Transcript Document

Using Action Research to Identify
and Address Underachievement
2008-2009
29 April 2008
Edgbaston Cricket Ground
What will my school be
expected to do?
Undertake an action research project to identify how the attainment of
identified underachieving pupils might be improved.
This will involve:
• Identification of the research question/hypothesis
• Identification of focus pupils, completing diagnostic analysis to
ascertain learning needs
• Identification of research approach and actions to be undertaken
• Completion and submission of bid through production of an action
plan
• Conduct action research project
• Interim evaluation and production of brief (written) report
• Collection of evidence of impact
• Evaluation of impact and production of brief (written) summary report
What support could be available?
Centre-based workshops (including the action research
process); in-school consultancy; networking with schools
researching similar issues.
Timescale:
* Bids submitted by 16th May 2008
* Results of bid and allocation of
£4,000 funding by the end of June 2008
* Action Research Project conducted
between September 2008 and June 2009.
* Interim report submitted by 1st December
2008 and second allocation of £4000 in
January 2009
* Final report submitted mid July 2009.
Actual and projected results for KS4 5+ A*-C including English and Maths by gender
based on average improvement rate 2005 to 2007
percentage of pupils achieving 5+A*-C inc Eng/Math
60.0
56.9
55.2
55.0
target for 2011
53.5
52.5
51.8
50.9
50.1
50.0
49.2
48.3
47.6
46.7
45.0
45.9
44.1
48.4
46.8
45.1
43.5
42.6
40.0
53
All
Girls
Boys
41.8
40.0
38.5
35.0
30.0
2005
2006
2007
2005 to 2007 actual results
2008
2009
2010
2008 to 2011 projected results
2011
Target 2011
Progress in English from KS3 to Key Stage 4 English GCSE by individual levels/grades, gender and
free school meals
Girls
Boys
All
80.0
70.0
percentage of pupils
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
KS3 Lev 3
FSM to KS4
A*-E
KS3 Lev 3
non-FSM to
KS4 A*-E
KS3 Lev 4
KS3 Lev 4
KS3 Lev 5
FSM to KS4 non- FSM to FSM to KS4
A*-D
KS4 A*-D
A*-C
KS3 Lev 5
non-FSM to
KS4 A*-C
KS3 Lev 6
FSM to KS4
A*-B
KS3 Lev 6
non-FSM to
KS4 A*-B
KS3 Lev 7
FSM to KS4
A*-A
KS3 Lev 7
non-FSM to
KS4 A*-A
Progress in Maths from KS3 to Key Stage 4 Maths GCSE by individual levels/grades, gender and free
school meals
Girls
Boys
All
45.0
40.0
percentage of pupils
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
KS3 Lev 3
KS3 Lev 3
KS3 Lev 4
KS3 Lev 4
KS3 Lev 5
KS3 Lev 5
KS3 Lev 6
KS3 Lev 6
KS3 Lev 7
KS3 Lev 7
FSM to KS4 non-FSM to FSM to KS4 non- FSM to FSM to KS4 non-FSM to FSM to KS4 non-FSM to FSM to KS4 non-FSM to
A*-E
KS4 A*-E
A*-D
KS4 A*-D
A*-C
KS4 A*-C
A*-B
KS4 A*-B
A*-A
KS4 A*-A
Actual and projected two overall two level progress from KS3 to KS4 in English 2005 to 2011 based
on increased improvement in specific progression groups 2008 to 2011
75.0
70.9
70.0
71
71
target for 2011
67.0
65.0
63.2
percentage of pupils
60.0
55.0
59.4
56.3
56.2
57.1
57.8
58.6
55.5
54.0
54.0
50.0
current projected
new projection
45.0
target for 2011
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
2005
2006
2007
2005 to 2007 actual point difference
2008
2009
2010
2011
2008 to 2011 projected point difference
Target 2011
Actual and projected two overall two level progress from KS3 to KS4 in Maths 2005 to 2011 based on
increased improvement in specific progression groups 2008 to 2011
50.0
45.0
target for 2011
percentage of pupils
current projected
new projection
40.9
40
40
40.0
37.7
35.0
34.4
31.1
28.9
30.0
32.3
27.8
27.1
25.0
31.1
30.0
25.6
25.6
20.0
2005
2006
2007
2005 to 2007 actual point difference
2008
2009
2010
2008 to 2011 projected point difference
2011
Target 2011
percentage of pupils achieving 5+A*-C inc Eng/Math
Actual and projected results for KS4 5+ A*-C including English and Maths by free
school meal entitlement (FSM) based on average improvement rate 2005 to 2007
60.0
55.0
50.0
45.0
49.5
46.5
42.6
47.8
51.0
52.5
54.0
55.5
52.5
50.9
49.2
47.6
45.9
44.1
40.0
All
non FSM
FSM
35.0
30.0
28.3
26.6
25.0
24.9
23.2
21.5
20.0
19.7
18.1
15.0
10.0
2005
2006
2005 to 2007 actual results
2007
2008
2009
2008 to 2011 projected results
2010
2011
percentage of pupils achieving 5+A*-C inc Eng/Math
Actual and projected results for KS4 5+ A*-C including English and Maths by free
school meal entitlement (FSM) based on current improvement rate and new rate if
progress in Maths to Grades C and B is increased
60.0
55.0
50.0
45.0
49.5
46.5
47.8
51.0
51.0
52.5
52.5
54.0
54.0
Current projection FSM
New projection FSM
Current projection non-FSM
New projection non-FSM
40.0
35.0
55.5
55.5
39.0
34.6
30.3
30.0
28.3
25.9
25.0
26.6
24.9
23.2
21.5
20.0
19.7
18.1
15.0
10.0
2005
2006
2005 to 2007 actual results
2007
2008
2009
2008 to 2011 projected results
2010
2011
BLACK PUPILS ACHIEVEMENT
PROGRAMME
Dr Lorna Cork
ACTION
RESEARCH
RAISING ACHIEVEMENT
Black Caribbean Pupil Density Map
IMPACTED ON:
• Enjoying and Achieving
• Parent and community partnership
• Mentoring for Learning
ACTIVE LEARNING THROUGH:
• Network meetings
• Engaging speakers/community groups
• Professional and peer support
• Practical guidance material
Pupil Voice:
‘Read more books’
‘Learnt about Black
culture and the
things I can do to
become successful’
Professional Voice
‘There is a raised
awareness of
ethnicity data which
has challenged
teacher expectations’
‘Programmes like this
are essential’
Key Stage Three
2006
LAC
No in cohort
No who sat all
% Entered
I
2007
LA
NAT
LAC
136
123
82
61
60
50
LA
NAT
% achieving Level 5 +
English Tests
34
66
72
29
69
74
Mathematics Tests
30
70
77
25
70
76
Science Tests
29
63
72
26
65
73
For Key Stage 3 we need to be asking:
•
•
•
•
•
Why is it that such a low percentage of the cohort actually entered all
their SATs?
What caused the 10% lower entry in 2007 as compared with 2006
What steps do we need to take to make sure that LAC attend school
and sit the test?
Why is the performance so much lower than their peer group?
Are we using LACES staff and all other resources available to us to
boost these young people’s scores?
Gifted and Talented
Paul Wolstenholme
Gifted and Talented
1. Underachievement = the failure to fulfil
potential
2. How would you know if your Gifted and
Talented pupils were underachieving?
The process for raising the
achievement of G&T pupils is
the same process as raising
achievement for other pupils.
1. Identify
underachievement
2. Explore
Reasons for
underachieve
ment
4. Monitor progress
and evaluate
impact
3. Put an intervention
plan into place
Intervention strategies that work
1. Assessment for Learning
•
The 24 KMOFAP teachers showed an average
effect size of 0.35
•
That is they boosted their classes GCSE grades
by about a half grade.
•
This would raise a school’s performance from the
bottom quarter of the league tables to the top
third.
Intervention strategies that work
2. Assertive Mentoring
In 1998 the GCSE A*-C results for Hurworth School
were 38%. They considered their biggest problem to be
‘laddishness’. In 2007 it was 91% (81%) including
English and maths. They believe that the gradual and
sustained improvement was due to the implementation
od assertive Mentoring firstly with their Year11 and
subsequently also with their Year 9.
Looked After Children
Frank Orboski
GCSE
2006
LAC
2007
LA
NAT
LAC
LA
No in cohort
I
127
161
No who sat 1+
84
99
% Entered
66
99
1 A*-G
55
98
98
60
98
5 A*-G
37
90
90
39
92
5 A*-C
13
59
59
13
62
61
% achieving
For GCSE we need to be asking:
• On the 2006 entry 99% of the LA Cohort were entered for at
least 1 GCSE. Why were only 66% of the LAC cohort entered?
• Why did this drop to 61% in 2007
• Do we make sure that LAC educated “off site” follow courses
that at least lead to some accreditation?
• How do we explain the gap between LAC and their peer group?
• What can we do to address this gap?
We are ALL the Corporate Parents for LAC:
• Would we be satisfied with these results for our own
children?
I
• Why should we be satisfied with them for children
for whom we are “Corporate Parents”?
• What are we doing about it?
Minority Ethnic Achievement Programme
and
EAL
Marion Sharieff and Paddy Walsh
Minority Ethnic Achievement Project (MEAP)
•
•
•
•
•
Leadership & inclusion
Effective use of data
Learning and teaching
Literacy and learning across the curriculum
Parents & the community
Objectives of the Project
To ensure that the attainment of the focus groups is raised
by:
• improved teaching and learning within the core subjects
in KS3
• Appropriate targeting of intervention and support
• Increasingly effective partnerships with parents and
community
Outcomes – pupil level
• Better understanding of their ‘working at’ levels and what
they need to do to improve
• Awareness of the ‘pupil voice’ informing teaching and
learning in the focus subject
• Increased motivation and enjoyment in lessons
• Increased rates of progress
• Higher aspirations
Outcomes – school level
• Improved quality of teaching and learning and more
effective use of Strategy and EMA resources
• Increased confidence in planning for a diverse range of
pupils
• Higher expectations of pupils
• More effective partnership with EMA colleagues
• More effective partnerships with parents and communities
Outcomes at LA level
• Mainstreaming of minority ethnic achievement
• Increased capacity to develop and sustain improvements
in the achievement of PBST heritage pupils
• Establishment of effective networks for promoting and
disseminating effective practice
Guidance Materials
Raising the attainment of Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Somali
and Turkish heritage pupils – Guidance for developing
inclusive practice is to be used with The management guide
to support school leaders in developing a strategic approach to
raising attainment
White Underachievement
Karamat Iqbal
White underachievement – Key Points
1.Largest underachieving group
2.Multiple disadvantage - lack of ‘social capital’,
least resilient
3.Excluded from race equality
4.No national strategy
5.Lacks ‘respectable’ representation
GCSE/GNVQ No Passes 2003
Nationally
• White
25000
• Black
1194
• Mixed
618
• Pakistani
601
• Indian
307
• Bangladeshi
231
There is a problem!
•
White boys on free school meals who did not achieve any GCSE
passes in 2003 were “the largest of any group”
SEU 2004
•
“But lowest of all, in those average test results, are White
working class boys” P Hewitt 2005
•
White British on FSM, lowest achieving (5+ A*-C) at 20%
DfES 2005
Underachieving White British pupils
• ‘Attention has sometimes focussed on the low attainment of
deprived White boys but deprived White girls do not fare
much better’
• 17% White British boys on FSM achieved 5+A*-C
(50% non FSM)
• 24% White British girls on FSM achieved 5+A*-C
(61% non FSM)
DCSF 30.04.07
Birmingham pupils who did not achieve
5 A*-C 2007: 4795





White
Pakistani
Black
Mixed
Indian
2496
937
381
299
211
Foundational disadvantage
1.
2.
3.
4.
Lack of cultural/linguistic resources
Disadvantaged by neighbourhood
‘socio-economic disadvantage is more strongly
associated with low achievement amongst White
British pupils than among other groups’ DCSF
30.04.07
‘Most ethnic groups have significantly smaller chances
of being low achievers than White British’ and ‘White
British students least able to weather economic
disadvantage’ Cassen + Kingdon 2007
Social capital
those tangible substances (that) count for most in daily lives of
people: namely goodwill, fellowship, sympathy, and social
intercourse among the individuals and families who make up a
social unit…
The individual is helpless socially, if left to
himself…If he comes into contact with his neighbour, and they
with other neighbours, there will be an accumulation of social
capital, which may immediately satisfy his social needs and
which may bear a social potentiality sufficient to the substantial
improvement of living conditions in the whole community.
The community as a whole will benefit by the co-operation of all its
parts, while the individual will find in his associations the
advantages of the help, the sympathy and the fellowship of his
neighbours
Robert D. Putnam ‘Bowling alone’ 2000
They don't mention us English
1.
2.
3.
‘Everyone hates the White working class male’- (Rod Liddle
14.11.04)
‘The prejudice that still shames the nation’ – (Nick Cohen
16.03.08)
‘We found a number of cases where teachers referred to diversity
and ethnicity in a way that focused almost exclusively on minority
ethnic groups and their cultures. White ethnicity ..was not
considered’ (Diversity and Citizenship in the curriculum DfES
2007)
Who gives a damn about White underachievement!
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Trades unions!
The Church!
Political parties!
Media!
Equality campaigners!
Professionals!
Schools
Others
Recommendations
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Acknowledge the problem
Need for explicit strategy & resources
Acknowledge & celebrate White ethnicity
Parental & wider community involvement
Seminars & workshops
Investment into development of social/cultural capital
What works!
Discussion
1.
What are your issues?
2.
In addressing underachievement, should we focus on:
– Social class
– Race
– Gender
3.
How to address political sensitivity surrounding White
underachievement
SEN Underachievement
Research Opportunities
Karen Wilson
Amanda Daniels
Gail O’Brien
Research
• Many researchers have shown that lower sets
contain a disproportionate number of boys, socially
disadvantaged pupils, pupils from minority ethnic
groups and summer-born children
Factors to consider regarding SEN pupil population
• Identification, assessment and monitoring
Over-representation and changing demographics
• Evaluating provision
SEN provision is historical and not matched to changing
priorities
What to consider?
• Data analysis
• Analysis of the learner, the environment, teaching
and learning styles
• Identification of distinct cohorts and monitoring for
possible over representation
• Review current provision
• Re thinking old patterns of support
• Prepare the ground for any new interventions
• Fidelity regarding those interventions
• Agreeing impact measures