Garnett / Beadle The Subject Leader

An Introduction to Leadership & Management
1. Auflage 2012
ISBN: 978-1-84590-827-0
Verlag: Crown House Publishing
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: 6 - ePub Watermark

E-Book, Englisch, 128 Seiten

However, most teachers went into education because they wanted to be teachers, not leaders, so they often haven't had any training into how to lead a subject area. This book seeks to deliver a whole range of practical solutions to the challenges that the role presents. The areas covered range from setting and communicating your vision, delivering high quality learning across all classes and developing rigorous and effective systems of self evaluation to understanding and developing a transformational leadership style. Hugely accessible and realistic, the book also tackles some of the other critical issues that sometimes face subject leaders. Practical solutions are offered around the issues of working with under-performing colleagues as well as managing the stresses of the role. Shortlisted for the Education Resources Awards 2013, Secondary Resource - non ICT category

Steve Garnett delivers innovative, exciting and inspirational learning and teaching focused INSET. Such is the demand for his work that it not only involves working across the UK but regularly involves international commitments in Europe, the Middle East and South East Asia too. As with so much in life a book is a fantastic start but if you want to take things further then it's probably best to experience it for yourself. Improving Classroom Performance has been delivered as a training day to hundreds of schools. Each of the three authors can deliver this training day, and you can be sure that it will conform to the Dragonfly promise of being totally practical, and delivered in a hands-on and entertaining manner. To book this course as an in school training session please contact Stephen Chapman, MD Dragonfly Training at [e-mail] or visit www.dragonfly-training.co.uk for further references. You may even like to call him on [phone].

Autoren/Hrsg.

Garnett, Steve

Beadle, Phil

Leseproben

Chapter 3
Self-Evaluation

Your challenge now is to embark on what is possibly the hardest part of the subject leader’s role: asking the following crucial questions about your work as a department:

How are we doing?

Where is my evidence to support my conclusions?

What we are doing well?

Where do we want to improve?

Welcome to the world of self-evaluation!

There is a simple enough structure on which to hang your evidence of self-evaluation – a triangle. As the shape suggests, there are broadly three domains where you should look to evaluate the effectiveness of learning and teaching: data, pupil evidence and lesson observation evidence.

Domain 1: Data

The self-evaluation triangle: data

The first thing you should examine is performance data. However, a subject leader needs to tread with some caution here. Schools are certainly ‘data rich’ places and with such a volume of data it is easy to be overwhelmed by its sheer quantity. There is also a cynicism about how data can be used in schools as a ‘stick’ to beat teachers. In the worst cases schools are data rich, but happiness poor.

Some of the most popular data sets that predict possible future attainment for schools are supplied by the Centre for Evaluation and Monitoring (CEM) at Durham University. These include:

PIPS (Performance Indicators in Primary Schools) – an annual assessment in reading and maths as well as a measure of each child’s academic ability.

MidYIS (Middle Years Information System) – designed to be taken in Year 7 as either a paper or an electronic assessment, it measures pupils’ aptitudes for learning.

Yellis (Year 11 Information System) – a value-added system that provides both predictive data and attitudinal information from students who sit the tests in Year 10.

ALIS (Advanced Level Information System) – uses both GCSE data and its own testing information to predict future performance.

The other main data set is supplied by the Fischer Family Trust (FFT) and is used at both primary and secondary level. FFT have revised the way in which predictions are made for pupils to take greater account of a wide range of contextual factors that may affect future performance. This fairer way of assessing likely future performance has had the phrase contextual value added (or CVA) attached to it.

Every teacher in every staffroom throughout the country will have heard someone bemoan the problems associated with using these data sets as predictive information and subsequently used as the basis of (in their view) erroneous targets. It’s fair to ask how a prediction that has fundamentally been forged through combining KS2 SATs results in English, Maths and Science (FFT acknowledge this themselves) can be seen as anything remotely reliable when predicting a pupil’s likely attainment in say Music or Art.

The truth is that these predictions somehow become broadly accurate when the pupil who sat their KS2 SAT in Year 6 then sits their GCSEs in Year 11. All the data sets (i.e. Yellis and FFT) are able to demonstrate a high statistical match between their estimates of likely future attainment and what pupils actually achieve at 16.

In fairness to the organisations that produce these data sets, they maintain that they are estimates – not targets or predictions. They also state that these estimates are based on what a pupil might get if they make similar progress to similar pupils in previous years. They recommend that this data is used alongside other information, such as the teacher’s own assessments. Sadly many teachers will not recognise this way of using predictive data. GCSE targets seem to be derived from it, so serious questions are asked when pupils do not meet them.

Although we might not agree with the methodology or the use of data, we cannot escape it, and it is better to know what measures we are being judged against than not at all. The mantra ‘know thine enemy’ seems appropriate here.

The savvy subject leader uses the predictive data supplied by data sets in order to make judgements about current performance against what pupils should be getting and decide if there are any issues as a result of this analysis that should be acted upon now. Too often schools wait until after the public exams and SATs have been taken before any kind of analysis takes place. This type of action is merely reactive and will only benefit future pupils, and is of no value to current pupils. Wouldn’t it be far more powerful and proactive to conduct mini reviews of the assessment data, perhaps at half-term intervals? In this way any issues that have been identified could be addressed then rather than waiting until it is too late.

The following suggestions seek to avoid information overload and any subsequent ‘paralysis by analysis’ by looking at data in a new way.

For example, take an assessment point in the year when colleagues are asked to note the results of a formal assessment where either a National Curriculum level or a GCSE grade is awarded. Instead of committing the grade/level to a mark sheet, however, ask them to ‘plot’ the grades on a scattergraph.

Design the scattergraph as follows:

X axis: Target grade/level

Y axis: Actual grade/level

Draw a line at 45 degrees extending from the bottom left to the top right of the graph

Label this line ‘Meeting targets’

You should end up with a graph that looks like this:

Graph 1. Creating a scattergraph

Ask your colleagues to plot the results of the formal test against the predictions you have for each pupil. Have a look at the following ‘classroom’ in Graph 2. It’s a case of initially going across the bottom first to see what the pupil’s predicted grade is and then going up the graph to see what the actual grade was in the recent assessment – this is where X marks the spot. Remember ‘along the corridor and up the stairs’!

In this example, Boy 1 (B1) has a target grade of a D but achieved a B, Boy 2 (B2) has a target grade of a C and achieved a C and so on. It’s exactly the same for the girls. Girl 1 (G1) has a target of an A grade and she got an A, Girl 2 (G2) had a target of a B and she got a B and so on.

All the ‘pupils’ in this classroom had their actual results plotted against their predicted results and the teacher ended up with a scattergraph that looks like this:

Graph 2. Plotting assessment results

At this point the real work can begin. The teacher then has the task of analysing the data to reveal any issues of concern. Obviously the teacher needs to understand on an individual basis who has done well and who has done less well. This is relatively easy: they are the pupils who are either on the ‘Meeting targets’ line or above it (e.g. B1 and B4).

The real challenge for the subject leader is to look for ‘hidden’ pockets of underachievement in the midst of the overall data. For this class there might be several issues of interest/concern for the teacher. (Whilst the teacher will look for patterns of achievement with their own class the subject leader will need ensure the right ‘issues are spotted but also to see the ‘bigger picture’ across the department too.)

Five out of the six boys are either on or exceeding their target grades (the exception being B6 who has a target grade of a D but achieved an E). Overall, the teacher could conclude that the boys are doing well.

Four out of the six girls appear to be achieving below their target grades. The teacher could conclude that girl underachievement appears to be an issue.

Looking more closely at the girls’ underachievement, how would you characterise the profile of these individuals? As they all have predicted grades of an A, it appears that the real problem in this class is underachievement in high ability girls.

The teacher has now ‘smoked out underachievement’ by identifying the type of underperforming pupils that need some action. Next they need to understand the reasons for this underperformance.

Here are some possible reasons for pupil underperformance. This information could act as a useful discussion point within a departmental meeting and serve as a prompt or framework from which to look for solutions.

Reason for underperformance

Solution

1. Lack of pupil motivation and disaffection

Letters home expressing concern, meeting with pupil, possible involvement of pastoral team

2. Pupils not sure how to perform at grade A level

Teacher identifies nature of task and challenge for A grade answers and work is done on deconstructing and modelling the ‘how and what’ of this type of answer

3. Teacher not sure how to teach to A grade level

A teacher who does understand the nature of the task and challenge supports...