed by exactly the methodologies modelled by those working either with the most able or those facing particular learning challenges.
2. The social purpose of schooling has been underlined as never before.
Whatever the challenges of curriculum ‘catch-up’, what might be termed social catch-up is far more complex. But, if this challenge is not addressed, it will feed through into reduced wellbeing and lower educational attainment. The reason for this is straightforward: inclusion is not the poor relation of attainment; rather, and especially for those young people at either end of ability and motivational ranges, it is the pre-requisite for educational success, howsoever measured. Provided that we have the resources (a pretty big ‘provided’), we have the skills and the knowledge, especially within networks such as that provided by the NACE community, to advise on and deliver curriculum catch-up: booster classes, revision modules, targeted interventions, personal study plans and so on. Not so, social catch-up: how do you address the gaps left by virtually a year without play dates for the seven-year-old, or by several months of those evenings and weekends usually spent with friends, often not really doing anything, as a teenager?
In short, whatever the educational purpose of schools, their social (not to mention the socio-economic) purpose has been underlined by the pandemic, and with it the vital contribution that this makes to the development of the young. It may be time to give far more status to the social purpose of schools and to appraise their success against a much broader scorecard. At risk of repetition, wellbeing is not a nicety to be considered after good grades have been assured; it is the foundation block on which achievement rests.
3. The challenge lies not in getting back to where we were, but to deciding where we want (and need) to go.
Towards the close of our focus group and interview-based discussions, I posed one key question: what can’t you wait to get back to, and what can’t you wait to leave behind? Highly structured systems (or ‘total institutions’ as Erving Goffman termed them over fifty years ago) tend to reproduce themselves over time and are remarkably resilient of change. The military, hospitals, prisons, our public service bureaucracies and, of course, schools, are such institutions. Their tendency is to maximise the feeling of change while minimising its impact. How else might we explain why generations of educational reform have delivered a curriculum that still mirrors that offered in the post-war schools of three-quarters of a century ago? Why else might we have overseen the building of a swathe of new schools at the turn of this century constructed on the exact template of their predecessors? Highly structured organisations such as schools (and there is no doubting the need for such structure) usually change only as the result of a profound system shock. The pandemic has provided just such a shock; so, the question is straightforward, even if the answer is far from simple: where do we want and need to go from here, and how are we going to get there?
Schooling will be different after all of this. As a profession, and as a community of interest – one particularly committed to identifying, supporting and unlocking potential in able children – we need to ensure that we work with colleagues, and their specific communities of interest, to shape the schooling of the future. If we don’t, it will surely be done for us, and to us (again).
A teacher by profession, and a former Chief Examiner and Local Authority Adviser, Dr Tony Breslin is Director at Breslin Public Policy Limited and a Trustee of Adoption UK. He works extensively in the spheres of curriculum development, citizenship education, school governance and lifelong learning. His new book, Lessons from Lockdown: The Educational Legacy of COVID-19, is published by Routledge and available to pre-order now. A 20% discount is available for NACE members on this and all purchases from Routledge (log in for details of all current member offers).
Read more:
Tags:
curriculum
disadvantage
lockdown
policy
remote learning
wellbeing
Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
|
|
Posted By Sue Riley,
22 October 2020
|
Sue Riley, NACE CEO
Many of you will have seen the open letter to the Sunday Times from the recently formed Rethinking Assessment group. Born from issues raised this summer, Rethinking Assessment is a broad coalition of state and independent schools, universities, academics, employers and other stakeholders, which aims to value the strengths of every child. At its heart lies four fundamental principles:
- Many young people find the way our exam system works increasingly stressful and not a true reflection of what they are good at.
- Many employers complain that exams do not provide them with good enough clues as to who they are employing.
- Many headteachers feel that high-stakes exams distort priorities and stop them from providing a well-rounded education for their pupils.
- Many who are passionate about social mobility believe that any system that dooms a third to fail is a system with little sense of social justice.
We want to add our members’ voice and our research to this debate. There are immediate questions to be answered and longer-term opportunities to recalibrate the assessment system so that all learners have their full range of strengths recognised. As a membership organisation we can share and build on the decisions school leaders are taking now and over time provide perspectives that will inform longer-term changes.
Assessment is of course an integral part of learning and teaching. It facilitates daily ongoing review of individual progress and impacts on planning and target-setting. It supports personal learning targets. But we must not let the tail wag the dog. Not everything needs to be assessed, or indeed can be assessed, or needs to be independently assessed. We must consider too the timing of assessment – even more pressing as schools focus on tier 2 rota planning.
Whilst a decision over summer exams has been made in principle, “fall-back” detail remains unclear and learners are picking up on this, increasingly questioning the reasoning behind assignments, and the part they will play in assessment. All of this detracts from the richness of a subject.
The Early Career Framework and Teachers’ Standards have done much to support the teaching profession’s development in recent years. We must trust teachers with assessment, but teachers must be clear on what they are assessing and why.
What can we therefore now do in our schools to readdress this balance? One response lies in thinking about what we assess on a day-to-day basis in classrooms, how we build on low-stakes testing, and how we position effective challenge. How effectively do your teachers use retrieval practice for example? Deliberately recalling information forces us to pull knowledge “out” and examine what we know. The “struggle” or challenge to recall information improves memory and learning – by trying to recall information, we exercise or strengthen our memory, and we can also identify gaps in our learning.
NACE has recently undertaken a literature review of retrieval practice – looking at the theoretical framework and considering emergent related classroom practices and practical amendments and applications for more able learners. To access this review, click here.
Beyond the here and now of assessment, we need to return to the longer-term focus of the Rethinking Assessment coalition. Against the current backdrop, what could we do to improve the assessment system more broadly? How would we do it differently, allowing us to show non-traditional talents – making assessment more effective for employers, individuals and supporting the practising teacher? Fundamentally, how can we assess the child in front of us?
Contribute to the debate:
Read more:
Tags:
aspirations
assessment
campaigns
CEIAG
collaboration
leadership
lockdown
policy
school improvement
Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
|
|
Posted By Rob Lightfoot,
13 October 2020
|
Rob Lightfoot, NACE Associate and R&D Hub Lead
How can you engage colleagues across your school to develop a whole-school approach for more able learners? This is a common question, and a critical issue to address: for provision to be effective, it needs to be embedded as part of whole-school policy and culture.
1. Make time, even during challenging times
There is no doubt we are living in unprecedented times, and time is in especially short supply for colleagues in schools. In normal circumstances, you would spend time finding your advocates and working with them to display the benefits of enhancing provision for your more able students. There is no doubt that when your provision is strong for more able students, then the achievement of all students improves too. In the end this is not creating additional work for staff; it will just mean doing things differently. Though it may be hard to make time to review what could be improved for the more able, ultimately this will be worthwhile and have a positive impact for a much wider group – as set out in the NACE core principles.
2. Involve your school leadership team
Lead teachers for more able students must understand they cannot make the necessary changes on their own. The SLT has to be a central part of the process. Some lead teachers will already be part of the SLT, others will not. It is critical that the provision for more able students is discussed at a senior level so necessary procedures can be put in place across all departments or year groups. Consistency is the key if you are to create the biggest impact for students in your school.
3. Start work behind the scenes
Every school is in a different place. If you have been given the role of lead teacher for more able students but the staff around you cannot consider any changes at present, then there is plenty you can do behind the scenes, starting with an audit of your school’s current provision. If you do have advocates in your school already, then you can give them the same access to the NACE resources that are available to you (read more here). As I said previously, an advocate within the SLT is crucial.
4. Share the benefits of your NACE membership
Finally, consider how you can share the benefits of NACE membership with colleagues. Engagement in the NACE R&D Hubs would be a great opportunity for other teachers in the school with a passion for providing the best possible outcomes for your more able learners. The webinars are also a great source for whole-school CPD. Please be aware that all these resources and opportunities are available for every member of staff in your school, not just the lead teacher or the SLT.
For additional guidance and ideas, take a look at our “getting started” guide.
Useful links:
Tags:
collaboration
curriculum
leadership
lockdown
myths and misconceptions
policy
school improvement
Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
|
Print Page
Blog Home
All Blogs
RSS